Economics of the Environment
If you have a shoe that is nearly getting torn would you
rather wait to have it torn so that you can mend it or you would rather repair
it before it gets worn out? You can choose to wait and have it torn and
therefore end up using more money to mend it or you can mend it at the early
stage and you are safe. This is the same as addressing effects of climate
change.
Stopping global warming and protecting the earth’s climate
has and is still a daunting nightmare. This has to be addressed with a lot f
speed and urgency to enable us change ways in which we create and use energy
and much more relating to our development and lifestyle pathways. This change
is not free. We have already experienced resistance to paying for the first crucial
steps along the road. The perception is that reaching for more ambitious
mitigation targets and quicker reduction in emissions would translate to
economic disaster.
The critical question we need to ask ourselves is whether
the “go slow” recommendations are unjustified or justified. A number of
economic analyses informed by recent scientific suggest that more ambitious
targets and quicker reduction of emissions makes good economic sense. Despite
the adverse effects of climate change, it has not as a consequence become
impossible inexpensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable
future. The sad news about climate change relates to the cost of reluctance and
inaction. As greenhouse gas emissions grow, it’s the cost of doing nothing that
becomes unbearable, and not the cost of acting.
We cannot afford a little Climate Policy, half measures that
would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly
destructive climate. We need a big initiative, a comprehensive global deal on protecting
the earth’s climate by rapidly reducing emissions of green house gases.
This series will be trying to analyze the costs of inaction
to climate change effects.
By Alphaxard Gitau Ndungu