Reducing and ultimately eliminating greenhouse gas emissions doesn't have to be a net cost to the economy. Obviously it will gore [sic] a lot of powerful vested interests -- the fossil fuel industry is probably the most politically powerful industry in the world -- but renewable energy is actually much more affordable once the infrastructure is in place, it doesn't pollute, and it ultimately can decentralize power and change society for the better.
However, as Krugthulu points out, it's already too late to avoid immense costs from climate change. The increasing frequency and severity of destructive storms, heat waves, wildfires and other disasters is already making some parts of the United States uninsurable. Heat is making parts of the planet uninhabitable and climate disaster is a major driver of the international migration crisis.
Krugman focuses specifically sea level rise, and on one consequence which is actually far from the greatest but something people don't think about much -- the septic infrastructure. In much of the southeast, including Florida, where it's illegal for state officials to talk about climate change, many coastal areas do not have sewage systems and depend on septic tanks, which are backing up as seawater intrudes. What Krugman doesn't mention is that nobody will care about those particular septic tanks once the houses they serve are underwater, but then we'll have to worry about the ones farther back.
I believe I have written before about the flood that destroyed three bridges in my home town, and we've had a couple of flooding rains since that have done further damage to our roads. This is very small town and we can't afford to make repairs from our own property taxes. The state and federal governments have stepped in to help but this is going to be increasingly necessary all around the country, as it is in the Midwest and south right now with one destructive storm after another. You can be as fiscally conservative and tax averse as you want, but what must be must be and you can't avoid this. It's for real.
1 comment:
I'm guessing that Americans are contributing more to global warming per capita than almost every other nation's populace. In a just world we'd be liable for a large chunk of the cost of fixing this worldwide problem. Two thoughts:
- If we had to dig into our own pockets to pay for this we might get more interested in the responsibilities of the entities that lied us into ignoring the problem for so long - like the fossil fuel industry.
- We are seeing many populated areas that are becoming unlivable due to climate change. Since our land has escaped the worst effects, relatively speaking, and since our population density relative to habitable space is much lower than most or the lands that are suffering the most, one of the the best ways we could pay of the moral debt we've accumulated would be to make plans to welcome large numbers of immigrants from these areas. Deadly weather is as good a reason for seeking asylum as is political repression; and we were the source of much of it in the first place. This country also has a historical culture of immigration, so this should be relatively easy to do. The furor created over immigration is exactly the worst thing we could be doing about this.
Post a Comment