Paying, Now or Later

 

One reason for moving cautiously in an antiques shop is the little sign that says “If you break it, you’ve bought it.”  Antiques are fragile and not cheap.  That sign is possibly not enforceable in a court, but it’s at least a solid reminder of moral responsibility and the costs thereof.  We’re also having similar reminders this week of much larger responsibilities: the super typhoon in the Philippines and the climate discussions in Warsaw both are demonstrating the hideous costs of continuing climate neglect. The typhoon reports so far have focused on the human toll – thousands dead and lives destroyed as villages and livelihoods are wiped out. Pitifully poor efforts are underway to bury the dead and rescue the suffering, but that is only the beginning.  The focus will eventually shift to recovering the Philippine economy, and that massive effort will be with us for years.  And the question will remain: was the typhoon simply an unpredictable freak of nature, or the consequence of our careless handling of the climate?  If the latter, who should pay, and how?

In Warsaw, a key issue being discussed at the Climate Conference is how the developed world will make good on a prior pledge to “mobilize” $100 billion by 2020 to help developing nations cope with the effects of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   Developing nations are beginning to realize and declare that $100 billion will not begin to cover the bills they will face from rising sea levels and climate disasters.  And governments of developed nations, the U.S. included, are saying there’s no more in their pockets to contribute.  And both may be right.  The chart above, from Scientific American, shows the projected increase in costs from severe weather in the U.S., on a county by county basis, between now and 2050 resulting from a combination of climate change effects and population growth.  The chart could be replicated on a nation by nation basis worldwide with even greater extremes.  As you can see, most areas will be spending two to six times as much on disaster relief as they have in the past.  Neglecting climate doesn’t come cheap.

There’s an auto-repair ad on TV that goes “Pay me now, or pay me later.”  It’s a reminder that deferring a fix that’s needed for something broken won’t make the cost go away; it may just make it worse.  And our climate is definitely showing signs of being broken.  The $100 billion fund was previously negotiated under the assumption that action would be taken to limit world temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, and the UN Environmental Program reported last week that limit on rising temperatures is not going to be met.  I haven’t seen any chart yet that shows the added costs per degree of temperature rise, but the numbers will be big. 

Do we start raising the money now, by way of such things as the fund being discussed in Warsaw, or would we be doing better by putting money into disaster prevention?  That chart shown above indicates enormous efforts either way.  Governments starved for funds by the austerity preached by corporate interests just looking for increased profits through tax breaks will not be able to afford the efforts required.  In Warsaw they’re discussing how to “leverage” government funding through incentives to businesses to get involved.  However Warsaw and beyond turn out, immediate major work on infrastructure is required, as well as preventive steps like a carbon tax. Let’s change that name to climate tax and use that as part of the funding mechanism. Infrastructure development has long lead times, and the time to start is now.  Typhoon Yolanda, as they’re calling it in the Philippines, was a lot like a tornado three hundred miles wide.  Imagine that barreling in on the east coast, like Sandy.  In another twenty years, the imagining may not be that hard.  Stepping back from coastal areas endangered by rising sea levels, as some have proposed, may not be even close to a solution.

I was, on the one hand, pleased at the news last week, that President Obama is establishing a climate change work group to plan a course of action.  On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of “plans to plan” in my time, often used only as a ploy to deflect criticism, and we no longer have time for such maneuvers.  What to do about climate change needs to be a number one issue leading up to the next election, and thereafter.  There's no longer time for Congress to be arguing about silly things when the house is starting to collapse about our ears. Deferring that fix is no longer an option.