Global action to reduce carbon dioxide has produced at least $60 billion in economic benefits to the U.S. in the last five years, according to a new analysis. It also concludes that current rates of emission reductions worldwide could contribute another $2 trillion in the next 15 years.
The report was published Thursday by by the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank and advocacy organization at the New York University School of Law, and concluded that the U.S. will gain far more from global efforts on climate change in damages avoided to the economy, public health and the environment than proposed regulations would cost.
“A lot of people have advocated for climate action based on moral and environmental reasoning,” said Peter Howard, the institute’s economics director and co-author of the report. “This demonstrates there’s an economic sense to agreeing to reaching a climate agreement.”
International cooperation for climate action is essential because carbon pollution isn’t contained by national borders. Excessive coal use in China and India will be felt globally through higher temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, but as the report’s authors point out, the converse is also true with the benefits of emissions reductions being felt worldwide.
The report counters arguments often used by opponents of climate action in the U.S. that taking the lead in reducing carbon emissions will allow developing nations to continue to pollute with few consequences.
In response to China’s recent cap-and-trade policy announcement, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said, “The Obama administration will use regulatory overreach to claim our nation’s commitment, while China’s pledge has no guarantee of enforcement. This is a great deal for the Chinese who are slated to continue increasing emissions.”
Republican presidential candidates have echoed these arguments. At a recent debate, Donald Trump said China was “doing nothing” and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said China was “drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of.”
“This argument that the U.S. has the risk of taking action and others not following, it’s a false argument,” said Howard. “Action now does not mean we can’t negotiate in the future.”
If anything, Howard said, the U.S. is the free-rider, enjoying the benefits of global emissions reductions, particularly in Europe.
Howard and co-author Jason Schwartz, legal director at the Institute, relied on four key figures to calculate the past and future benefits to the U.S. from global climate action:
-
The social cost of carbon, an estimate of the impact of releasing one additional ton of carbon dioxide.
-
The U.S. share of benefits from reducing emissions worldwide, estimated by the Obama administration to be between 7 and 23 percent.
-
Past emission reductions, primarily in Europe.
-
Future emissions based on international climate pledges.
To calculate the economic benefits to the U.S., the authors first multiplied the tons of carbon dioxide emission reductions pledged by other countries and the social cost of carbon to find the economic benefits for all countries. They then estimated the United States’ share of those benefits.
The Obama administration has estimated the social cost of carbon at $41 per ton in 2015. That cost goes up to $79 in 2050 as the effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere become more damaging.
Experts contend that the Obama administration grossly underestimates the current social cost of carbon. The effects of climate change are wide-ranging and difficult to quantify, but economists have theorized the figure could range anywhere between $83 and $220. Similarly, they say the estimates of the U.S. share of benefits from reducing emissions worldwide also comes with a wide range of uncertainty.
“That [social cost of carbon number] is a lower-bound estimate. These are ballpark estimates and the benefits could be much larger,” said Howard.
A recent study by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley found that warming beyond a peak temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit reduces economic productivity. Global incomes could decrease by 23 percent in comparison to a world without climate change by 2100, they predicted.
Although the full extent of climate change’s damage is unknowable, Howard said his report and research by others help policymakers and the public understand the scale of the economic risks of not taking action.
“We’re leaving a lot of benefits on the table,” he said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
