Saturday 30 November 2013

Counting the Cost



Source: Flickr

 Bloomberg recently reported on an Asian Development Bank (ADB) study which suggested that regional mean temperatures in 2090 for East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea and Mongolia) could be 3.8 to 5.2 degrees Celsius higher than the 1961-1990 average. As a result, the region could be vulnerable to floods that could threaten $864 billion in assets.

Adapting infrastructure to climate change would cost the region $22.9 billion a year in 2005 dollars in areas such as coastal protection. Climate-related natural disasters since 1970 have cost $259 billion to China, $64 billion to Japan, $15 billion to South Korea and $2 billion to Mongolia. It may thus make economic sense for the region to embark on more adaptation measures.

 An interesting study was conducted by Rojelj et al (2013) to determine the probablistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. At present global carbon prices of less than US$1 / tCO2e, the likelihood of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius is almost zero. However, imposing a carbon price of about US$20/ tCO2e would increase the probability of staying below 2 degrees Celsius to about 50%.
Source: Rojelj et al (2013)
The same paper also found that carbon price would be highly sensitive to political inaction. Should governmental action be delayed till 2030, the probability of global mean temperatures staying below 2 degrees Celsius dropped dramatically from 50% to 15%
Source: Rojelj et al (2013)
In conclusion, whichever energy mix that a country selects, it would be important that adaptive measures are also put in place by policy makers early. It makes economic sense to do so, as illustrated above. 

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Unknown1 December 2013 at 18:07

    Good one Joon. It does make sense indeed, let's see if it happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown2 December 2013 at 16:30

      HI Azucena, thank you for the comment! From the looks of the recent Warsaw meeting, there remains much to be done. :)

      Delete
  2. Missingno.8 December 2013 at 17:31

    Political action has a cost too, in terms of loss of capital in fossil fuel companies, loss of personal political capital from choosing this issue at the expense of others, and loss of potential social standing if you're a wealthy politician (related again to fossil fuel companies). Here in the UK, Shell and BP are 1st and 3rd of the top 3 FTSE 100 companies by market capitalisation, and both together make up over 1/8 of the total market capitalization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown9 December 2013 at 00:25

      This is a very good point. The political cost is an area that may be difficult to quantify, but is certainly an area that politicians will be concerned about when pondering over the proposed climate change actions.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)