The cost of not acting on climate change

We often talk about the impacts of climate change to the planet. Arctic ice melting, species threatened with extinction, and increasing intensities of natural disasters. It all takes a toll on our environment. Inevitably, it all takes a toll on humans, and the first place we may see that in Canada is on the hard costs.
Can we avoid this? Most certainly. I was on CTV News Channel last night answering that exact question, showing that it is indeed possible to deal with climate change. WWF’s analysis is that a global transition to conservation, efficiency and renewable energy would actually save us $5.5 trillion annually by 2050.

Chris Turner, author of “The Leap” and Zoe Caron on CTV (C) Zoe Caron/ WWF-Canada
If we don’t act, we’re paying for the health impacts of climate change (yes, even in Canada). The agricultural sector is already facing rough times in southern Canada, and these impacts would continue. But when we do act, we are avoiding this. And no one in the world is better placed to deal with climate change. Canada’s natural resources, bounty of renewable energy, stable economy, and citizens with environmental values puts us in a lucky place indeed to be able to lead.
The obvious question is; well, how much would it cost us to deal with climate change and avoid these costs to our economy? One estimate, made by the former Senior Economist to the World Bank, says that acting on climate change globally will cost about 2% of GDP, while not acting will cost anywhere from 5 to 20% of GDP. Yesterday’s report gives a more conservative estimate of 1% of GDP by 2050, which may very well be too low, according to the authors of the report.
So when we do act, as many are, where does the money go? Those funds need to be spent in a number of ways. A big part of it is investing in programs that create efficiency and conservation of energy. A colleague of mine recently framed this as, “If only we thought of efficiency and conservation as a source of energy, we’d realize we were sitting on a gold mine.” Every amount of energy not spent is one gained. Surprisingly, investing in efficiency and conservation creates even more jobs than renewable energy.
Speaking of which, renewable energy is the other piece of the puzzle that needs investment. While there are currently various financial incentives and subsidies for coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy, there is little in the way to help solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, or small-scale hydro break into the market. The “cost” of this is often thought of as simply shifting where we spend our money. So, instead of $1.4 billion that goes to oil, coal and gas, why isn’t that going to renewable energy as well? These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves.
The brilliant part of this story that should be remembered is that half of Canadians think climate change is urgent and important. And the mass majority of Canadians support renewable energy over coal, oil and gas. Again, it’s about re-directing our economy, re-allocating resources, and acting at a quick pace that allows us to avoid the greater costs of inaction.
At the end of the day, there is little choice. Climate change is facing us, and it comes down to much more than numbers on a budget sheet.
The report Paying the Price is available online at www.nrtee-trnee.ca.