Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a new report called, "Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction."
For those who invest in renewable energy, this is a must-read.
The report identifies a number of scenarios that paint a pretty solid picture of where we're headed - economically - without a significant increase in renewable power generation and a significant decrease in fossil fuel production and consumption.
Think the price tag for emissions reduction is high? Take a look at the price tag for inaction. . .
According to the report. . .
One- sixth of the U.S. population (53 million people) lives in the coastal counties of the Northeast. A sea-level rise of 13-20 inches by 2100 would threaten insured property in these counties valued at $4.7 trillion - accounting for half of the value of all insured coastal property in the United States.
In California, protecting low-lying coastal property from sea-level rise and the resulting storm surges, particularly around San Francisco Bay, could cost $6 billion - $30 billion annually by 2100.
Hot, dry summers will stress crops and reduce yields, while warmer winters mean that crop pests and pathogens normally kept in check by cold temperatures are projected to expand their ranges northward, causing crop damages beyond the $78.5 billion already lost to such pests each year.
Alaska has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the nation over the last 50 years, and the thawing permafrost has damaged roads, runways, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure. Continued thawing will add $3.6 billion - $6.1 billion to the cost of publicly owned infrastructure by 2030, and $5.6 billion - $7.6 billion by 2080.
With severe beach erosion, flooding of the Everglades, and coral bleaching under a high-emissions scenario, Florida's tourism industry will lose $178 billion annually by 2100. In North Carolina, a sea-level rise of 18 inches by 2080 is expected to cost the beach recreation industry $11 billion in cumulative damages.
We can sit around and debate cap-and-trade all we want. Some think it's a great market-based approach, and others think it's a bureaucratic nightmare that will accomplish little.
But the bottom line is that no real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will occur without the large-scale integration of renewable energy. And those who invest appropriately in renewables now will continue to benefit from global initiatives to mitigate human-induced climate change.
Jeff
Comment 
Subscribe to