Climate and Energy: All on the Same Side

Abstract:

The full scholarship on climate and energy shows that efficient policies consistent with scientific understanding will benefit the economy, employment, health, and national security as well as ethics and environment. Because of widespread support for advancing these goals, people who have learned accurate information tend to favor efforts to reduce CO2 emissions (mitigation). Numerous arguments against mitigation, when analyzed fully, actually favor it. As one example of many, uncertainties in the scholarship are often cited as providing justification for delaying mitigation; however, proper accounting for many uncertainties increases the estimated value of reducing CO2. This may be clearest in economics, where averaging across uncertain discount rates increases the value of mitigation efforts compared to calculations with a single central rate (Arrow et al., 2013, Science 341, p. 349). Estimates of climate sensitivity generally have a long tail to high values, so averaging over the full range increases the calculated mean warming from CO2 and thus the value of mitigation in comparison to use of a single modal value. The most-likely sea-level rise under strong warming is generally projected as close to 1 m by 2100, but with uncertainties of slightly less, slightly more, or much more. Costs of rising sea level are likely superlinear, so a full accounting of the value of reduced sea-level rise from avoided warming shows greater or much greater value than estimated using the most-likely rise. Accurate communications helping people see that arguments nominally against mitigation actually favor mitigation, and that people who nominally disagree with each other are actually on the same side, may be helpful in finding solutions.