appreciate your time.
Around the world, the ravages of
climate change are evident in
record high temperatures,
floods, fires and other natural
disasters.
Here in the U.S., president Joe
Biden is taking executive action
in to address the climate
crisis, citing climate change as
both a national security and
economic risk.
My colleague Ali rogin takes a
closer look now at these
economic costs of inaction.
Ali: A major plan from Democrats
in congress to address climate
change is now all but dead.
Last week, West Virginia senator
Joe Manchin said he would not
support the legislation, citing
what he said was the proposal's
inflationary impact.
But the white house office of
management and budget says
failing to act on climate change
could cost the federal
government $2 trillion annually.
And a recent study from
dartmouth university found the
United States alone was
responsible for over $1.8
trillion in losses to developing
countries between 1990 and 2014.
Joining me now to discuss the
economic impacts of climate
change in action are Mary Anne
Hitt, she's the West Virginia
based senior director of the
advocacy group climate
imperative, and dharna Noor,
climate reporter for "The Boston
globe."
Thank you both so much for
joining us.
Mary Anne, I'd like to start
with you.
Senator Manchin, as we said, has
cited the inflationary impacts
of this, these proposals, which
included tax credits to
encourage clean energy
incentives to purchase electric
vehicles.
How would you respond to his
concerns about inflation?
Mary Anne: The sad reality is
that this bill actually would
have helped address inflation
because it would have helped
bring energy prices down for
regular Americans.
And that's by making clean
energy, which is already cheaper
than fossil fuels, more
available to more people and he
let that slip through his
fingers.
And it's a real missed
opportunity for folks here in
West Virginia and around the
country to lower our energy
bills and tackle the climate
crisis at the same time.
Ali: And dharna, Mary Anne just
mentioned some of the impacts
that actually affect both west
Virginia and nationally.
But I want to drill down into
what you're seeing on a national
scale.
What are some of the arguments
on an economic basis that
climate action advocates are
making right now?
Dharna: I think that what we're
seeing is a refusal to sort of
take on the bold action that we
need to take on the climate
crisis.
And one of the effects that
we're seeing, this is continuing
to sink costs into fossil fuel
infrastructure and other
infrastructure that's really not
going to be around in the future
if we want to essentially have a
livable future on Earth.
And so continuing to spend money
on these technologies that we
need to be phasing out is not a
very good idea.
Ali: And dharna, as we said, the
office of management and budget
is estimating that the federal
government could lose up to $2
trillion a year.
Due to climate change inaction.
What are some of the factors
that lead to a conclusion like
that?
Dharna: Well, again, by
continuing to sink costs into
technology and into
infrastructure that we know we
should not have around anymore.
So that's things like fossil
fuel plants, but also things
like expanded highways which
create a sort of market for more
cars and things like this.
There's the cost the climate
disaster itself can kind of levy
on our economies and on people.
You know, every time, for
instance, that infrastructure is
destroyed, highways destroyed, a
building is destroyed by the
climate crisis, by, you know, a
hurricane or a flood or a heat
wave or whatever it is.
If we continue to ignore the
impact of the climate crisis and
rebuild as though, you know,
another hurricane, flood or heat
wave is not going to come, I
think we're going to see that
we're wasting a lot of money.
Ali: Lastly to both of you, the
dartmouth report that we talked
about in the introduction, which
quantified that U.S. Carbon
emissions have done $1.9
trillion worth of damage to
other countries from 1990 to
2014.
That includes the damage to
other major carbon emitters like
Brazil and India, but also to
developing nations like
Venezuela and Nigeria.
Firsto you, Mary Anne.
Why is a study like this
important?
Mary Anne: A few years ago, at
one of the big global climate
conferences, the developed
nations of the world pledged
$100 billion to help the
developing world with climate
solutions.
And we have not delivered on
those funds.
And in the period that since
then, those developing countries
have been hit the hardest by
climate impacts, and that
eventually spills back over onto
our borders when there are food
shortages, water shortages,
triggering refugee crises and
global instability around the
world.
So the developed world needs to
step up and do our part to help
these countries face the climate
crisis because, again,
ultimately, it will spill back
over onto our border.
Ali: And dharna, lastly to you,
the study also found that the
u.s.'s own carbon emissions
actually boosted its economy by
$183 billion over the same
period.
Does that make it harder to
argue that the economic costs
for climate change action when
over the years polluting
industries have actually been so
much a part of what drove
economic development in this
country?
Dharna: I think it demonstrably
has made it harder to sort of
overcome this challenge.
But I would say that part of the
reason that these polluting
industries have been such a huge
part of the economy is because
the U.S. Pours billions and
billions of subsidies into them.
If the U.S. Instead decided to
subsidize or even, you know,
create a public sector for clean
industries, I think that we'd
see that those would end up
being a huge part of our economy
and we could really help other
nations to sort of make that
transition as well.
So I think that, yes, while
there's so much that so much
that we do have to spend,
there's also quite a lot to be
gained for, you know, the U.S.
As a whole for the world and
also for us on the individual
Ali: Mary Anne Hitt with climate
imperative, dharna Noor with
"The Boston globe," thank you