Socio-Economic Impacts of Global Warming

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