Print  email 

Climate change likely to be costly for Washington residents

By Katie Baird, Peter Dorman and Hart Hodges | For The Olympian • Published March 12, 2009

• Comments (0)

Most people would not be very happy if they had to devote a bigger chunk of their household income every year to a problem that could have been mitigated years earlier for a fraction of the cost. Yet that scenario seems likely if the global society fails to adopt policies to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases.

A number of bills have been introduced in the current legislative session intended to reduce the state's carbon emissions. These bills have, understandably, resulted in heated discussion about whether it is better to act now to mitigate the effects of climate change or to respond to the changes later.

A new report, prepared by The Program on Climate Economics of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon, offers some startling projections of the cost of climate change to Washingtonians.

Staff at Oregon's climate economics program and ECONorthwest, an economics consulting firm, analyzed what the costs would be for Washington households of not reducing carbon emissions and allowing climate change to proceed uncontrolled. We are members of the program's steering committee and have recently reviewed the report.

The report suggests that uncontrolled climate change would impose costs on Washington in a number of ways. For example, rising temperatures will produce more asthma and result in higher health care costs in general. Rising temperatures also will result in more wildfires and could result in more frequent winter floods, which will damage buildings and diminish property values. Moreover, productivity could decline in important sectors such as agriculture.

The authors of the study note that there will be benefits from a warmer climate, such as fewer health problems related to cold weather and longer growing seasons in agriculture. But the research team concluded the net effect in Washington would be negative in these areas. The team also concluded that the net effect on supplies of clean water and various environmental services — vital to our economy and quality of life — would be negative.