Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing

Posted on 16 April 2011 by dana1981

As we have previously discussed, one of the most disappointing aspects of the recent congressional climate hearing, aside from the propagation of numerous climate myths by John Christy (i.e. see Christy Crocks #1, #2, and #3), was the unchallenged and inaccurate economic testimony of David Montgomery.  Unfortunately, the Democrats were only allowed one witness, and wisely chose climate scientist Kerry Emanuel (who did an excellent job).  However, this allowed Dr. Montgomery to make assertions well outside of the economic mainstream without any knowledgeable experts present to refute them.

Montgomery's testimony can effectively be grouped into four categories which we will examine in this post: (1) the costs of carbon pricing outweigh the benefits; (2) CO2 limits will have little impact on global temperatures; (3) proposed CO2 legislation is expensive; and (4) renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels.

Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits

Montgomery's most frequent claim in the hearing was that the costs of carbon pricing will outweigh its benefits:

"the costs of [CO2 limits] by itself would have far outweighed any benefit we could have gotten from those changes"

"US emission reductions are likely to have costs far greater than their benefits"

"No, [the danger posed to the economy by not acting to reduce climate change] does not [outweigh the economic costs to the country of CO2 limits]"

Since comparing the costs and benefits of any potential action is key to determining whether and how to proceed, it's not surprising that this subject was the main focus of Montgomery's testimony and the Republican congressmen's questioning.  However, as we have previously discussed, economic analyses of carbon pricing consistently conclude that its benefits exceed its costs several times over.  

The key to answering this question is the social cost of carbon (SCC), which is effectively an estimate of the direct effects of carbon emissions on the economy, and takes into consideration such factors as net agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damages from sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services.  Knowing this cost of carbon emissions is key to evaluating the benefits of reducing carbon emissions (the benefits being the amount of damage prevented).

A study by the New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity (NYU IPI) on the costs vs. benefits of the Waxman-Markey climate bill proposed in the USA (more on this legislation below), for example, found that its benefits would exceed its costs if the SCC is greater than $9 per ton of CO2 emitted (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Costs (light blue and red points) and Benefits (dark blue and purple points) vs. SSC values ($ per ton of carbon dioxide) for H.R. 2454 using two economic models (ADAGE and IGEM)

So effectively, Montgomery is arguing that the SCC is below $9 per ton, or at least certainly not much higher.  However, this opinion is decidedly outside of the economic mainstream.  The NYU IPI also conducted a survey of 144 of the world's top economists with expertise on climate change and in one of the survey questions, asked them their opinion on the true SCC value.

Although their answers varied greatly (the SCC value is a significant economic uncertainty), more than 88% of the economic experts believed the SCC is greater than $9/ton.  The median response, in fact, was $50/ton, and 71% believed the value is greater than $20/ton.  In short, nearly 90% of the economic experts disagree with Montgomery's statement that the costs of carbon pricing will exceed the benefits, and most of the experts strongly disagree with his position.

NYU IPI is of course not the only group to have conducted a cost-benefit analysis of carbon pricing.  There have been numerous other analyses conducted both in the USA and internationally, and the results consistently show the benefits of carbon pricing exceeding costs (i.e. Figure 2).

Figure 2:  Approximate costs of climate action (green) and inaction (red) in 2100 and 2200. Sources: German Institute for Economic Research and Watkiss et al. 2005

Tragedy of the Commons

The second-most popular myth in Montgomery's testimony is one which is becoming ever more popular particularly in the USA and Australia:

"We would not notice a difference to the US to anything that was happening to us because of climate [if we introduce CO2 limits]"

"efforts to reduce our own emissions would make almost no difference to global temperature"

Technically these statements are true.  Any country can argue that their nation's greenhouse gas emissions reductions alone can only make a negligible impact on global temperatures.  This includes the USA, despite the fact that our country is the largest historical CO2 emitter, the second-largest current emitter, and has one of the highest current per capita emissions rates.

This argument can be described as the Tragedy of the Commons: for any individual country acting alone, reducing greenhouse gas emissions could potentially cause an economic disadvantage.  And yet, as discussed above, if every country reduces its emissions, the net economic results will be positive.  The key is to convince many countries to simultaneously act to reduce their emissions, which is the purpose of international treaties and conferences like at Kyoto and Copenhagen.  But if every nation makes the Montgomery argument, nobody reduces emissions, and the net result hurts the global economy.

The NYU IPI survey also asked the economic experts under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions (Figure 3).

should US reduce emissions

 

Figure 3: NYU IPI survey results when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions

As you can see, over half of the economics experts responded that the USA should reduce its emissions no matter what other countries do.  72.5% responded that the USA should reduce its emissions if some other countries also commit to reducing theirs, which has already happened (for example, the European Union has had a carbon cap and trade system in place since 2005, and many European nations have aggressive carbon emissions reductions targets).  Indeed, this also means that other major emitters have committed to reducing emissions (also see the Kyoto Protocol), in which case over 94% of economic experts agree the US should reduce its emissions.  Once again, Montgomery's testimony is well outside the economic mainstream.

The Costs of Climate Legislation

One of the most egregious errors in Montgomery's testimony pertained to the aforementioned Waxman-Markey climate bill which was proposed in the USA and passed the House of Representatives before Republicans blocked it in the Senate:

"the Waxman-Markey [climate] bill with costs in the range of $1,000-2,000 per household, a loss of 1-2% of GDP of what it would be otherwise, and perhaps close to a doubling of electricity prices"

In reality, economic studies have consistently shown that this legislation would have:

  1. Cost the average American household between $84 and $160 per year by 2020.
  2. Reduced US gross domestic product (GDP) by less than 1% by 2030 compared to a business-as-usual scenario which does not even account for the economic benefits of the legislation.
  3. Although electricity prices would rise, due to investments in energy efficiency programs, estimates of impacts on average monthly utility bills by 2030 ranged from a $5.60 decrease to a $2.80 increase.

Montgomery's claims about this legislation are contradicted by every independent economic assessment of the bill, yet as with the rest of his testimony, went unchallenged.

Costs of Renewable Energy

Finally, Montgomery made one very misleading statement about the costs of renewable energy, specifically wind energy:

"[wind energy] is a more expensive way of producing energy than the alternative"

This statement may be true if you eliminate all subsidies and compare the market price (not the true cost) of wind to coal energy.  However, as we discuss in the new rebuttal to the myth "renewable energy is too expensive," when accounting for the full costs including impacts on public health, air quality, climate change, etc., the cost of coal power roughly triples and becomes more expensive than almost every  current renewable energy technology.  Ironically, wind power is already almost as cheap as coal even when ignoring these external costs.  And even ignoring these externalities, recent studies have shown that most renewable energy technologies will become cheaper than coal by 2020 or 2030.

Unrepresentative Testimony

It is unfortunate that the only economic "expert" called to testify at this congressional hearing consistently made statements which contradicted the economic climate consensus: that the benefits of carbon pricing will exceed the costs, and that the USA should take action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.  Montgomery also misrepresented the economic impacts of recently-proposed climate legislation, and the costs of renewable vs. fossil fuel energy.

We can only hope that in the future, testimony presented to US policymakers will reflect the body of economic climate studies more accurately.  Montgomery's testimony only served to misinform our policymakers about the economic realities of climate legislation and carbon pricing.  These are subjects about which, as with climate science, there is a disturbing abundance of misinformation.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 13:

  1. Its very interesting to see this from an Australian perspective, where we have much the same kind of disinformation at play. Just yesterday I listened to Tony Abbott (leader of the Australian Tory party-aka the Liberals) siding with the Manufacturing Union (I know, I almost died of shock too) regarding "concerns" about potential job losses that could be caused to the manufacturing sector if a Carbon Tax gets implemented. Well, I could barely stifle my laughter at this, given that Abbott was a senior minister of a Government that *unilaterally* cut tariffs across the entire Australian Manufacturing & Textile sector-a move that led to the loss of *tens of thousands* of jobs. 15 years later, & I'm still waiting to see or hear of any positive developments for our economy that arose from those policies. All it really did was make our economy far more dependent on the commodity sector-thus harming our balance of trade & making our economy much more energy/CO2 intensive, than if we still had a better mix of primary, secondary & tertiary industries. I often wonder how politicians like him can internalize such obvious contradictions in behaviour & beliefs!
    0 0
  2. The tragedy of the commons argument is really big in Australia. Understandable when you're only 1.5% of global emissions and much smaller population than the US (although just as bad in per capita emissions). Evans made the argument, so did Monckton in The Australian, so did Lindzen in an Australian interview. And Armstrong and Christy made it in the USA. It's the "in" argument for "skeptics" right now, I guess.
    0 0
  3. @Dana1981. Well you should have seen the clap-trap The Weekend Australian came up with last week. An article by Geoff Lehmann, Peter Farrell & Dick Warburton that was a veritable buffet & climate denier myths. Things like "Despite predictions a decade ago that severe winters would become a thing of the past, on JAnuary 7, 2010, NASA photographed Britain entirely blanketed in snow. Claims that wind power operates only at 25% capacity (when most operate at 30% to 40% capacity nowadays) & *have* to be backed up by fossil fuel power stations (when, in truth, you could use a combination of storage & non-fossil fueled base-load power to meet demand), erroneous comparisons of *generation* costs (not transmission & distribution-one of the biggest costs of large, centralized power stations) &, most amazingly of all, claims that "An emissions trading scheme, or any other action to increase the price of carbon enough to change behaviour, is bound to fail in a democracy". I mean, that last claim would *definitely* come as a shock to the people of Germany, British Columbia or the almost dozen North Eastern US states that have such measures in place-just to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Still, given the extent to which the fossil fuel industry is going to propagate misinformation, via their puppets in the mainstream media, they must be getting pretty nervous.
    0 0
  4. That's The Australian for you. At least you don't have to deal with Fox News.
    0 0
  5. Oh, no, Dana, we can get Fox News via pay TV... in fact, it's not possible to get pay TV in Australia without Fox News being bundled in...
    (yet another reason I don't subscribe!)
    0 0
  6. Back on-topic: considering the previous article, where it was stated that the last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 25m higher.

    I'd guess the "economic analysis" to date only considers the IPCC AR4 results, out to 2100?

    If so, I'd love to see an economic impact analysis of a 25m rise in sea levels over the next, say, 300 years.

    Even with a huge discounting factor, that'll be a doozy!
    0 0
  7. Good rebuttal, Dana, as always.

    Sadly, I don't think many of the Republicans are likely to read it. No, no. They'll be too busy reading WUWT, or listening to the misinformation on FOX. Just in case anybody is thinking I'm being anti-American, I'm sure the Conservative Party of Canada is pretty much the same.
    0 0
  8. I still have yet to receive a reply to the following question from any (allegedly) conservative 'skeptic' -

    'What is the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?'

    Real conservatives aren't the problem. It's militant reactionaries we're contending with.
    0 0
  9. @WSteven "I'm sure the Conservative Party of Canada is pretty much the same."

    Thankfully no. Although many in the Conservative base here in Canada are absolutely in denial, the Conservative party does officially accept climate change. They even stated after climategate that leaked emails are no basis to change their position on the matter. Not bad for a party who just a few years ago was talking about 'so-called greenhouse gases'

    That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada has been obstructionist on the world stage and has the lowest aspirational GHG targets of any industrialized country. And to make matter worse the official government position is to do nothing until the US does something.
    0 0
  10. @Mike @Dan Moutal I speak mainly out of frustration as a concerned Canadian. I'm well aware that there are Conservatives/Tories who are trying to make effective environmental change. It's just this "feet-dragging" you mention Dan that gets me.

    But it is worse than merely "feet dragging", the Harper government is actively promoting Canadian coal and oil in a time when scientists are telling us that we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. The Harper government is also planning expand development of the Tar Sands.

    I know that they've done some things, but the Conservative Party of Canada still have a long ways to go. I've written a letter to my local MP to remind him that I consider the issue of GHGs to be very important to me this coming election. I hope other Canadians are doing something similar, or better.
    0 0
  11. WSteven @12,

    "I know that they've done some things, but the Conservative Party of Canada still have a long ways to go"

    Too true. There have been some attempts at green washing, but not much else. Some huge oil sands projects will be coming on line soon. The projections for oil production from the tar sands are up and up and up (I need to substantiate that I know, will do that, but I happen to know people on the "inside").

    And let us not forget that Harper et al. are mostly from the old Alliance party....scary. That said, let us not write them off, but let us be realistic. Someone needs to hold their feet very close to the fire. It could be that Canada faces sanctions of some sort down the road....you never know, but that is what it might take.

    Either way, to get back to the topic of this post, it seems to me that the uncertainties in the economic models are far greater than those form the climate models, yet some consistently try and use some obscure economic figures to claim devastating economies and the such so as to encourage FUD. The interesting thing about economic models, the results are dependant on the many assumptions that you need to make. Someone managed to demonstrate that buying a hummer was actually better for the environment than a Prius (sorry cannot recall the details), and they did, but had to choose some wildly unrealistic assumptions to do so.

    Climate models ont he other hand are constrained by physics, yes their is uncertainty, but one cannot assume that pi=4.0 or "tune" the stefan-Boltzmann constant or the radiative forcing from each GHG. And what is more, one can quantify the uncertainty.

    With that all said, what we need are more full cycle studies and more studies which incorporate the social and environmental costs of using the available energy sources, such as the paper Dana discussed on the SCC.
    0 0
  12. This is the best place I found for this.

    In the Resources>climate graphics http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=11 the link to Watkiss et al (2005) link does not work on the graphics page. It does work on the graph on this page. Please delete this.
    0 0
  13. Working link.
    Comparing the Cost
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us