Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

"Feds Understate the Cost of Climate Disruption, Critics Contend"

"All those insults and changes from climate disruption add up quickly:

$15 billion for Midwest farmers staring at a year of crop loss and rebuilding as the Mississippi River floods.
The lower the estimated cost of disruption, the less action the Obama Administration can justify.

600 deaths and 1,000 hospitalizations as a heat wave bakes Chicago.

$147 million gone as Alaska's king crab fishery succumbs to acidification and changing prey/predator structures.

The list touches virtually every human endeavor - forestry, health, tourism, energy production, city planning, agriculture, commerce, even culture.

The total cost of climate change seems impossible to pin down, given the uncertainties. But an assortment of climate researchers and economists are now chasing after that sum, attempting to arrive at a bottom line.

In February an inter-agency workgroup released the administration's best guess of what each ton of carbon dioxide dumped in the atmosphere costs society: $21, plus or minus, or roughly $121 billion worth of damages annually as a result of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions [pdf].

Until this summer, the exercise was mostly academic. No more. The death of cap-and-trade and the shift in Congress following the mid-term elections means that bottom line has the potential to shape U.S. climate policy for the foreseeable future."

Douglas Fischer reports for The Daily Climate November 16, 2010.

Source: Daily Climate, 11/17/2010