The 'burning platform' of climate change
This entry was posted on 6/4/2008 9:52 PM and is filed under Global Warming,Economy,Leadership,Costs of INACTION.
From the AP on May 29, 2008 - White House issues climate report 4 years late. Excerpts including the 'Big 6' problems coming at us (my bold):
"Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort called it 'a litany of bad news in store for the U.S.'
1_ Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most vulnerable to increased heat deaths.
2_ Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users. From California to New York, lack of water will be an issue.
3_ A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle's energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century. [The death spiral of global warming]
4_ More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.
5_ Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases. Insect and pathogen outbreaks to the forests are causing $1.5 billion in annual losses.
6_'Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system,' the report said. 'Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured.'"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A couple of facts related to this report are very sad:
- that these years of discussion and potential action have been lost; when you're on a burning platform, you need to act.
- regardless of the wasted time and obstructionism, why are these climate change effects not all over the news?
- this is speculation based on previous watering-down of global warming threats but, given that this actually made it out of the current administration - how dire are these problems really? Are they much worse than the report states?
Often the argument against taking any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is possible economic harm. Any business person that's not concerned about these effects has their head in the sand.
It's time to mitigate these problems by starting to pay the external costs of our energy use at the time we use it. The best way to do this is a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.
P.S. - history will judge this obstructionism harshly
