1 / 19

Socio-Economic Impacts of Global Warming

Socio-Economic Impacts of Global Warming. Ronald B. Mitchell Department of Political Science University of Oregon Governor’s Advisory Council on Global Warming 2 February 2004. Points of Departure. Global warming is likely and impacts are likely to be negative

felix
Download Presentation

Socio-Economic Impacts of Global Warming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Socio-Economic Impactsof Global Warming Ronald B. Mitchell Department of Political Science University of Oregon Governor’s Advisory Council on Global Warming 2 February 2004

  2. Points of Departure • Global warming is likely and impacts are likely to be negative • But costs and benefits of policy responses - mitigation and adaptation – also matter • May choose to mitigate (reduce emissions) but will have to adapt • Environmental sustainability requires creating conditions for strong, long-term policy commitments (“policy sustainability”)

  3. Impacts on Oregon:Determinants • Global Business as Usual (BAU) emissions • Mitigation in Oregon • But Oregon only about 1% of global problem • Mitigation by Rest of World • Response of natural system depends on: • Total Oregon + Rest of World emissions • Causal linkages of GHGs to forcing events • Adaptation in Oregon • Proactive adaptation • Responsive adaptation

  4. Climate Change:Likely Forcing Events in Oregon • Declining snowpack – up to 50% decline • Rising sea level – up to 1 foot or more • Rising temperatures – up to 5 F or more • Weather variability – higher variance in temp, storm intensity, drought/rain cycles

  5. The Future for Oregon’s Snowpack?Austrian Glacial Retreat Since 1900 Source: Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V. 2002. Das gletscherarchiv. http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/. Accessed: 15 January 2003.

  6. The Future for Oregon’s Snowpack?Austrian Glacial Retreat Since 1900 Old water storage Source: Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V. 2002. Das gletscherarchiv. http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/. Accessed: 15 January 2003.

  7. The Future for Oregon’s Snowpack?Austrian Glacial Retreat Since 1900 Old water storage New water storage Source: Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V. 2002. Das gletscherarchiv. http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/. Accessed: 15 January 2003.

  8. The Future for Oregon’s Coasts?Sea Level Rise Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. State Impacts – Oregon http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpactsOR.html Accessed: 31 January 2004.

  9. Consequences of Inaction • Flooding (river, coastal) and drought • Energy (demand, supply) • Freshwater (municipal, manufacturing, agriculture) • Agriculture (crops, pests, disease, inputs) • Forestry (fires, disease) • Human health (heat, disease) • Fisheries/hunting, Recreation • Ecosystem services • Politics: impacts uncertain, in future, may be hard to observe, easy to blame on Nature or “other’s” emissions

  10. Consequences of Inaction:Vulnerability Varies • Vulnerability of different citizens depends on exposure and ability to adapt, which depend on: • Income (rich/poor) • Location (urban/rural, mountains/ocean, western/eastern Oregon) • Type of employment (farming, hi tech) • Age (very young/very old) • Nature vs. humans

  11. Mitigation Policy:Three Ways to Reduce Emissions Emissions = Population * Technology * Behavior • Population, e.g., # of homes, # of cars • Technology, e.g., types of homes, types of cars • Behavior, e.g., thermostat setting, miles driven • Ex: Oregon CO2 emissions Pop’nCO2/capTotal CO2 1990: 2.8 M 19.6 tons 55.7m tons 1998: 3.3 M 17.3 tons 57.9m tons (12% decrease)

  12. Mitigation Policy:Three Ways to Reduce Emissions Emissions = Population * Technology * Behavior • Population, e.g., # of homes, # of cars • Technology, e.g., types of homes, types of cars • Behavior, e.g., thermostat setting, miles driven • Ex: Oregon CO2 emissions Pop’nCO2/capTotal CO2 1998: 3.3 M 17.3 tons 57.9m tons 2000: 3.3 M 19.0 tons 63.5m tons (10% increase)

  13. Costs and Benefits of Mitigation:Non-Climate Benefits Matter • Oregon benefits from Oregon mitigation are small • Indirect benefits unclear (WA/CA, US, RoW): • Symbolic effects of policy – “should do it” • Innovation/demonstration effects – “can do it” • Some strategies can win support: local, near-term, secondary environmental, economic, and social benefits sometimes outweigh costs • Most strategies won’t win support: local, clear, immediate, and concentrated costs outweigh global, unclear, future, and diffuse benefits

  14. Costs and Benefits of Adaptation:Two Approaches • Some adaptation will be necessary • Proactive adaptation: while impacts uncertain • E.g., construction of dams, seawalls, powerplants • Costs are local, clear, and concentrated • Benefits are local but uncertain and in future • Responsive adaptation: after impacts happen • Compensation, reconstruction, relocation • Costs are local, clear, but limited, “necessary” • Benefits are local, certain, and current

  15. The Policy Problem • Citizens currently engage in behaviors that contribute to climate change because: • Incentives: “it’s the best alternative I have” but also • Ability: “it’s the only alternative I have” • Morality: “it’s the right alternative for me” • How do we shape incentives, abilities, and morality so people change their behaviors?

  16. Basic Elements of a Solution? • Change magnitude of costs and benefits actors already consider important • Change which and whose costs and benefits actors consider important • Change what actors consider as “appropriate” behavior • Develop a portfolio of policies and strategies and promote policy experiments

  17. Environmental SustainabilityRequires Stable Policy Commitment • Recognize need to manage not solve problem: 3, 5, or 10 years not enough • Do not let uncertainty breed inaction • Foster science that is policy-relevant • Ensure policy and management are inclusive and adaptive • Educate and engage the public, foster “open source” policymaking

  18. Conclusions • May choose to mitigate but will be forced to adapt • Mitigation by Oregonians has few direct benefits for Oregon, so building political support will be challenging • Adaptation is likely to be more viable politically • Responding to climate change effectively will require thinking in ways that are sustainable politically

More Related