written 19 November 2023
published 26 November 2023
Every day, some article complains that the green revolution is "unaffordable", as if the issue is a fashion choice, like getting new carpets for the house this year, or buying a new winter coat. Without a doubt, decarbonizing the economy, changing the entire energy sector, will be expensive, adventuring into uncharted territory. But unaffordable compared to what?
Despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel industry and their bought politicians, the climate issue is gaining more attention every day. Two thirds of Americans now want renewable energy, even 40 percent of Republicans. 2023 is entering the record book as the hottest year ever experienced by humans.
Atmospheric CO2 is now 50 percent higher than pre-industrial levels, a situation last seen 5 million years ago, when the planet was 3°C warmer, and the sea level was 60 feet higher. We are already 1.1°C warmer. However, our addition of CO2 has been so rapid that the heating response has been lagging behind, but is now accelerating, with recent projections we will hit 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030.
Weather extremes make the news. For example, on October 25th, hurricane Otis hit Acapulco, Mexico. The day before, everyone was preparing for a typical tropical storm, with winds of 70mph. But the climate warmed ocean rapidly intensified the storm, and Otis hit as a category 5 hurricane, with winds above 165mph, and gusts over 205mph, one of the strongest on record. Every building in Acapulco was either damaged or destroyed. The city of 1 million was cut off for days, forcing residents to scramble for water and food. Estimates are that it will take $15B, and years, to recover. In addition to destroying infrastructure, the climate crisis is adversely affecting crop yields, raising prices and increasing the risk of widespread starvation, creating lethal heat affecting agricultural workers, and the drought in Panama has cut Canal shipping in half, making supply chain issue more difficult and expensive.
Our complex technological economic system is dependent of global supply chains across thousands of miles and numerous countries. This system evolved over time, building on trusted relationships with reliable sources, giving us a standard of living unprecedented in history. However, our economic model has squeezed out the redundancy of multiple sources, in the name of "market efficiency", which has led to a more precarious situation. The loss of a single player can have global impact.
As the climate crisis increasingly destroys, or just deteriorates, parts of the entire globe, like a giant game of Jenga, removing pieces everywhere, we become more unstable, less resilient, both economically and materially. It is foolish not to notice, and begin to respond to change the situation before we lose the ability to respond at all. By the time a firestorm is heading toward your house, your opportunities have narrowed to just fleeing for your life.
For decades, our economy has grown on the back of affordable fossil fuels, which are now depleted, raising prices, while leaving us with a civilization threatened by the climactic consequences of a polluted atmosphere. Globally, we pay trillions of dollars per year retail for this fuel. Governments annually subsidize the industry with trillions more, in direct payments and externalized climate damages and health costs. The global economy generates about $120T annually, and a very modest price to earnings ratio of 10 means the invested infrastructure is worth at least $1,200T. This entire fiscal net worth is at risk due to increasing climate disasters, without considering any value we put on human life, or the value of living on a habitable planet.
The climate solution is two-fold: stop adding to the problem with complete decarbonization of the economy, and begin immediate removal of 1,000 gigatons of atmospheric carbon, with a goal of returning to pre-industrial levels by 2050. We have wasted decades due to the well-funded climate denial industry, so any effective response will have to be more rapid, and therefore expensive.
Global decarbonization costs are estimated at about $275T over 30 years, about $9T annually, less than 8 percent of global GDP. That can be considered either as an insurance payment to avoid complete disaster, or a tax on stupidity and selfishness.
Part of the problem is that people are reluctant to look at the magnitude of what is at risk. Is a habitable planet desirable? If so, how can we accept it is unaffordable? Think about that.
