On the costs of climate change in the Pacific NW

Global warming to cost us:

Global warming is known to be destructive, but a study released Wednesday shows it also will be expensive, costing Washington state and its residents millions of dollars in higher prices and remedial measures.

Climbing temperatures over the next 40 years will boost the cost of timber, water and crops, cause twice the wildfire damage that occurs now, exacerbate health issues and require expensive shoring-up to avoid damage to Tacoma, Willapa Bay and other low-lying areas.

...

The study provided no dollar total for the changes' costs and gave no suggestions for policy changes to minimize the effect of climate change, because the group wasn't asked to do so, Doppelt said.

Here is a summary and a PDF of the 118 page report at the Washington State Department of Ecology website.

Comments

[John Platt]

Here in the NE, some loggers can't work because the forest floors that are usually frozen hard enough to dive on this time of year are soft and muddy.

[Dano]

Over at Climate Audit, they're still debating the Hockey Stick. Surely they should stop for a minute, write Olympia, and carefully explain that it's all a hoax.

Seriously, some of the newly-designated appellations outside of Yakima would go away, and that would be bad. Free tip: Wahluke Slope reds. Get 'em while you can.

Best,

D

[Biopolitical]

Although the title of the web page is "Impacts of Climate Change on Washington's Economy" the list only includes negative impacts. Why does it omit the positive ones?

[Johnny Chimpo]

Biopolitical - please feel free to share all of your positive impacts here for discussion purposes.

[Dano]

Yes, please Marcelino. Bring your 'ecological' education to bear here and explain all the results of, say, the FACE experiments to us.

Best,

D

[Whit Stevens]

"But the impacts are manageable with an appropriate response, and climate change does open the door for new economic opportunities."

Of course there are benefits to global warming. The question is, will there be net positive benefits?

[Johnny Chimpo]

Reminds me of a study done by (I don't want to mention any names) where respondents to a recreational use survey were only interviewed in summer to address the likely effects of climate change and the conclusion was (huge surprise) consistent with net benefits. Let's just interview the mountain bikers and ignore the skiers when drawing our conclusions. Super study design.

[joshua corning]

Biopolitical - please feel free to share all of your positive impacts here for discussion purposes.

According to NPR heating fuel prices fell because of a mild winter conditions in the east (US) and as a bonus stock prices rose on the news.

Then there is all that stuff on longer growing seasons and combined with the unrelated higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmo produce higher crop yields (note: higher temps my not be completely unrelated to higher temp...higher temps may contribute to higher levels of co2 in the atmo.)

[joshua corning]

Yes, please Marcelino. Bring your 'ecological' education to bear here and explain all the results of, say, the FACE experiments to us.

Dano seems to think that an ""ecological" educations" is anything more then the lesser biology degree (no hard chem or math classes) combined with a quick uncritical indoctrinations of Marx.

[Dano]

and combined with ... higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmo produce higher crop yields

Some unnamed people have been shown numerous times that this is net untrue due to N apportionment and N limitations combined with O3 and other things FACE studies find.

And the Wahluke slope likely will not find higher crop yields, nor will the Palouse due to precip changes. I'm sure the Palouse will adapt.

Yet, this does not comport with the beliefs of certain worldviews and is ignored. Sort of a more sophisticated 'lalalala I can't hear youuuuu'.

Best,

D

[joshua corning]

I'm sure the Palouse will adapt.

nah...it will degrade into a second Coeur d'Alene War.