Around the world, the ravages of climate change are clear, and record high temperatures, floods, fires and other natural disasters. Here in the U.S., President Joe Biden is taking executive action to address the climate crisis. Citing climate change as both a national security risk and an economic risk, my colleague Alley Rogan takes a closer look now at the other economic costs of inaction. A major plan from Democrats in Congress to address climate change is now all but dead.
Last week, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin said he would not support the legislation citing what he said was the proposal’s inflationary impact. But the White House Office of Management and Budget said failing to act on climate change could cost the federal government $2000000000000 annually, and a recent study from Dartmouth University found the United States alone was responsible for over 1.$8000000000000 in losses to developing countries between 1990 and 2014.
The Economic Impacts Of Climate Change
By making clean energy, which is already cheaper than fossil fuels, more available to more people, he let that slip through his fingers, and it’s a real missed opportunity for folks here in West Virginia and around the country to lower our energy bills and tackle the climate crisis at the same time. The usual and just mention some of the impacts that affect both West Virginia and National, but I want to go further in what you see at the national level.
What are some arguments on an economic basis that climate action advocates are doing right now?
Making Clean Energy Which Is Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels
By making clean energy, which is already cheaper than fossil fuels, more available to more people, he let that slip through his fingers, and it’s a real missed opportunity for folks here in West Virginia and around the country to lower our energy bills and tackle the climate crisis at the same time. The ordinary and just mention some of the impacts that affect both West Virginia and nationally, but I want to drill down into what you’re seeing on a national scale. What are some arguments on an economic basis that climate action advocates are making right now? I think what we’re seeing is a refusal to sort of take on the packed, the bold action that we need to take on the climate crisis. 1 of the facts that receipt, this is continuing to sink costs into fossil fuel infrastructure.
Investing In Technologies
And other infrastructure that’s really not going to be able to be around in the future if we want to essentially have a livable future on earth, and so continuing to spend money on these technologies that we need to be phasing out is not a very good idea. Donna, as we said the Office of Management and Budget is estimating that the federal government could lose up to $2000000000000 a year. I do, too, climate change in action.
What are some of the factors that lead to a conclusion like that? Well, again, by continuing to sink costs into our technology and intense for a structure that we know we should not have around any more, so that’s things like fossil fuel plants, you know, but also things like expanded highways, which create a sort of market for more cars and things like this. There’s the cost the climate disaster can levy on our economies and on people.
Wasting A Lot Of Money
Every time, for instance, that infrastructure is destroyed, highways are destroyed. A building is destroyed by the climate crisis, by, you know, a hurricane or a flood or a heat wave or whatever it is. If we continue to ignore the impact of the climate crisis and rebuild as adults as though you know another hurricane flood or heatwave is not going to come I think we’re going to see that we’re wasting a lot of money. Lastly, to both of you, the Dartmouth report that we talked about in the introduction.
Which quantified that U.-S. Carbon emissions have done 1.$0 worth of damage to other countries from 1990 to 2014 that includes the damage to other major carbon emitters like Brazil and India, but also to developing nations like Venezuela and Nigeria. First, you, Marianne, why is a study like this important? A few years ago 1 of the big global climate conferences, the developed nations of the world, pledged $100000000000 to help the developing world with climate solutions, and we have not delivered on those funds and indeed.
Developing Countries the hardest hit by climate Change
In that sense, those developing countries have been hit the hardest by climate impacts and that eventually spills back over onto our borders. When there are food shortages water shortages triggering refugee crises and global instability around the world. So the developed world needs to step up and do our part to help these countries face the climate crisis because again, ultimately it will spill back over to our border internet.
Lastly, to you, the study also found that the U.S.’s own carbon emissions boosted its economy by $183000000000 over the same period. Does that make it harder to argue that the economic costs for climate change action when over the years polluting industries have been so much a part of what drove economic development in this country?
Polluting Industries have been such a huge part of the economy
I think it demonstrably has made it harder to sort of overcome this challenge, but I would say that part of the reason that these polluting industries have been such a huge part of the economy is that the U. S. pours billions and billions of subsidies into them if the U. S. instead decided to subsidize for even you know to create a public sector for clean industries we see that those would end up being a huge part of our economy.
We could really help other nations sort of transition as well, so yes, well, there’s so much that we do have to spend. There’s also quite a lot to be gained for, you know, the U.S., for the world and also for use on the individual level. Marion hit with climate imperative. Donna now with the Boston Globe. Thank you both so much for your time, thanks for having me thank you so much.