What if global warming is non-linear

7 comments

August 26, 8:44 PM

by John Ryden, Global Warming Examiner

 

 

In this photo released by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, marine debris of all
types and sources wash ashore on Laysan Island in
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 2005.
(AP Photo/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration)

How much should we pay now to prevent future global warming. If it takes 60 years for the big damage to occur, then the economic present value of that future cost is actually fairly small. For example, if you knew that it would cost $500 billion per year for future damage from global warming then you wouldn’t be justified in spending the same amount per year now to advert the damage. You would only be able to justify spending about $5 billion per year now assuming a discount rate of 7% per year. (Assumes you will double your investment about every 8 years. Also assumes the damage will only cost $500 billion per year which may be low. This articles purpose is not to estimate the future cost of global warming by to show how much current cost is affected by different warming scenarios.)

The above assumes that the damage from global warming is linear; i.e. it increases at a steady rate each year. The problem is that if we continue to increase the amount of carbon emissions, then global warming will increase at an exponential rate. That could bring us to a crisis much more rapidly. If the earth captures an increasing amount of energy from the sun, the ocean could warm up and expand at a faster rate. It might rise 1 foot in only 40 years. Now we should be spending more money each year to prevent a future cost. At 40 years, we should be investing about $16 billion per year now in my above example.

The worse case for global warming is that it works in more of a step function. When we reach a certain level of carbon in the atmosphere, the earth starts changing very rapidly to reach a new steady state. This could be caused by massive amounts of ice from Greenland and Antarctica suddenly melting into the ocean and the ocean level rising very rapidly.

It could also be caused by the release of more greenhouse gases due to raising temperatures. It was interesting to note the scientific study into carbon capture in the Arctic region. The study measured the amount of carbon trapped in 117 different northern permafrost sites to a depth of 1 meter. The stock of organic carbon was estimated to be 60% greater than previously believed. Permafrost covers about one fifth of the world’s land mass. If only the carbon in North America was released into the atmosphere, is would increase carbon levels by one sixth.

As temperatures rise, it is not given that all this carbon will be released as either methane or carbon dioxide. But it is worth watching. If global warming starts accelerating for any cause, then the amount of current investment we should make to combat climate change could also rise very fast. The prudent thing to do at this time is to develop the technology for renewable energy and start developing and implementing a plan to lower our annual carbon emissions.

   Subscribe   Feed

Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use