Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Says Global Greenhouse Gas Cuts Would Save U.S. Economy $1.5 Trillion in 2100

That amounts to 1.6 percent of the economy in 2100

|

HotEarthCartoon
leavittcenter

The Environmental Protection Agency released a report, Clmate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action, that looks at the economic effects of keeping global average temperature below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. The EPA's new report estimates that if all the countries of world cooperated to meet this goal the avoided costs of climate change damage in the U.S. in 2100 would amount to about $1.5 trillion per year.

The report takes into account things like damage to water quality, bridges, roads, drainage systems, coastal property inundation, drought, flooding, agricultural, forestry and fishery stresses, and carbon storage. Taking the worst-case scenario highest figures for each, those all together amount to losses of about $55 billion in 2100.

The lion's share of unmitigated climate change stems from the costs of premature death resulting from air pollution at $930 billion and higher temperatures at $200 billion, as well as lost work hours due to excessive heat, $110 billion, and the costs of adapting to water shortages at at worst-case $180 billion. (To get the premature death costs, the EPA is valuing each life at about $16 million in 2100 dollars.) Sounds like a lot, right?

Assume that the current $17.7 trillion U.S. economy grows at an average rate of 2 percent per year from now until 2100. GDP in 2015 dollars would then be $95.3 trillion. That means that annual climate change losses and adaptation costs of $1.5 trillion would amount to 1.6 percent of the economy. Notionally speaking, GDP would be only be $93.8 trillion instead of $95.3 trillion. In other words, due to the ravages of climate change, average per capita GDP for 450 million Americans would be only $208,000 instead of $212,000. For reference, current U.S. per capita GDP is just above $53,000.

Advertisement

NEXT: Not Many People Obeying New York State "Assault Weapon" Registration

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Since the waters haven’t risen as promised, I guess this is the new tack. Wonder what will be.

    1. Since the waters haven’t risen as promised, I guess this is the new tack. Wonder what will be.

      Ocean Acidification

      1. IP: EPA takes account of the costs of OA in its fisheries and coral reef analysis.

        1. so in savings they mean, really, NOT doing it would potentially cost us that much if their predictions came true?

      2. And when that is found to be incorrect, a new tack will be found.

        1. Ocean Pimpification.

          1. Van Jones read Iceberg Slim.

  2. Does this take into account the economic costs of keeping global average temperature down?

    1. What part of “free lunch” don’t you understand?

    2. That’s the big question.

      And for all we really know, all of the bad weather and sea level rise might well happen with or without CO2 cuts.

      It’s a ridiculous thing to base policy on today.

  3. If they only had tried to do all of this during the Medieval Warm Period, we could have averted all of the tragedy that followed.

    1. Do you mean Pope Francis?

  4. So this is the weak medicine they roll out to counter the economic criticism, huh?

    1. They’re super cereal

    2. Weak medicine? Global warming could theoretically cost the average American a whole 1.9% of their $200,000 income.

      That’s catastrophic.

      1. *looks around*

        Average $200,000 income?

        1. Year 2100.

          That’s a conservative estimate.

          1. But conservatives are biased by Koch mind control. You cant trust their estimates.

          2. *looks around*

            Krugman said there’s no inflation.

        2. From the article:

          “In other words, due to the ravages of climate change, average per capita GDP for 450 million Americans would be only $208,000 instead of $212,000”

          1. So, a hundred fewer mini-drones to clean my nads?
            [yeah, that’s what I’m going to use them for]

      2. How much will Obamacare cost by that point?

  5. Dismantling the byzantine body of EPA regulations and shutting down their activism would save the US economy that much in the next 3 years.

  6. Just the annual budget for the EPA is $8 Billion a year (forget the economic destruction of their regulations). Get rid of the EPA and you save $680 Billion over the next 85 years (assuming a flat budget – ha!).

    That’s real savings, not green fantasies.

    1. And probably $680 billion a year in the decrease in regulatory cost.

  7. EPA Says Global Greenhouse Gas Cuts Would Save U.S. Economy $1.5 Trillion in 2100

    Leaving aside the fact that there’s virtually no chance of them being able to estimate something like that with any kind of accuracy, how much will these global greenhouse gas cuts cost?

    1. and, shouldn’t it be pointed out that what they are doing is simply guessing?

      1. Ed Wood: How’d you know we’d be living on Mars by 1970?
        Criswell: I guessed. I made it up.

  8. “Costs” of premature deaths?? I thought the world was perilously close to overpopulation.

    1. They’re not sure what they believe.

      1. Neither am I. So I guess I agree with them that they don’t know what they believe. So, Consensus?

      2. They believe America, capitalism, and heterosexual white males really suck.

    2. people living longer, of course, has no costs.

  9. that looks at the economic effects of keeping global average temperature below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average

    Ok, at least we’ve got them to provide them a “correct” global temperature.

    We’re getting somewhere.

    1. Nope. Not there yet.

      Pre-industrial average over what time period?

  10. The lion’s share of unmitigated climate change stems from the costs of premature death resulting from air pollution at $930 billion and higher temperatures at $200 billion, as well as lost work hours due to excessive heat, $110 billion, and the costs of adapting to water shortages at at worst-case $180 billion. (To get the premature death costs, the EPA is valuing each life at about $16 million in 2100 dollars.) Sounds like a lot, right?

    No it sounds like a complete fantasy. Every single thing in that list is utter bullshit.

    1. It would be interesting to see how they came up with those numbers. I assume they more or less made them up wholesale but dressed it up in some fancy analysis. They need to use bigger multipliers if they really want to make a splash.

      1. “Interesting to see how they came up with those numbers”

        I’m guessing the pulled them from deep within their asses. Personally I’d rather not see that. But if it’s what you’re into…

        1. This. Pull them out their asses and let the media scream then from the rooftops. Success!

    2. as well as lost work hours due to excessive heat

      The lost hours of productivity is the Gold Fucking Standard of bullshit, tailor made for cherry picking.

      Example: We need better public transit and endless Trainz and StreetCarz! Lost productivity sitting in traffic: Eleventy Billion Dollars.

      A friend of mine recently started taking the bus to work. He spends long… long periods of time waiting for buses that are late, broken down or don’t show.

      How many hours of lost productivity of people standing around at transit stops is ever calculated?

      I went to the post office the other day. A 40′ long counter had one employee working and a long… loooong line of people waiting. How many hours of productivity is being lost because of inefficient postal service?

    3. In particular it’s a complete fantasy because a life can’t be given monetary value like that. Furthermore, if you’re going to talk about premature deaths, you’d also have to talk about the money we’d save by not having to pay pensioners.

      Also, the air condition argument is ludicrous because air quality is continuously improving due to natural technological advancement. Air quality is as good as it’s been since the industrial revolution, so worrying about that is moronic given that air quality has been continuously improving basically since the 1920’s. We don’t have coal spewing trains anymore, for example.

      1. In particular it’s a complete fantasy because a life can’t be given monetary value like that.

        Progressives do. That’s why they push this ‘lost productivity’ more than any other political philosophy.

        You owe productivity to the state. If you’re not working, you’re denying a sacrificing public servant their well-deserved pension.

        1. Same thing with drugs. If an employer wants to fire you because your drug use interferes with your work, great. But you don’t owe your full potential to anyone, least of all to society as a whole.

      2. Hell, air quality is way better than in places that did lots of pre-industrial iron smelting.

    4. Not to mention that the energy poverty the EPA is peddling is correlated with worse air quality.

      You know what cheap energy gets you? Precipitators. Central Air conditioning. Affordable post combustion processing of exhaust gasses.

      These people are no better than the bioethicists campaigning for the outlawing of anasthesia being used in childbirth on the grounds that God had cursed women to suffer.

      Fucking backward, superstitious little savages!

    5. lost work hours due to excessive heat

      Yeah, what does this even mean? I find it horribly hot and muggy out today – does that mean I get to go home?!

      1. Oh yes! Because when you can’t afford air conditioning, you can work longer hours because the heat wave is slightly cooler!

      2. And it assumes that if the heat gets unbearable no one will move somewhere cooler.

        Also, where do they calculate the hours gained in New York and Minnesota because no one has to trudge through snow or get their cars stuck in sludge?

        1. NYC is the only place I have lived that gets everything. A couple years before the PATH train was flooded out of service for six months, a tornado tore the roof off some houses the next street over from me. OK we don’t get earthquakes – yet.

          1. Actually, had two that I can remember… One was in the afternoon about five years ago. One was about 30 years ago in the morning (I want to say 6 or 7AM).

            1. Yeah I didn’t feel that one from 5 years ago. Forgot about it.

      3. Well, good work ethic does seem to correlate pretty strongly with temperate climates. Though that probably has more to do with preparing for winter than with summer heat.

        Still, mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

  11. Manbearpig

    1. Manbearpig will cost the economy 1.35 trillion dollars in 2242!

      You heard it here first!

    2. EXCELSIOR

  12. Well, unless there’s catastrophic warming, which seems unlikely, given the current evidence, I rather suspect that warming in and of itself could have some economic benefits. Certainly, any global cooling would cost us big.

    1. all that beachfront in canada is going to skyrocket in value!

      1. If it gets that warm, there could be some small problems.

          1. I wasn’t talking about that so much as with other effects of that much heat. Of course, the most biodiversity Earth has even had, by a huge margin, was back when it was much hotter than now, so some heat is consistent with life in general.

            1. Don’t we have the most biodiversity the Earth has ever had right now?

              1. Well, I don’t know the truth firsthand, of course, but I saw a NOVA series on, of all things, Australia, that spent a lot of time on earlier eras. Snowball Earth, for instance, as well as very warm Earth. The latter supposedly supported much more life than has ever existed before or since. Perhaps that was just Koch propaganda.

                Doing a very quick search, even Scientific American, which is pretty heavily invested in warmist politics, noted that warmer periods have historically meant greater diversity. It’s warm now, but nowhere near as warm as it’s been in the past.

  13. Anyone who puts even the slightest stock in these predictions should be laughed at with the utmost scorn. Not only is the EPA completely self-involved in this, they’re also not exactly known for restraint, honesty, or having the best interests of anyone but the EPA in mind.

    And then of course, making predictions of this type for 85 years from now is so fucking idiotic that it’s giving me a headache.

    1. can anyone name 3 good things the EPA has done (on purpose)?

      1. Was (on purpose) really necessary?

      2. They did provide fodder for the best line in Ghostbusters.

        I got nothing for the other two good things.

        1. Thus giving William Atherton the experience to play basically the same character in his next movie.

      3. Sulfur dioxide cap and trade worked well.

    2. I predict that we’ll be energy beings in 50 years and won’t care about the material status of the Earth.

      1. “I wonder, my friends, was he really such an evil energy gas?”

        1. WELLLLLCHYYYYYYYY!

    3. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:

      First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

      Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

      The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

  14. More storms? Climate change.

    Fewer storms? Climate change.

    Drought? Climate change.

    Floods? Climate change.

    Doesn’t matter what it is. Heads they win, tails you lose.

    1. completely static weather patterns?

      1. Climate change.

        1. No climate change?

          1. You bet that’s climate change!

    2. How about climate change results in greater weather extremes?

      1. How about climate change results in greater weather extremes?

        Do you mean warmer temps result in “greater weather extremes”? If you did then the evidence indicates you would be wrong.

  15. The whole idea that “the costs of premature death resulting from air pollution at $930 billion” shows me that the EPA isn’t very good at arithmetic.

    Easily one of -of not the biggest contributor- to our nations economic debt is medical care, specifically end-of-life care through Medicaid. It’s well over $27 trillion in debt already and unlikely to lower any time soon.

    You know what brings that number down? People dying earlier. I would like to see how they too this in to consideration when making such bold claims.

    1. Smoking, drinking and obesity actually lower a person’s lifetime health care costs by shortening their life. For example the longer you live, the more likely you are to get cancer.

      1. I dunno, have you ever heard of a centenarian who didn’t drink and smoke?

        1. I dunno, have you ever heard of a centenarian who didn’t drink and smoke?

          Other than my great great grandfather, no.

        2. My great grandmother lived to be 103. She died from complications of a broken hip (Milwaukee in winter is a dangerous place for old people). She smoked a pack a day for 80 years. She drank a shot of Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Honey whiskey nightly(for good sleep she claimed) … I hope to all the Gods that I inherited the right genes from her.

          1. It’s not genetic, it’s the healthy lifestyle.

            1. Well I do like to polka as much as she did. She taught me to polka when I was 13, she was 79. We got out of breath at about the same time.

      2. DIon’t froget the massive amounts of taxws that are paid on those products.I would think that a smoker that dies at 65-70,after paying FICA and the employer paying the other half,plus tobacco taxes is a net gain for the government.

  16. It’s a good thing thing the oil industry isn’t funding this kind of fud. Oh, wait: http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all

    1. I was surprised to see Nike on that list.

      1. They need fossil fuels to make their products so they are ingratiating themselves to the industry by participating.

  17. Ron listen.They can not,in any way,know what this country will be like in 85 years.This is not news,it is a religion and they are reading out out of their book of revelations..Your throwing too much B.S. in your articles.

    1. This is the BS being peddled by our rulers. It is worth reporting on.

      1. Yeah, the concerted effort by governments and green groups ahead of the Paris summit is ridiculous. It needs to be documented and pointed out. It’s nothing but a massive PR campaign.

  18. Obamacare was supposed to save money, too. What a bunch of government bullshit propaganda! You’ve got to be a pretty big fucking retard or committed commie to believe these lies.

  19. Our favorite little man, Hamilton Nolan:

    Old People Gonna Be Dying More (From Heat)

    Lo! What fresh horrors shall the demon gods of global warming be visiting upon humanity in the near future, according to relentlessly negative scientists? Well, killing grandma, for one.

    For some reason old people are always dying in heat waves. Do they lack air conditioning? Do they lack cold showers? Do they lack the ability to wrap up a bunch of ice cubes in a paper towel and lay them on top of their head and feel the cold water dripping down the back of their neck in an almost sensual fashion? Maybe. What we can tell you for sure is this: the world’s top scientists are saddened to report that many more old people will probably be roasting to death in their own sweaty apartments in the next 20 or 30 years. A new climate change study from The Lancet, via the New York Times:

    *snip*

    Sorry you like coal so much that’s what you get.

    1. Well, this is true – in Europe. Where they don’t have air conditioning, and entire countries migrate in August, so no one is around to check on Grandma.

      1. Far more people are killed by cold yearly than by heat. From a Washington Post article I’m too lazy to bother linking to:

        “The bitter chill isn’t just an inconvenience. It could kill you. A 2007 study by Olivier Deschenes and Enrico Moretti found that “the number of annual deaths attributable to cold temperature is 27,940 or 1.3% of total deaths in the US.””

        “Extreme cold turns out to be deadlier than extreme heat. Hot weather kills, but digging deep into the data, Deschenes and Moretti find that it mostly kills people who were already close to death. After the heat wave ends, the death rate drops so sharply that it totally offsets the weather-related spike. “The only effect of the weather shock is to change the timing of mortality, but not the number of deaths,” they write.”

        So extreme heat doesn’t even increase the number of people who die over the summer because it just makes super old people die like 2 weeks earlier than they otherwise would have. Hamilton Nolan has a rough time with logic, doesn’t he?

    2. I wouldn’t click a Gawker link if you paid me, but does he or the study he’s citing spare a moment to analyze the effect on deaths from cold?

      1. I daresay cold is far more dangerous. If we were to slip into another deep ice age, humans would take a serious hit in less advanced nations. Much more so than with heat, unless the increase was quite dramatic–much more than likely.

        1. Oh cold is definitely more dangerous. If I took all my clothes off and laid in the sun on a 100 degree day, several hours later I’d be sunburned and very thirsty, but still kicking. If I did the same on a 10 degree day, several hours later I’d be quite dead.

      2. No it doesn’t because he’s a fucking idiot.

        1. Dare I say, cheap dirty energy can also be useful in cooling down all of those old folks?

    3. Old people don’t count. They were going to die soon anyway.

  20. “The EPA’s new report estimates”‘

    I estimate the EPA’s estimates will be as accurate as Ehrlich’s estimates circa 1968.

    Or my 100-year projections of $AAPL (which might be pushing it, as I suspect my 2100 prediction of the value of Apple’s stock will be orders of magnitude more accurate than anything that the EPA might say about the world four generations hence.

    1. They don’t care how accurate they are because they won’t be around in 100 years to be embarrassed and we won’t be around either to call them on it.

      Whenever I’m on reason, the page keeps refreshing every 30 seconds or so. How do I stop it???

  21. The lion’s share of unmitigated climate change stems from the costs of premature death resulting from air pollution at $930 billion

    Where/how do they get increased “air pollution” from “climate change”?

    And what’s the cost of preventing it supposed to be?

    It ain’t gonna be less than $1.5T/yr, cumulative, because every “sort of slow down climate change’ measure I’ve ever seen has been hugely expensive right now.

    In a way that naturally hurts poor people most of all.

  22. @Bailey It is interesting that you can do compound growth when it comes to projecting GDP at a 2% growth rate. Yet you fail to factor in what the compound negative effect on GDP will be by climate change as defined in this report (of which the link does not work for me). So simply stated, that it is a negative 1.5 Trillion in 2100 does not mean it was 0 in years 2015-2099.

    I’m not saying I agree with their figure or all of “climate change” but please do try to be more honest/accurate/complete.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.