I spent yesterday in a hearing room in Raleigh sitting through a meeting of the NC Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. The purpose of my presentation, "the costs of inaction," was to present the way that economists think about the costs of climate change (i.e., the benefits of mitigation). Many on the commission wanted something more ... a great big number that could be used to justify state action. As far as I know the economic research to support such a number for North Carolina has not been conducted.
Instead, my approach was to provide quantified estimates of some of the potential negative impacts of climate change. Since no economist has a good idea of the magnitudes of these impacts, I estimated the dollar value of each 1% change. I stated, clearly I think (and it was written on a slide), that if the impacts are larger (smaller) the 1% damage estimate can be scaled upwards (or downwards) to get a better idea of the magnitude of impacts in NC. As such the dollar values are low, each 1% change in some areas might lead to a cost per household of $16 (note: I also mixed apples and oranges, impacts and true costs).
I thought that I had repeatedly emphasized the underlined words above.
Here is my recollection of the Q&A:
Commissioner #1: Your estimates are too low and therefore you are being misleading.
John: The estimates are the dollar value of each 1% change.
Commissioner #2: Your estimates don't include certain categories of benefits and therefore you are being dishonest.
John: The estimates include only some of the potential negative impacts. Please don't call me dishonest.
Everyone loves the economist!
Here is my presentation [Download LCGCG042506.pdf].
