Cutting Emissions-Is that the only solution to Global Warming
- In Economics
- 11:26 AM, Dec 03, 2015
- Anirban Paul
The debate about global warming and economic growth is often phrased in stark Manichaean terms. We are told that we need to cut emissions now and we have been told that there would be more Katrinas if we do not cut emission. The increased temperature in cities around the world is attributed to emission. It’s true the emissions have a role to play. But there are other factors which are, in many cases, more severe in terms of impact. It’s important to understand that there are drivers other than emission that cause damages. Smarter policy solutions can be designed.
Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It” has data on these features. Most of the data points quoted in this article first appeared in his book. Interested readers could consult the book for a richer treatment. There is a lot of focus on IPCC and its allegedly scary reports. However, we often forget IPCC has a parent organization.
In its 2007 report, the UN World Meteorological Organization (the parent organization of IPCC) says “Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic (human caused) signal in the tropical signal climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
There was some concern that increased cyclones (such as Katrina) resulted from global warming. Here is UN World Meteorological Organization again:
“No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change. The recent impact from tropical cyclones can be largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions”. What does the second sentence mean?
The problem in New Orleans came due to bad planning, poorly maintained levees, and environmental degradation of the city’s protective wetlands. Katrina was a category 3 hurricane.
If the 1926 Great Miami hurricane had hit today, it would have created the worst damage in the US history; this category- 4 hurricane would have caused a damage of $ 150 billion; that’s twice the damage of Katrina. As there were fewer buildings in Miami in 1926, the damage was $ 0.7 billion in present day dollars.
Note again, the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane was a category 4 hurricane and Katrina was a category 3 hurricane.
According to a report published by insurance industry actuaries, “catastrophe losses should be expected to double roughly every 10 years because of increases in construction costs, increases in the number of structures and changes in their characteristics”. Insurance actuaries found that had Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002 instead of 1992, “the losses would have been double, due to increased coastal development and rising asset values”.
There could be smart policy proposals:
- Many US communities in sea facing areas have never been mapped for flood-risk (same should be true of countries other than the US). A risk register can be prepared with inputs from the communities themselves and experts.
- The governments could regulate vulnerable land with clear cut policy on the zoning, regulation, taxing, and public acquisition of land at risk.
- States should stop providing subsidized, low cost insurance that implicitly gives perverse incentives to people to settle in risky areas.
- The building codes should be reviewed. The building codes should ensure new structures are better able to withstand high winds. Also, existing codes could be strictly enforced.
- There is room for improvement of protective infrastructure, such as dikes and levees.
- Investments should be made in improved forecasts, better warning systems, and more efficient evacuations.
- Now, loss of vegetation reduces soil’s abilities to absorb water. Loss of vegetation also destabilizes slopes.
After Katrina, an insurance company found that five hundred locations had implemented the relevant hurricane- loss prevention methods. Those locations experienced only one-eighth the losses of those that had not done so. At a cost of $ 2.5 million, these building owners averted a loss of $ 500 million.
It’s projected that 90% damage can be avoided with simple procedures. But, even if 50% damage can be cut it’s more than the 0.5% damage to be averted by following Kyoto Proposal.
For arguments’ sake let us assume that the hurricanes are caused by global warming alone? Even then we can disentangle the damages due to hurricanes. How much of the damages were due to the hurricanes themselves? And, how much of the damages were due to factors such as inept zoning, increased construction in risky areas etc.? The data from insurance industry actuaries show that a significant portion of the damages can be ascribed to activities other than global warming.
Suppose the globe keeps getting warm at the current rate, but there is no further construction activities in risky areas - the total effect by 2050 would be less than a 10 percent increase in damages.
Thus, managing construction activities etc. gives more bang for the buck.
It’s same with urban heat islands. What is an urban heat island? Bricks, concrete and asphalt absorb more heat than vegetation does in countryside. This phenomenon is called urban heat island. British Meteorologist Luke Howard first published on this phenomenon.
In last one hundred years downtown LA has seen a maximum temperature increase of 4.5 ° F. Even the nighttime temperature in LA has increased by 7 ° F. NY has a similar nighttime heat island of 7 ° F.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population in Houston grew by 300,000. Houston’s nighttime surface temperature has increased by 1.4 ° F in these 10 years. If the current pattern continues for one hundred years, Houston temperature would see a rise of 12° F.
It is possible that for many cities the urban heat- island related increase is larger than the increase related to emission. Some simple remedies are available also:
- There could be more vegetation and water features in urban areas that will cool down the urban heat-islands. For London this one step could reduce the temperature by 12 ° F.
- Most cities have heat-absorbing dark structures such as black asphalt. It is possible to paint the tarmac and buildings white. If the tarmacs are buildings are painted white that would Increase the general reflectivity and natural shading from buildings. Such a step could reduce the temperature in London by 18 ° F.
- There have been some estimates for LA. If we plant eleven million trees, reroof five million homes, and paint one quarter of the roads – all these together would have a one-time cost of 1 bn dollars. But there would be annual benefits of lowering air conditioning costs by $ 170 million, and $360 million in smog reduction benefits. It may reduce city temperature by more than 5 degree F.
Thus, there are steps that are less costly than cutting emissions, but which may have quantifiable benefits. It may be worthwhile to look at such low hanging fruits first.
Comments