Local Opinion: Ignoring the costs of climate change is inexcusable

On Sept. 28, Arizona Corporation Commission Chairwoman Lea Marquez Peterson made a case for an “all resource, all technology” approach to reliability and affordability of energy. She is in favor of everything: coal, oil, solar, nuclear, whatever will lower our utility bills during her tenure. This is stunningly myopic.

An essential skill for a member of the ACC is an ability to analyze costs, both short-term and long-term. Marquez omitted climate change as a reference point for costs.

Over the past 35 years, climate models have proven to be very accurate. We can relatively clearly see our near-term climate future. Barring a massive nuclear exchange or volcanic event, it is a certainty that global mean temperature will exceed the 1.5 degree Celsius Paris Climate Accord target. Climate scientists are currently trying to accurately evaluate the status of various climate turning points, such as the collapse of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which will cause catastrophic sea level rise. A recent study concludes that we are now at or over several red lines.

It is far more difficult to quantify how climate change will impact the economy, immigration, and global conflict, because there are more variables in play. There is a danger in using numbers, because this can convey a false impression of certainty. Bearing this caveat in mind, here are some examples:

Swiss Re, one of the leading insurance companies in the world (and cannot function without numbers), publishes a Climate Economics Index, which estimates economic conditions in 2050, assuming global mean temperature increases at a given rate. For example, if the current trajectory continues, Swiss Re estimates that global (U.S.) GDP will contract by ~10 percent (~7 percent, respectively), compared to the Paris climate agreement trajectory. Over the same time frame, global population is projected to increase by ~25 percent. This is a catastrophic combination.

The percent of uninhabitable land is currently ~1 percent. This is projected to rise to ~20 percent by 2070.

Consequently, studies tend to estimate the number of climate refugees in the hundreds of millions. One example: Bangladesh, a homeland of 165 million, could easily cease to be habitable because of monsoon flooding and sea level rise. These people will seek refuge in India, the U.S. and elsewhere, and they will not be met with open arms.

Is any of this relevant to Arizona, so long as we have a border fence, receive Social Security, and can crank up the air conditioning? The answer is obviously yes. In particular, we forgot to account for water. It is entirely possible that Arizona could lose most or all of its CAP water allocation — California holds senior water rights. (See Lauren Kuby’s Oct. 2 op-ed for other considerations.)

Marquez implicitly assumes that “clean energy” will eventually dominate energy markets, which is probably correct. But she does not attach urgency to this transition, because it will be inconvenient (see California). She does not comprehend the stakes: a world which warms by 1.5 C versus a world which warms by 2 or 3 C. The former will entail massive ecological and humanitarian disasters but might remain liveable, the latter could trigger widespread civilizational collapse.

Those who understand the risks of climate change have split over political strategy. George H.W. Bush argued for a market-based approach, the most recent incarnation of which is HR2307, the carbon fee/dividend approach which I and tens of others have argued for in these pages. HR2307 has 95 Democratic co-sponsors and zero Republican co-sponsors.

Our attempt at bipartisanship failed (so far). Consequently, Democratic leadership opted for an all-carrots response, involving massive government investment, again with zero Republican support.

Marquez’s “all resource” catch phrase is a smokescreen for doing nothing.