'Risky Business' Report Aims to Frame Climate Change as Economic Issue
The article was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 23, 2104 and written by Alicia Mundy. The article is certainly worth the read, but I find that the comments by WSJ readers disturbing in that most prefer not to debate the actual issues, but would rather make sarcastic comments about liberalism and Al Gore.I am hopeful that the people denying climate change are correct. Not because I believe that their perspective is sound or thoughtfully presented, but because it is the best case scenario we face moving forward.
However, with a majority of scientists, mayors, and insurers now warning us that these issues are real and need appropriate attention, it may be best to look at a cost-benefit analysis of preparing for climate change mitigation and action to prevent further damage versus choosing to deny the possibility of climate change and ignoring the potential risk.
Let's say that those who deny climate change are absolutely 100% correct, and we still have chosen to take action on how we produce and use energy, as well as actions to make our cities more resilient. I was born in 1963 when there were a mere 3 billion people inhabiting the planet, today there are 7 billion rapidly moving towards 8. I believe it is reasonable to look at resource management of food, drinkable water, and energy to heat, light and cool the homes and businesses that we live and work in as a critical issue whether or not climate change is real. Making our cities more resilient, and making necessary investment in our infrastructure, is needed whether or not there is such a thing as climate change.
On the other hand, if climate change is, in fact, a conspiracy of the far left, and power prices may rise due to investment in alternative methods of producing power (there is already evidence, however, that investments in renewable energy is lowering prices in some U.S. markets, and even stabilizing grid resiliency). Taxes and tariffs on our electricity and natural gas bills will be added to provide funding to increase the energy efficiency of our built environment (in Massachusetts, where I live, there is ample evidence that shows for every dollar ratepayers are asked to pay the benefit is multiple dollars in return). Insurance premiums will rise, putting pressure on the real estate markets in coastal communities (unfortunately, all tax payers have been subsidizing property owners since 1968 and now the National Flood Insurance Program is $25B in debt).
Again, I am hopeful that history shows that worries about climate change were incorrectly prioritized. However, I think hoping for the best and preparing for the worst is the wise course of action at the present time.
