Dollars make sense in the global warming debate

Posted on November 10, 2009 | Filed Under: Global Warming

Will Hewes
Climate Policy Coordinator

The climate debate can seem like a never-ending shouting match at times. For years, the two sides battled back and forth on whether human activity was causing an increase in global temperatures. While a few skeptics are still denying the obvious, the vast majority of climate scientists have long since concluded that the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are causing average temperatures to climb. The climate deniers tend to be a pretty vocal bunch, but there’s not much to back up their arguments.

The new front in the climate policy war focuses on the economic impacts of regulations to limit global warming pollution. Listening to the debate on Capitol Hill and cable news, it would be easy to conclude that any such limits would be devastating for the American economy and the average American consumer. Despite ample evidence that the cost to American families would be minimal and the benefit of avoiding serious warming would be significant, those predicting economic Armageddon seem to holding their own in the public square.

The Institute for Policy Integrity jumped into the fray last week when they released a report surveying nearly 150 of the nation’s top economists. Cutting through all the statistics that have been trotted out by both sides, this study went straight to the source and asked the experts how they interpreted all the data. The result? Overwhelming agreement that climate change poses a significant risk to the U.S. economy and that the nation should adopt market-based mechanisms to control emissions. In fact 84% of surveyed economists agreed that climate change would have dramatic impacts on the U.S. and global economies.

A couple of the more detailed findings caught my eye. First, over 80% of economists agreed that carbon allowances distributed under a cap and trade system should be auctioned rather than given away. This has long been a key argument of those that support effective action on climate change, but both the House and Senate bills auction only a small portion of allowances. Second, the economists surveyed for the report believe that the uncertainty about how global warming will impact the U.S. increases the need for action. Uncertainty is often used as an excuse to do nothing, but three quarters of these experts argued that the value of emissions limits is greater given the questions surrounding how severe local impacts will be.

The loudest voice isn’t always correct. In this case, the experts agree that limiting global warming pollution makes the most economic sense for current and future generations.
 

Post a Comment

Nickname
Comment
Enter this word:	Change