Best Economic Analyses: Economy Can Thrive as We Cap Carbon
October 2, 2009 | Posted by Tom Olson in Economics
When you want to find out which cars are best, you look to honest experts who do their homework – like Consumer Reports or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
At EDF, we do the same thing when it comes to analyzing how the economy will fare under a carbon cap: we look at what the neutral, nonpartisan economists are saying.
In the world of economic forecasts, the honest brokers include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Information Administration, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Congressional Budget Office.
In a just-released publication, EDF’s economics team looks at what these nonpartisan experts are saying about the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, or ACES). As you recall, that bill would put a gradually declining cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Here’s what we found: according to unbiased economic experts, if we adopt ACES, the US economy will reach $25 trillion in the spring of 2030 – just a couple of months after it would do so with no cap. In other words, we don’t have to compromise between a strong economy and a better environment. We can have both.
To help you see how tiny the impact of a cap on economic growth will be, check out this chart:
The new EDF paper builds on our analysis last year of nonpartisan studies of earlier climate bills. The new studies square up perfectly with last year’s: fighting climate change is easily affordable.
So what about those wild numbers you hear tossed around – that if we cap carbon, the economy will crater and families will go broke paying ginormous utility bills? Those numbers aren’t from these neutral, nonpartisan studies; they’re from “studies” by groups who want to kill climate legislation.
We’ve rebutted the crazy numbers elsewhere. But this brief is about real economic studies done by serious, neutral experts.
The new paper also compares the tiny costs of protecting ourselves against potentially catastrophic global warming with the much larger amounts we spend to protect ourselves in other ways – like police and fire protection, life insurance, and national defense. This chart tells the story:
There are a lot more goodies in our economists’ new report — check it out. And if you want the graduate-level course, you can learn still more about climate economics at http://www.edf.org/climatecosts.




3 Responses
Comment from Pierre Champagne
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It was only a matter of time before the economics shifted. We are now starting to pay for the destruction we have caused. But, more important is the fact that demand for green products will only increase. Companies that do not make that shift will lose in international markets as they see the non-green market shrink.
That is one of the premises behind the new strategy at:
A Revenue-Neutral Alternative to Cap-and-Trade for Global Warming, Resource Conservation, Toxic Contaminants, Etc.
Tags: Global Warming, Cap-and-Trade Alternative Solutions, Renewable Energy, Resource Conservation, Revenue-Neutral Taxes…
Pingback from Economists Agree: Cap Carbon, Save the Economy
December 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
[...] reports have indicated an emerging economic consensus [4] in favor of climate action—like this Environmental Defense Fund review [5] of climate economics literature and this Government Accountability Office report [6] on the [...]
Pingback from CBO Counts Costs of Climate Action, But Not Benefits? : Wildlife Promise
January 15th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
[...] Elmendorf's testimony led to scare headlines in the Washington Post implying economic Armageddon. But what does a ".25 to .75 percent reduction in GNP" really look like, especially over decades of still-robust economic growth? Check out this graphic from EDF: [...]
Leave a Reply
User comments reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of Environmental Defense Fund. We reserve the right to delete comments that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate. We also reserve the right to delete duplicate comments, or comments that have no relationship to the original post.