Nikeisha Cross

Professor Kate Ivanova

Political Science 2300
21 August 2013

Is Fighting Climate Change Worth the Cost ?

One of today’s uprising issues is the fight about cost on climate change and globalization.
In this project I am comparing and contrasting the yes and no point of views on these issues,
similar issues, and my opinions. The structure of this paper is to explain why we can't spend our
money on uncertainty.

There are a multiple of main reasons why America and others should not pay for
uncertainty. For example: America’s huge debt with military and domestic issues, people being
unsure of the time and money it will cost to take full effect, countries not sure that technology of
today is the main cause of the CO2 being released in the atmosphere, and climate change
predictions about the extent and consequences of climate change are uncertain. According to
Jim Manzi’s article “The Icarus Syndrome: Should We Pay Any Price to Avoid the
Consequences of Global Warming?” in our reading of Taking Sides : Clashing Views in
American Foreign Policy. Jim Manzi states: "the best strategy for addressing energy and
the environment is to let the markets integrate known information into prices and let the
consumers and producers adjust accordingly" (2008). Given the stated uncertainties we
should be very careful about carrying out government programs that can probably decrease
countries economic growth and technological development. Instead maybe we go along with
Jim Manzi’s idea that we should rely on markets known facts and information, which is basically
better than governments coordinating information about the environmental changes and all
other unknown threats while trying to promote something new.

Then again the issue isn’t just uncertainty of cost, it’s the uncertainty of knowing when this
is going to happen supposedly. Just like the British Coal Panic and the Peak Oil Theory, the
Climate Change Theory can be compared to the these two epidemics.

In 1866 William Ewart Gladstone gave his budget speech which warned that Britain was
supposedly facing the prospect of running out of its domestic coal within a century and that they
had poor prospects of finding other alternative energy sources. The year before the economist
William Stanley Jevons’s book The Coal Question made the same prediction with
recommendation policies to conserve coal for bare times. This epidemic was so crucial to Britain
that they even created a Royal Commision on Coal but eventually the issue ended and Britain
moved on to other more pressing concerns.

In the case of the Peak Oil Theory According to Jim Manzi’s article “The Icarus Syndrome:
Should We Pay Any Price to Avoid the Consequences of Global Warming?” in our reading of
Taking Sides : Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy. Jim Manzi states: “The peak oil
theory proceeds from the correct prediction in 1956 by Shell Oil geologist M.King
Hubbert that oil production in the United States would hit its high in the late 1960's or
early 1970's. But he also predicted that in 1974 that global oil production would peak in
1995.” (2008). In 2005 Guy Caruso, the head of the Energy Information Administration
predicted that peak production would be reached in the middle of this century. He also predicted
36 other academic forecast between 1972 and 2004. Now these forecasts predicted that we are
20 years from peak oil today, these forecasts basically predicted that we were 20 years from
peak oil throughout the 1970's and 1980's. If we had reacted to these incorrect predictions we
wouldn’t have the greatest times of wealth creation in American history. So basically this
information can be a confirmation that the current concern over global warming is similar to the
Coal Crisis and the Peak Oil debate.

Another main factor we forget to make relevant besides financial, health plays a major role
in the climate change epidemic. This factor supports the Yes and No side to the Climate
Change Theory, for example: emitting carbon dioxide, the "cap-and-trade" system, pushing
down carbon dioxide emissions, and tax on carbon. Most economies emit a lot of carbon dioxide
and the more carbon dioxide we put into the air the hotter it gets. If we try to emit the right
amount of carbon dioxide, it would drive up temperatures which would be a disaster to human
kind. The solution suggested would be to emit less carbon dioxide, and the methods would be to
put a tax on carbon emissions or submit a cap and trade system. which means to divide carbon
dioxide emissions and have the government sale off the divided cards to the highest bidder.
Some could agree that we should push down Carbon dioxide emissions far faster than the odds
adjusted risk of global warming costs appear to justify (Jim Manzi 2008). A careful level of
emissions limit for consolidation of carbon dioxide has been set of no more than 150 percent of
its current level. Suppose we did this it would be a perfectly carried out worldwide tax on carbon.
Even though all of these options have been created, it is a common fact according Nasa
Science : Earth’s Fidgeting Climate article that earth has a cooling and heating cycle caused
by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions that can largely explain the changes in global
temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era has happened
without human influence, and according to satellite data, the sea ice around Antarctica has
actually been growing for the last 20 years (October 20, 2000). So that uncertainty is still there
that humans are actually the reasons of global warming.

There have been many heated arguments about the economic cost this climate change
can bring the global economy. Some arguments have made agreements with the Yes and No
side. For example for the YES side, according to a Yale Environment 360 article called
Calculating the True Cost Of Global Climate Change John Carey states “The heated
argument about economic costs, barely touched one important issue: the costs of NOT
taking action on climate” (Carey Jan. 6, 2011). And he also put into perspective, “what if
Russia’s heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country’s wheat crop, or the
floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of chaos
from warming left unchecked?” (Carey Jan. 6, 2011).

The costs of such disasters would and are unbearable. Also the costs isn't just globally its
domestic which includes taxes, I mean is it really worth it to have middle class societies live in
debt or poverty over this epidemic? And this is when the NO arguments come into play about
these rampage on the climate change epidemic. For example, an article called Climate Change
a Bigger Cost for American Taxpayers stated: “A growing mass of American tax dollars is
paying the price for increasing floods, fires, droughts and other climate related changes that
take place in the country”, according Ceres, an organization mobilizing business leadership on
climate change (Peyton Fleming Apr. 15,2013). Climate Change is changing not just other
countries but the, United States, and unfortunately Americans are usually the one’s paying the
price for all of this havoc. Given examples and information from the Ceres article Climate
Change a Bigger Cost for American Taxpayers explained “The cost of withered crops,
submerged streets, hurricane damage and wildfires eventually comes out of our own wallets.
Crop insurance losses from last year’s drought alone cost every person in America $51.” said
Ceres president Mindy Lubber. (Peyton Fleming Apr. 15,2013). Ceres has gathered data
showing the rising costs to three federal programs, as well as financial exposure for state
taxpayers in hurricane-prone states. Ceres clearly stated that even extreme weather, influenced
by climate change could be a risk to taxpayers, and state governments are liable for hurricane
damages when private insurers pull out. I believe this is pure mockery and a shame that we
have to suffer the consequences to this havoc.

The cost of this climate change is particularly uncertain and there have been multiple of
answers of the estimated cost such as millions, billions, to even trillions. This cost has caused
so much havoc in the world political society because of the, as I would say “Yay and Nay”
arguments being thrown around. According to Yale professor William Nordhaus, who
constructed an economic model to estimate the monetary harm said we could expect to spend
17 trillion dollars under such a regime (which is pushing down Carbon dioxide emissions far
faster than the odds adjusted risk of global warming costs appear to justify) than the benefits we
would expect to achieve.(Jim Manzi 2008). One fatal example of money with climate change is
the epidemic that is occurring in the European Union. According to this article from
news.yahoo.com called Climate Change Dogma Killing the Economy as EU Carbon
Crashes on Vote against High CO2 Prices says Friends of Science, carbon prices in the
European Union crashed up to 45 per cent as Members of the European Parliament voted
against a climate change policy of high prices on carbon dioxide, due to the burden on
economy, industry and families. Also The EU carbon emissions market is falling in the midst of a
vote against a rise in carbon prices and continuing to spiral in economic decline.(Apr 20, 2013).

The final online article about cost and financial that I had recently come across, was on
oilprice.com called Report Estimates Battle Against Climate Change will Cost $700 Billion
a Year, written by Joao Peixe. Reading this article I learned that according to the Green Growth
Action Alliance and the World Economic Forum (WEF), there is to be an estimated amount that
every year, “700 billion dollars must be invested in a variety of low carbon projects
around the world in order to prevent climate change and secure the development of the
green economy.” (January 23, 2013). Some have already stated this is a ridiculous amount of
money to just be thrown away to climate change. I agree with the opposed citizens that we
shouldn’t have to submit this enormous amount of money, especially every year is truly absurd.
Most don't understand how this will mostly affect the middle class american taxpayers, it lowers
their class status actually if we were to go along with this mockery of a plan. According to the
Green Growth Action Alliance and the World Economic Forum most of the money will be
invested in certain projects such as : “clean energy infrastructure, sustainable and low
carbon transport, and energy efficiency improvements for buildings” (January 23, 2013). It
is said that the main goal is to limit the global average temperature to “less than two degrees
above pre-industrial levels.” (January 23, 2013). Another related article was The Trade-off
between Aerosols and Greenhouse Gases this report was advising the governments to “re-
evaluate their investment priorities, shifting their targets, and increasing capacity
towards a greater focus on low-carbon projects.” So far this article can be said to have the
most clear impact towards the government spending towards climate change and whether it
should be charged to taxpayers not just in America but globally.

In conclusion according to all of the readings and articles, in the end the question is this:
Should the United States and other countries bet trillions of dollars in economic costs that the
emission reductions will reduce the negative consequences of global warming ? Or, Should we
pay any price to avoid the consequences of uncertain global warming ? I’ve asked myself this
question and honestly I believe we shouldn't because of so much uncertainty and negativity it is
bring to the people globally about price, and severity.

Reference List

● Bennett, Andrew, Shambaugh, George (2010), Taking Sides: Clashing Views in

American Foreign Policy(Fifth Edition), (New York,NY : McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. &
Contemporary Learning Series)

● Carey, John, e360.yale.edu (2011) Calculating the True Cost Of Global Climate Change
[http://e360.yale.edu/feature/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate_change/2357/
], accessed Janurary 6, 2001

● Fleming, Peyton, Ceres.org (2013) Climate Change a Bigger Cost for American
Taxpayers [http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/ceres-climate-change-a-bigger-
cost-for-american-taxpayers], acessed April 15, 2013

● Mingst, Karen A., Snyder, Jack L. (2010), Essential Readings in World Politics (Fourth
Edition), (New York , London : W. W. Norton & Company)
● News.Yahoo.com, FriendsofScience.org (2013) Climate Change Dogma Killing the
Economy as EU Carbon Crashes on Vote against High CO2 Prices says Friends of
Science [http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-dogma-killing-economy-eu-carbon-
crashes-070627840.html], accessed April 20, 2013

● Peixe, Joan, OilPrice.com (2013) OilPrice.com is a CNBC Partner Site, Report

Estimates Battle Against Climate Change will Cost $700 Billion a Year
[http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Report-Estimates-Battle-Against-
Climate-Change-will-Cost-700-Billion-a-Year.html], accessed January 23, 2013

● Science.Nasa.gov (2000) Earth's Fidgeting Climate [http://science.nasa.gov/science-

news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/], accessed October 20, 2000