ABC News:

Michigan could gain a significant economic boost and thousands of new jobs by reducing emissions of gases that cause climate change, according to an analysis released Monday.

The report by the Center for Climate Strategies said a plan devised last year for battling global warming in Michigan would help limit the state’s heat-trapping gas emissions over the next 15 years.

But more than the environment would benefit, the nonprofit group said. It projected gains of 129,000 jobs, a $25 billion uptick in the gross state product and lower prices for home energy sources such as electricity, oil and natural gas.

“This study validates our commitment to energy efficiency and renewable sources of fuel,” said Steven Chester, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. “It’s the right thing to do for a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”

Here is the study:

O25F22416 –

McKinsey & Company:

Growing competition for scarce water resources is a growing business risk, a major economic threat, and a challenge for the sustainability of communities and the ecosystems upon which they rely. It is an issue that has serious implications for the stability of countries in which businesses operate, and for industries whose value chains are exposed to water scarcity.

Charting our water future: Economic frameworks to inform decision-making shows that while meeting competing demands for water will be a considerable challenge, it is entirely possible to close the growing gap between water supply and demand. This report provides greater clarity on the scale of the water challenge and how it can be met in an affordable and sustainable manner.

The report offers case studies from four countries with drastically different water issues, which will collectively account for 40 percent of the world’s population, 30 percent of global GDP and 42 percent of projected water demand in 2030: China, India, South Africa and Brazil. The report’s methodology identifies supply- and demand-side measures that could constitute a more cost effective approach to closing the water gap and achieve savings in each country.

Charting_Our_Water_Future_Full_Report_001 –

USA Today:

Researchers who deal in cold numbers rather than warming climates believe the “significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action,” a new survey finds.

In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming.

Here are some of the findings of the survey:

•91.6% wanted a tax or “cap and trade” system, where polluters buy and sell emission permits, instead of regulation, to cut greenhouse gases.

•84% agreed the effects of global warming “create significant risks” to the economy, particularly to agriculture, fishing, insurance and health.

•Of the 94.3% who favor the U.S. joining climate agreements to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, 57% say greenhouse-gas cuts should come “regardless of the actions of other countries.”

And here is the full report, from the Institute for Public Policy:

EconomistsandClimateChange –

Hill Heat:

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a preliminary economic analysis of the legislation, arguing that its impacts would be largely equivalent to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), which it closely resembles.

Here is the analysis:

Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner:

When Paul Krugman, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Joseph Romm, Bradford Delong, Brad Johnson, Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick, David Roberts, Tim Lambert, Felix Salmon, Corbin Hiar, William Connelly, Oliver Willis, Scott Lemieux, Ezra Klein, Daniel Davies, Brian Dupuis, and Mark Thoma have all published scathing criticisms of your book — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong. I mean, wow.

And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations.  Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.

But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy.  I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar.  Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book.  If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order.  Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.

P.S. This is not fooling anyone.

Here is the chapter everyone is so upset about:

Superfreakonomics –

Washington Post:

With enough technological advances, the world could get to a dramatically lower level of greenhouse gas emissions at a cost of between one and three percent of global GDP per year, according to a report issued Tuesday by a group of economists. That price tag is in line with previous economic estimates aimed at meeting more modest climate goals.

Frank Ackerman, an economist at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Tufts University and the report’s lead author, said the study looked at what it would take to meet the recommendations of climate scientists who call for reducing carbon atmospheric concentrations from their current level to 350 parts per million.

Here is the report:

Economics_of_350 –

Reuters (h/t Wonk Room):

A strong shift toward renewable energies could create 2.7 million more jobs in power generation worldwide by 2030 than staying with dependence on fossil fuels would, a report suggested Monday.

The study, by environmental group Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), urged governments to agree a strong new United Nations pact to combat climate change in December in Copenhagen, partly to safeguard employment.

“A switch from coal to renewable electricity generation will not just avoid 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but will create 2.7 million more jobs by 2030 than if we continue business as usual,” the report said.

Here is the press release:

EREC _ GREENPEACE Press Release – Saving the climate equals 8 million jobs in the power industry –

Here is the full report:

job_revolution_-_final_pdf –

Press release via Earth Times:

A report from the Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group released today indicates that climate risks could cost nations up to 19% of their GDP by 2030, with developing countries most vulnerable. The report concludes, however, that cost effective adaptation measures already exist that can prevent between 40 and 68 percent of the expected economic loss with even higher levels of prevention possible in highly target geographies.

The report, titled “Shaping Climate-Resilient Development”, offers a comprehensive and replicable methodology to determine the risks that climate change imposes on economies. It provides a set of tools for decision makers to adopt a tailored approach for estimating these costs based on local climate conditions, and for building more resilient economies. These tools do not include estimates or measures for emissions reduction, which would need to be examined separately.

By determining a location’s total climate risk – calculated by combining existing climate risks, climate change and the value of future economic development – and using a cost-benefit analysis to create a list of location specific measures to adapt to the identified risk, the Working Group was able to evaluate current and potential costs of climate change and how to prevent them. The methodology was tested in localities within eight different countries (China, United States, Guyana, Mali, United Kingdom, Samoa, India, and Tanzania), which together represent a wide range of climate hazards, economic impacts, and development stages.

The working group estimated expected economic loss for the eight different case study regions leveraging natural catastrophe risk modeling techniques assuming current GDP growth estimates, under three different climate change scenarios – today’s climate (assuming that there is no additional impact from climate change); moderate climate change (based on the average forecast of climate change for the particular hazard in the location studied); and high climate change (based on the outer range of the climate change considered possible by 2030). The methodology is applicable in any setting where society must consider risk. For example, in Florida the report estimates an annual expected loss of $33 billion from hurricanes – more than 10 percent of GDP – under a high climate change scenario.

Overall findings from the eight case studies showed that easily identifiable and cost effective measures – such as improved drainage, sea barriers, and improved building regulations, among many others – could reduce potential economic losses from climate change for all regions. In fact, most could deliver economic benefits that far outweigh their costs – with adaptation measures that on average cost less than 50 percent of the economic loss avoided.

In Maharashtra in India, researchers evaluated the loss associated with drought, which amounts to 30 percent of the state’s food and grain production – even without climate change. This loss would severely impact the 15 million small and marginal farmers. By 2030, a significant drought could lead to a countrywide agricultural loss of more than $7 billion, and impact the income of ten percent of the population. With droughts historically occurring every 25 years, extreme climate change could change that to once every eight years. The case study determined a number of measures that could protect crop production and farmers’ incomes in Maharashtra including expanded drip and sprinkler irrigation, drainage construction, improved soil techniques, and crop engineering. In fact, Maharashtra can eliminate much of its expected drought loss by 2030 through low-cost measures with benefits that often exceed their cost.

About the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) Working Group

The ECA Working Group was formed in September 2008 under the initiating sponsorship of the Global Environment Facility in coordination with UNEP to develop a framework to assist in the design of climate-resilient economic development strategies. Swiss Re, a leading global reinsurer, was a lead contributor to the research. McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, drove the analytical execution and contributed to the fact base of the report. Sponsorship and key guidance was provided by ClimateWorks, an international network of foundations focused on achieving low-carbon development; the European Commission, which focused on developing a practical methodology to assist adaptation in the most climate vulnerable countries; the Rockefeller Foundation, which brought its deep experience of building climate resilience in developing countries; and Standard Chartered Bank, a global bank with a strong emerging market footprint.

Wall Street Journal:

So much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the climate bill in Congress revolves around the costs of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. What about the benefits?

That is, seemingly everybody—the Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, not to mention private-sector lobbies—has tried to tally how much it will cost to nudge America toward cleaner energy and fewer greenhouse-gas emissions. None have sought to figure out what kind of benefits the bill could bring.

That got some folks thinking. “Climate change is arguably one of the most complex issues to face Congress in recent memory, and yet Congress is essentially conducting its deliberations after having reviewed barely half the data,” says a new brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, an outfit basically created to bring cost-benefit analysis back to the environmental arena.

The upshot? As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation –

Reuters:

Psychological barriers like uncertainty, mistrust and denial keep most Americans from acting to fight climate change, a task force of the American Psychological Association said on Wednesday.

Policymakers, scientists and marketers should look at these factors to figure out what might prod people take action, the task force reported at the association’s annual convention in Toronto.

Discounting Future Green: Money Versus the Environment –

Press Release and full report below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »