A recurring theme one sees these days is that switching to renewable sources of energy or adapting to the changes we're already seeing will be too expensive.
Other than a few quick comments, we can dispense with arguments about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether the planet is warming. These issues were settled decades ago.
The greenhouse effect was first described in 1824, although it wasn't given that name at the time. That came later. To quote from Wikipedia:
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.[12] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. She concluded that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature..."[13][14]
We will see some claiming that CO2 is essential, that plants need it, and so on. Like many fairy tales, there are some grains of truth in what they say. Without CO2, Earth would be too cold for us and many other organisms. Plants do absorb CO2 to make carbohydrates. Unfortunately, that glosses over more important truths. This article from NOAA covers most of the important bits. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, rapidly. That increase can be linked to increasing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's ever been for the past 3 million years. Global temperatures are rising as a consequence.
We can see what's happening. This past summer, many parts of the world experienced devastating, very intense, forest fires. In recent times, various parts have experienced unprecedented floods, some are already experiencing sea level rise, Arctic sea ice cover in summer is decreasing, some Antarctic ice shelves are disintegrating. deserts are increasing. The Gobi and Sahara Deserts are both increasing in size. These are facts.
As of a month or so ago, BC had spent over $500 million fighting forest fires. In 2021, it was over $700 million.
Europe generally (especially Spain, Greece and France) has seen forest fire costs exceed $ billion Euros (that's about C$5.7 billion) so far this year.
In the USA, the cost of fighting forest fires in 2022 was US$3.7 Billion.
That article goes on to note:
For instance, a study by University College London stated in the report showed that California’s 2018 wildfires alone cost the U.S. a whopping $148.5 billion. Capital losses and health costs within the state amounted to $59.9 billion.
The True Cost of Wildfires is discussed in this article.
It's important to note that climate change doesn't "cause" the fires. It just makes conditions more conducive to fire starts and more intense fires. Warmer weather and droughts increase tree mortality, adding to the problem.
Climate change has been a key factor in increasing the state’s risk for wildfire. Hotter temperatures create drier conditions, exacerbate drought, and make fires easier to spread and harder to put out.
I'm going to pretty much ignore silly claims that "most of the forest fires" were caused by arsonists, even if Alberta Premier Danielle claims that they were. There is NO evidence to support such a claim. Danielle has made other silly (and dangerous) claims. Albertans are paying the cost of those silly claims, as recent e-coli outbreaks in Calgary make very clear. That's a story for another post.
Smoke from this summer's forest fires in Canada made its way across North America, all the way to the East Coast. It is estimated that 8 million people die from air pollution globally each year. Forest fires are only one part of that pollution, but they are a significant part.
And, of course, fires add to CO2 emissions, which adds to warming, and so on. Fires also reduce the size of our forests, reducing the ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
In our area, it's been true for some time that domestic fire insurance policies are not available from at least some insurers during the summer. That added risk for some people is also an added cost, it just isn't easy to quantify. Also in our area, vocal conspiracists have disrupted discussions about bringing in Climate Action Plans, even as massive fires burn in our province.
Despite these and other costs, there are arguments that adaptation and mitigation are too expensive?
Someone needs to explain that line of "thinking", because it's not clear to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment