Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Fighting climate change: Cheaper than 'business as usual' and better for the economy

Posted on 1 December 2020 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections and has been adopted as the rebuttal to the myth 'climate change solutions are too expensive' at the short URL

The often-repeated and seldom-challenged view that climate change solutions are expensive and uneconomical has long dampened public support in the U.S. for even common-sense measures.

Seldom do proponents of those views enumerate the costs or mention the alternative costs of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels to meet society’s energy needs. But in this era of costly hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, melting polar ice and rising sea levels, it should be obvious that the price of the status quo is already high and increasing. Failing to curb global warming has started bringing more frequent climate catastrophes with crushing economic and humanitarian costs. And prices of green technology solutions are falling rapidly; many are already cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives and will more than pay for themselves over time.

Still, the savings take decades to accrue while deploying these clean technologies requires up-front capital investments. Some compare it to the famous Marshmallow Test in which delayed gratification yields a bigger reward, in this case a livable planet.

But others, like Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, make strong arguments that bold investments in infrastructure right now make perfect sense even in free-market economic terms. With interest rates low and private sector unemployment high, the market is signaling there are more than enough investor funds and skilled labor to supply the needed capital and workforce. These investments would boost employment while also making the U.S. energy supply less expensive, more efficient, and cleaner, which could help reduce other non-climate related social problems such as air and water pollution, poverty, and crime.

A growing body of economics research documents the tremendous cost savings associated with implementing climate solutions. But it’s critical to recognize that many climate impacts simply cannot be quantified in economic terms: It’s impossible, for instance, to place a dollar value on human suffering as a result of homes lost to floods or fires, or climate-caused famine, or the value lost in species extinctions and declining biodiversity. Yet these must also be taken into account when evaluating the relative costs of climate action and inaction. As renowned Ohio State University glaciologist Lonnie Thompson put it, “the longer we delay [climate solutions], the more unpleasant the adaptations and the greater the suffering will be.”

Heavy costs of climate inaction

Those opposing actions to confront climate change point to the costs of implementing solutions even as a large body of economics research documents the far greater costs of climate change damages.

Total direct damages

Total direct climate damages to each U.S. county (expressed in percent of gross domestic product) for a worst-case high fossil fuel consumption scenario (RCP8.5) compared to a no climate change scenario. Reprinted with permission of Hsiang Science, 30 June 2017, Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1362-1369.

Focusing specifically on the U.S., a 2017 study in Science estimated that for each increase of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in global warming, the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) will decline by 1.2%. To put that in dollar figures, if the world’s countries were to take sufficient steps to meet the Paris climate target (limiting warming to less than 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial temperatures), the U.S. would avoid about $1 trillion in climate damages by 2050, and $8 trillion by 2100 as compared to a continuing “business-as-usual” approach that would lead to about 3°C (5.4°F) warming by 2100. Moreover, as the figure from the paper illustrates, most of those damages would center on the southern states, which would be battered by stronger hurricanes and sweltering summer heat.

Authors of another paper, published in October 2020 in Nature Communications and led by Georgetown University economist Raphael Calel, estimate the costs associated with climate change damages in various different future global warming scenarios. Adapting its formula for estimating climate damages to apply specifically to the U.S. similarly yields about an $8 trillion savings if the Paris targets are achieved as compared to the business-as-usual pathway (note for economics wonks: these estimates use a discount rate of about 2.5%).

But this is a conservative estimate and may represent only the tip of the iceberg. There is a debate in the climate economics community on whether climate change will just reduce GDP, or whether it will slow GDP growth. To illustrate the importance of this question, consider a 2018 working paper by economists at the Federal Reserve of Richmond, which estimated that a 1°F increase in summer temperatures would reduce state-level economic growth by about 0.2%. That may sound small, but as Calel wrote via email, “If temperature affects growth rates rather than GDP levels, it would be much, much worse, due to compounding” over time. If the Federal Reserve paper is accurate, business-as-usual would cost the U.S. over $2 trillion more than meeting the Paris targets by 2050, and a staggering $50 trillion more by 2100.

Calel’s paper focused on another overlooked cost associated with what’s called “aleatory uncertainty,” related to the natural internal variability of Earth’s temperatures. While those natural temperature fluctuations aren’t expected to change in different global warming scenarios, they make a bigger difference in hotter climates. As Calel explained, “Even if the variability is the same measured in degrees C, it causes greater economic harm if society is already struggling to cope with a 5-degree warmer world.” As such, they can be represented by a “risk premium,” valued by imagining what a social planner would pay to eliminate that added uncertainty. The study estimates that globally, planners would spend $14 trillion more to reduce that uncertainty in the business-as-usual scenario than in the Paris scenario.

Climate policy solutions save money

Phasing out fossil fuels would also reduce air pollution and its adverse health effects. In June 2020, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis published its “Climate Crisis Action Plan,” including a modeling assessment of its efficacy by independent consulting group Energy Innovation Policy & Technology. That evaluation estimated that implementing the plan would put the U.S. on track to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (consistent with the Paris targets), and in the process would avoid approximately 870,000 premature deaths from fossil fuel air pollution over the next 30 years, saving an estimated $4.5 trillion.

But what about the cost of deploying these climate solutions? In a 2020 review, the respected climate and energy research group Project Drawdown estimated that deploying the technologies and changes necessary to meet the Paris climate targets would cost about $25 trillion, globally. However, most of those individual solutions save money as compared to the alternatives as a result of factors like lower operational and maintenance costs. For example, wind turbines and solar panels have zero fuel costs and thus, as the Drawdown team concluded, achieve substantial lifetime operation and maintenance savings compared to fossil fuel alternatives that require constant mining and drilling.

The financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard recently published its annual levelized cost of energy analysis, providing an apples-to-apples comparison of lifetime energy costs from various sources, excluding government subsidies. Lazard concluded that solar and wind farms are currently the cheapest sources of new electricity, and in fact on average are cheaper than continuing to run existing coal power plants. Solar and wind farms save about 37% over their operational lifetimes as compared to new gas plants, and 66% compared to new coal plants.

Based on these sorts of cost efficiencies, the Drawdown team estimated that implementing the solutions to meet the Paris targets would save around $140 trillion globally over their operational lifetimes. In short, investments in climate solutions pay for themselves many times over, even before accounting for the trillions of dollars in resulting climate and health benefits.

The overwhelming case for climate action

Adding up all the economic benefits of curbing climate damages, reducing air and water pollution, and limiting climate risks, achieving the Paris targets would save the U.S. alone $5-10 trillion by 2050, and over $20 trillion by 2100; potentially well over $50 trillion if climate change slows economic growth, as many experts project will be the case. Climate-slowed economic growth was first proposed by a team led by MIT’s Melissa Dell in 2012 and later in a 2015 paper by Frances Moore and Delavane Diaz, then of Stanford, for example, though other climate economists remain skeptical. The cleaner air from phasing out fossil fuels would also avoid nearly a million associated premature American deaths by 2050.

Deploying the necessary climate solutions would require substantial capital investment. President-elect Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan represents a strong start, and his team estimates it would create 10 million clean energy jobs in various sectors like manufacturing, construction, planning, and maintenance, which is consistent with an independent analysis by financial firm Moody’s Analytics. Moreover, based on the Project Drawdown analysis, those solutions would pay for themselves several times over in lifetime operational costs. And curbing climate change would also yield incalculable benefits by avoiding some of the suffering, trauma, and loss that result from climate-worsened disasters like hurricanes, fires, floods, and species extinctions.

Aggressively deploying climate solutions requires large immediate investments for the sake of benefits that will mostly accrue only several decades in the future. Most of the avoided climate damages will be realized in the second half of the century. The health benefits of cleaner air and water will happen sooner, as fossil fuel infrastructure is phased out over the next few decades. The operational savings of many individual climate solutions will likewise accrue over a few decades: Home energy efficiency upgrades, for example, pay for themselves in about 10 to 30 years.

Like any smart long-term investment, climate solutions will require patience and forward thinking, and in this case also involve overcoming intransigence from fossil fuel interests and sympathetic policymakers. But if successfully deployed, those investments will pay for themselves many times over and create a far more prosperous world. And as Krugman wrote, with low interest rates and a coronavirus-crippled economy in dire need of a jumpstart, now is the time to make those investments:

“We should be investing heavily in the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy,” wrote Krugman. “Under these conditions it would actually be irresponsible for the federal government not to engage in large-scale borrowing to invest in the future.”

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 4:

  1. This article is a laughable mishmash of disinformation. To cite a few:The "levelized" costs referenced do not include most costs needed to integrate solar or wind power into an industrial economy such as transmission costs and storage needed to ensure baseload power during times these variable source of electricity just don't work. These actual very real costs can and do easily exceed the costs included. The supposed "savings" from limiting temperature rise, even if such a thing were possible, are illusory. One can easily find that there has been NO increase in hurricane, flooding, fires or extreme weather events over the last 50 years so all the tremendous "costs" these flawed analysis attribute to "curing" this mirage will be nonexistent. 

    Basically the article prevaricates in the interest of supporting an unsupportable narrative and this should tell you all you need to know about how much "prrof" exists supporting these savings! The authors can make all the scary maps they choose showing half the country in a fiery red color but that doesn't change the facts that there are very little downside to a slightly warming climate but that there are numerous benefits. Interesting isn't it that they completely fail to add in the "negative damages" (normally called benefits) that even their flawed charts show much of the country to be "suffering"?  Wonder how they missed this point?

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Accusations of dishonesty are expressly forbidden by this venue's Comments Policy.  Read it before commenting again.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter!

    Sloganeering and off-topic snipped. 

  2. It is easy to note that SteveW does not cite a single source to support any of his assertions. It's the usual "it isn't happening, it's natural, it's not bad, it will cost too much" diatribe.

    The "Most Used Climate Myths" section on the upper left of the SkS web page will lead people to information on each of the myths that are imbedded in SteveW's assertions. I wonder how SteveW missed that?

    0 0
  3. Yes the criticisms of the article by Steve 1) dont demonstrate that the issues he raises aren't already allowed for in the analysis and 2) dont provide any other actual research information. Its fair to say wind and solar power do rely on storage, but costs of storage are dropping fast. The sceptics just dont keep up with this.

    My understanding is for storage to be fully economic it needs to be about $20 kwhr and lithium is up around $150 kwhr presently (its expected to drop further). But someone called engineer poet recently mentioned sulphur flow batteries, and I just googled them, and they are around $20  kwhr right now. This makes them very economically viable for up to about one days storage at least and of course costs would drop further if they are scaled up. I dont have time to dig into more detail around the storage issue, but heres the commentary on the batteries.

    In addition solar power is now so cheap you can over build the resource to deal with intermittency issues as well as using some storage.

    0 0
  4. Another coming element to battery storage is going to be second-life EV batteries. Once these are depleted to the point where they aren't useful in a vehicle, there is a very long second life for them on the grid.

    It also deserves mentioning that not all the FF sources of energy on the grid coming in at levelized costs. Peaker plants will often run only a few days a year and their cost of energy is pretty high.

    There are many more complex elements to this topic than Steve seems to be aware of.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2023 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us