Skeptics say stopping global warming will cost Americans too much -- so we should deny the problem exists and do nothing.Climate skeptics argue that accepting the fact of global warming will cost American jobs. Ironically, it is the denial of global warming that may have already cost American jobs. NBC News recently ran a piece titled "How America Could Get Rich by Going Green" (March 9, 2010), in which they pointed out that China is far ahead of this country in selling products for green energy to the world.
It appears that we got behind China because the Bush administration, in denying the existence of global warming, did not provide government incentives for our industries to compete in this market. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration's stimulus programs will provide enough assistance to revive our green industries.
In any case, it seems quite likely that going green will in the long run produce more jobs, and more real growth in gross national product, than continuing to produce greenhouse gases that foul the planet. We have ample recent experience to suggest this. The basic cost of cleaning up the air pollution from automobiles (not including CO2 emissions) all over the U.S. is estimated to be about $1,000 per car. Yet there are more cars on the road today than ever. It seems the "extra" cost was not prohibitive, and hasn't really crimped our life style -- and we also enjoy much cleaner and healthier air as a result. The Hollywood sign above is posted as a tribute to this effort.
This leads us to another very important aspect to the problem that often is overlooked.
It is very difficult to put an actual dollar value on how much we all will benefit from eliminating air pollution.
Allow me to go back to 1961 for a perspective. I was 19, and a friend and I were driving south for our first visit to the fabled land of Los Angeles. The land of movie stars and Hollywood was calling to two provincial lads from Washington State. I had heard of the new problem called smog, of course, but I was still not prepared for my first experience of it. We came over a pass and saw a yellow-brown soup filling all of the valley. As we descended, our eyes began to burn, and we started breathing shallowly, as if this would help protect our lungs. The bright blue sky changed to a dull gray. We didn't stay long. Hollywood had lost its magic for us.
I passed through California again recently, as I moved from Seattle to Pacific Beach. The air was everywhere bright and clear. Even in Los Angeles, the air was clear and sharp and I felt I could breathe deeply. It was not only Los Angeles that had improved, of course. Smog had threatened the whole state, really, but had been almost completely conquered.
Quantifying the benefits
Seems to me that the trouble with the common calculation of the price of stopping man-made pollution of our planet is that it is relatively easy to count the immediate costs. The long-term benefits, and especially the intangible benefits, are largely hidden or their value is impossible to estimate. What is the value for billions of people to be able to see bright blue sky, to take a deep breath of fresh air, to live on a planet that is a daily unmitigated wonder?
There have been some efforts to quantify these less tangible benefits. Some estimates cover only out-of-pocket type measures, such as reduction in sick days, hospital costs, etc. This obviously leaves out the happiness factor, the quality of life. Some calculate the cost of each change by the cost per ton of pollutant not put into the air. This is a good way to compare different proposed solutions, but does not address the overall benefit.
Some try to estimate the overall benefit of a proposed change by asking people how much they would be willing to pay for the benefit. This has some obvious difficulties, too. It asks people to answer a hypothetical question, and the answer presumably depends very much on how the question is asked. How much would you pay to save your child from a lethal illness?
How much would you pay to save the planet your children and grandchildren will live on from a lethal illness?
It appears that we got behind China because the Bush administration, in denying the existence of global warming, did not provide government incentives for our industries to compete in this market. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration's stimulus programs will provide enough assistance to revive our green industries.
In any case, it seems quite likely that going green will in the long run produce more jobs, and more real growth in gross national product, than continuing to produce greenhouse gases that foul the planet. We have ample recent experience to suggest this. The basic cost of cleaning up the air pollution from automobiles (not including CO2 emissions) all over the U.S. is estimated to be about $1,000 per car. Yet there are more cars on the road today than ever. It seems the "extra" cost was not prohibitive, and hasn't really crimped our life style -- and we also enjoy much cleaner and healthier air as a result. The Hollywood sign above is posted as a tribute to this effort.
This leads us to another very important aspect to the problem that often is overlooked.
It is very difficult to put an actual dollar value on how much we all will benefit from eliminating air pollution.
Allow me to go back to 1961 for a perspective. I was 19, and a friend and I were driving south for our first visit to the fabled land of Los Angeles. The land of movie stars and Hollywood was calling to two provincial lads from Washington State. I had heard of the new problem called smog, of course, but I was still not prepared for my first experience of it. We came over a pass and saw a yellow-brown soup filling all of the valley. As we descended, our eyes began to burn, and we started breathing shallowly, as if this would help protect our lungs. The bright blue sky changed to a dull gray. We didn't stay long. Hollywood had lost its magic for us.
I passed through California again recently, as I moved from Seattle to Pacific Beach. The air was everywhere bright and clear. Even in Los Angeles, the air was clear and sharp and I felt I could breathe deeply. It was not only Los Angeles that had improved, of course. Smog had threatened the whole state, really, but had been almost completely conquered.
Quantifying the benefits
Seems to me that the trouble with the common calculation of the price of stopping man-made pollution of our planet is that it is relatively easy to count the immediate costs. The long-term benefits, and especially the intangible benefits, are largely hidden or their value is impossible to estimate. What is the value for billions of people to be able to see bright blue sky, to take a deep breath of fresh air, to live on a planet that is a daily unmitigated wonder?
There have been some efforts to quantify these less tangible benefits. Some estimates cover only out-of-pocket type measures, such as reduction in sick days, hospital costs, etc. This obviously leaves out the happiness factor, the quality of life. Some calculate the cost of each change by the cost per ton of pollutant not put into the air. This is a good way to compare different proposed solutions, but does not address the overall benefit.
Some try to estimate the overall benefit of a proposed change by asking people how much they would be willing to pay for the benefit. This has some obvious difficulties, too. It asks people to answer a hypothetical question, and the answer presumably depends very much on how the question is asked. How much would you pay to save your child from a lethal illness?
How much would you pay to save the planet your children and grandchildren will live on from a lethal illness?
COMMENTS
March 27, 2010. Anonymous said..
Yes Green is the new Red. (China) Your argument doesn't make much since because you are confusing CO2 which is not a pollutant with actual pollutants like Sulfur Dioxide or Mercury. It’s funny that Al Gore pays for producing his enormous CO2 output, which is not a pollutant and pays nothing for the other byproducts of his uncontrolled use of fossil fuels.
Yes Green is the new Red. (China) Your argument doesn't make much since because you are confusing CO2 which is not a pollutant with actual pollutants like Sulfur Dioxide or Mercury. It’s funny that Al Gore pays for producing his enormous CO2 output, which is not a pollutant and pays nothing for the other byproducts of his uncontrolled use of fossil fuels.
ReplyDelete