The WSJ left us wondering what in the world the IPCC thinks the cost of climate change mitigation might be. Instead of actually reading the orginal text, bor-ring, I keep reading the reviews.
Here is another perspective from the NYTimes (Select - $$$):
According to several authors, the final version estimates that bringing global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 to levels measured in 2000 would require a cost on released carbon dioxide of $50 to $100 a ton, roughly on a par — in terms of fossil fuel prices — with an additional 50 cents to $1.00 for a gallon of gasoline.
The report projects that this shift might cause a small blunting of global economic activity, resulting in an overall reduction of perhaps one-tenth of a percentage point per year through 2100 in the world’s total economic activity, the authors said.
Some of the experts and government officials involved in the final discussions said in telephone interviews and in e-mail messages that the costs could be substantially greater than that.
Zero point one percent (0.1%) is tiny! Much, much less than the 3% mentioned by the WSJ that I, apparently, incorrectly (gasp) interpreted as annual.
Here we go with the rule of 72 again. If economic growth is 3% per year then incomes will double every 24 years. If economic growth is 2.9% per year then incomes will double every 24 years, 9 months and 29 days. Oh bother, even I'll accept those additional costs.
The BBC has still another interpretation of the report:
The report assesses the likely costs to the global economy of stabilising greenhouse gases at various concentrations in the atmosphere.
Stabilisation at reasonable cost is possible, it concludes, commenting: "There is considerable economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels."
The sharpest cuts, keeping greenhouse gas concentrations to levels equivalent to between 445 and 535 parts per million of carbon dioxide, might cost anything up to 3% of global GDP by 2030, while milder curbs could even enhance growth.
The current atmospheric concentrations are equivalent to about 425 parts per million of CO2.
Assessing the impacts of a given concentration is not an exact science, but many researchers believe that keeping concentrations below about 450ppm CO2-eq is necessary if the average global temperature rise is to be kept below 2C, and major impacts avoided.
The IPCC suggests that concentrations between 445ppm and 490ppm would keep the temperature rise to 2.0-2.8C. European Union policy is to avoid a rise greater than 2C.
"If you want to stabilise around 450ppm, that means in a decade or two you have to start reducing emissions far below the current level," said Dr Pachauri.
"So in other words, we have a very short window for turning around the trend we have in rising greenhouse gas emissions. We don't have the luxury of time.
I'll go out on a limb and say that think the costs might be anywhere from 0.1% to 3% per year by 2030.
