Climate change: the cost of waiting

When we talk about the cost of fighting climate change, it’s worth remembering that doing nothing isn’t free. The debate is not over whether we should pay. It’s about when (and how) we should. Do we make changes to our economy now? Or do we brace ourselves for more frequent natural disasters, more dangerous conflicts, shifting agricultural zones,  rising sea levels, increased immigration pressures,  disappearing natural resources,  general devastation, and a host of unexpected consequences?

Today, the International Energy Agency tells us that taking our time to decide has its costs too.

Saving the planet cannot wait. For every year that passes, the window for action on emissions over a given period becomes narrower — and the costs of transforming the energy sector increase. We calculate that each year of delay before moving onto the emissions path consistent with a 2°C temperature increase would add approximately $500 billion to the global incremental investment cost of $10.5 trillion for the period 2010-2030. A delay of just a few years would probably render that goal completely out of reach.

Meanwhile, Reuters points out that climate change negotiators are saying they need another six to twelve months to reach an agreement.

U.N. talks meant to agree a deal in Copenhagen in December to extend or replace the existing Kyoto Protocol have struggled to overcome a rich-poor rift on how to split the cost of curbing carbon emissions, for example from burning fossil fuels.

Developed countries accept that they have to take the burden of cutting carbon emissions, but want developing nations to accept binding actions too under a new treaty.

Poor countries want financial help to implement carbon emissions cuts and prepare for unavoidable global warming, including droughts, floods and rising seas.

The IEA report is here.