Ready to pay for the costs of climate change?

By Shira Jeczmien

Published Nov 29, 2018 at 09:30 AM

Reading time: 2 minutes

31

There is something I don’t quite understand about the current U.S. administration, and that is both its love of keeping money at the top and at the same time die hard denial of climate change. Because it doesn’t take more than a moment of thought to connect the dots between a shifting, unpredictable and destructive climate and economic loss. So the question is, is the denial of the energy sector’s grave consequence on our planet in order to keep hands in honey pots worth the long term costs?

A graph in the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment report released by a body of several federal agencies indicates that by 2090 (which granted is a little into the future but not a distant enough future that we shouldn’t be worried), economic damages from climate change will cost the U.S. economy alone $700 billion. You might be imagining hurricanes, tsunamis, wildfires and coastal habitation under water, but the report shows that the heaviest costs from climate change will be in areas much less expected.

The largest portion of the country’s projected spending will be on lost labour costs. As outlined in the report, “almost two billion labor hours are projected to be lost annually by 2090 from the impacts of temperature extremes, costing an estimated $160 billion in lost wages”. The second biggest cost is set to be a result of ‘extreme temperature mortality’. When temperatures rise to levels higher than 35 to 40 degrees Celsius, the risk of fatal heat exhaustion and heat strokes rises exponentially, affecting children and the elderly in particular. In other words, premature deaths as a result of sweltering heat are set to cost $141 billion per year in medical aid in just 50 years from now.

What’s truly interesting about the report is how it is calculated. When it comes to projected costs of future lives lost, the term used by government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others like it is “value of a statistic life”. This is a future life, something that is both difficult to fathom and even harder to feel compassion for. And so, as Brian O’Neill, director of research at the University of Denver’s Pardee Center for International Futures, told the MIT Technology Review, “It’s a measure of how much we’re willing to spend to reduce the risk of a death.” In that case, this is less about the destruction of our planet and more about facing the decision today of how much a statistical future life is worth to us.

The thing is, investing in renewable energy today and divesting from the reliance on coal and oil is actually a lucrative step forward. In fact, the clean energy industry was already estimated to be worth $200 billion in the U.S. alone in 2016, with that figure only projected to spike as technology advances and as global powerhouses such as India are heavily investing in cleaning up their energy production. Following its heavy divestment from fossil fuels over the past few years, India is now expected to overtake China by 2020 (who has thus far been leading investment in renewable energy).

Evidently, the paradox of climate change keeps growing. If a realistic projection of a dying world was not enough to make the U.S. government take an actual change of directions in the ways it produces its energy, then we should at least hope that the economic loss of these monumental figures could influence short-sighted politicians to take the right choice. If anything, at least in the interest of their own pockets.

Keep On Reading

By Malavika Pradeep

What is a Labubu? Unboxing the monster plushie capturing hearts, wallets and belt loops

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Lily Phillips announces pregnancy hours after Bonnie Blue teases having cravings

By Charlie Sawyer

How Emily Bhatnagar transformed her father’s cancer battle into a lifeline for sick children

By Charlie Sawyer

Michael Cera reveals why he turned down a role in the Harry Potter franchise

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Who is Noor Alfallah, the woman with geriatric rizz dating Hollywood’s most famous grandpas?

By Charlie Sawyer

Chris Brown is facing over 10 years in prison. Here’s how his violent past has led him here

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Did Chappell Roan push her assistant on the red carpet? We analyse the footage

By Charlie Sawyer

3 conspiracy theories trending online following Netflix’s American Murder: Gabby Petito docuseries

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Lucy Letby supporters under fire for hosting birthday celebration for killer in London pub

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Hannah Berner under fire for microaggressions in Megan Thee Stallion interview

By Abby Amoakuh

Right-wing Christian podcaster claims that airport body scanners can turn you gay

By Abby Amoakuh

What is soft swinging? And why is the term trending on Mormon TikTok?

By Matilda Ferraris

From Ballerina Cappuccina to Trallalero Trallalà, we unpack the darker undertones of Italian brainrot

By Abby Amoakuh

Explaining the viral TikTok trend cute winter boots and its unexpected ties to US censorship

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Bad Bunny’s album is a love letter to the iconic white plastic chair at family gatherings

By Charlie Sawyer

BrewDog co-founder James Watt’s problematic past resurfaces amid work/life balance controversy

By Abby Amoakuh

From dinner parties to grocery flexing: Inside Gen Z’s new language of luxury

By Charlie Sawyer

How Netflix’s Adolescence and Kyle Clifford’s triple murders connect to Andrew Tate

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Comedian Druski issues statement following serious abuse allegations in Diddy lawsuit

By Abby Amoakuh

MrBeast faces new backlash as fans demand refunds for disastrous Las Vegas immersive experience