Guardian- 81% Ct Dec CO2

8/18/2019 Guardian- 81% Ct Dec CO2

1/6

1/31/2016 95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution

95% consensus of expert economists: cut

carbon pollution A of economists with climate expertise finds a consensus that climate change is expensive and carbo

pollution cuts are needed

Dana Nuccitelli

Monday 4 January 2016 06.00 EST

The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law recentlypublished a report summarizing a survey of economists with climate expertise. The report

was a follow-up and expansion of a similar survey conducted in 2009 by the same instituteThe key finding: there’s a strong consensus among climate economics experts that weshould put a price on carbon pollution to curb the expensive costs of climate change.

The survey participants included economists who have published papers related to climatechange “in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed economics or environmental economics journalsince 1994.” Overall, 365 participants completed the survey, which established theconsensus of expert climate economists on a number of important questions.

Carbon pollution cuts are needed regardless of what other countries do

In the 2009 version of the survey, the respondents were asked under what conditions theUnited States should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 57% answered that thUS should cut its emissions no matter what actions other countries take, while another 38%said that American emissions cuts would be warranted if many or all other countriescommit to reducing theirs (as just happened in the Paris international negotiations).

In the 2015 survey, the number of expert economists saying that the US should cut itsemissions no matter what rose to 77%. A further 18% said that if other countries agree tocut their emissions, the US should follow suit. In other words, there is a 95% consensusamong expert climate economists that the US should follow through with its pledges to cut

carbon pollution in the wake of the Paris international climate negotiations, and more thanthree out of four agreed that the US should take action to curb global warming no matterwhat.

This expert consensus is in stark contrast to conservative political opposition to the Parisaccord. For example, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said of the agreemen

This kind of unilateral disarmament in our economy is reckless, and it is hurting the Americanream

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/15/3732079/rubio-paris-unfunny-joke/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/dec/14/the-paris-agreement-signals-that-deniers-have-lost-the-climate-warshttp://resources.ofdan.ca/docs/EconomistsandClimateChange.pdfhttp://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdfhttp://www.theguardian.com/profile/dana-nuccitelli


2/6



Quite obviously an international agreement made by 195 nations around the world is theantithesis of unilateral action. However, 77% of expert economists agree that unilateralaction would be appropriate in any case, directly contradicting Rubio’s comments.Additionally, 82% of the experts agreed that by implementing climate policies, the US coulstrategically induce other countries to cut their carbon pollution.

Climate change is already hurting the global economy

When asked at what date climate change will have a net negative impact on the globaleconomy, the median survey response was 2025. In the recent past, climate change likelyhad a net positive impact on the global economy, due primarily to the effect of carbonfertilization on crops and other plant life. However, even contrarian economists agree,when accounting for the vulnerability of poorer countries to climate impacts, globalwarming has been hurting the global economy since about 1980.

The NYU survey asked when the economic benefits we experienced up to 1980 would becompletely wiped out; 41% of respondents said that’s already happened. Another 25%answered that it would happen within a decade, and 26% said we’d see net negative

economic impacts by 2050. If we continue with business-as-usual pollution and warming,on average the experts predicted a GDP loss of about 10% by the end of the century, andthat there would be a 20% chance of a “catastrophic” loss of one-quarter of global GDP.

Of course, ideally we would have stopped warming the planet in 1980 to preserve theeconomic benefits of global warming to that date. At this point it’s a question of just howmuch damage climate change will do to the global economy, and the economic experts areworried that the results could be catastrophic.

Climate change will hurt economic growth

78% of the survey participants said that it’s likely (36%) or extremely likely (42%) thatclimate change will have a long-term negative impact on the growth rate of the globaleconomy. That’s an important point, because most current integrated economic-climateassessment models assume that economic growth will continue regardless of climatechange impacts. There’s been a growing body of research indicating that as you mightexpect, that won’t be the case.

The results of this survey question show that most expert economists agree, climate changwill hurt global economic growth. That also suggests that past model-based studies likelysignificantly underestimated the costs of climate change. Along the same lines, 51% of theexperts answered that the US government’s estimate for the “social cost of carbon” ($37 pemetric ton), which is largely based on estimates from these models, is too low. 18% of theexperts said that value is about right, and just 8% said it’s too high.

Carbon pricing is an efficient way to cut pollution

The survey also asked the experts about the most economically efficient method of reducing carbon pollution. 81% said a market-based system (carbon tax or cap and tradesystem) would be most efficient, while 13% answered that coordinated performancestandards and programs that prioritize cleaner fuels and energy efficiency would be most

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/26/climate-change-could-impact-poor-much-more-than-previously-thoughthttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/27/global-warming-could-be-more-devastating-for-the-economy-than-we-thoughthttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/24/more-global-warming-worse-economy


3/6



More blogposts

TopicsClimate change (Environment) Economic policy Economic growth (GDP) Economics

Climate change scepticism More…

Save for later Article saved

Reuse this content

efficient.

In the US, President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is closer to the latter system of performancestandards, although the president has said he would prefer the type of market-basedsystem favored by 81% of economic experts. Implementing a carbon tax or cap and tradesystem would require bipartisan congressional action, but over the past several years,Republican Party leaders have shown scant interest in crafting the efficient climate policiesfavored by economic experts and by their own voters.

Consensus of economic experts: cut carbon pollution

The NYU survey reveals a clear economic consensus on global warming. The experts agreeclimate change is hurting the global economy, we should mitigate those costs by cuttingcarbon pollution, and the most efficient way to do that is with a market-based system like acarbon tax or cap and trade system.

This expert consensus clearly contradicts the arguments made by Republican Party leadersand other opponents of climate policies – that taking these actions will cripple the economy

In reality, economists are worried that if we fail to cut carbon pollution and insteadcontinue with business-as-usual, it will badly stunt economic growth and may potentiallylead to catastrophic economic consequences.

However, we can still solve the problem while creating jobs and growing the economy, if our political leaders will listen to the economic experts and their voters. So far, convincingRepublican Party leaders to listen to an expert climate consensus has been a fruitless task,

but there are signs that the party is starting to move in the right direction.

https://newrepublic.com/article/123351/kelly-ayotte-and-rise-green-republicanshttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/17/republican-congress-climate-change-action-rebellionhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economyhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/10/conservatives-dont-hate-climate-science-they-hate-the-lefts-climate-solutions/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/05/the-republican-party-stands-alone-in-climate-denialhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-calls-carbon-price-better-than-regulations/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/25/climate-change-carbon-emissions-president-obama-epahttp://syndication.theguardian.com/automation/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-consensus-97-per-cent%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fconsensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution&type=blog&internalpagecode=2431715https://profile.theguardian.com/save-content?INTCMP=DOTCOM_ARTICLE_SFL&returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-consensus-97-per-cent%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fconsensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution&shortUrl=/p/4fete&platform=web:Chrome:desktophttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change-scepticismhttp://www.theguardian.com/business/economicshttp://www.theguardian.com/business/economicgrowthhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/economyhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-changehttp://www.theguardian.com/tone/blog


4/6




5/6




6/6



Documents

Guardian- 81% Ct Dec CO2