Last week, the Economics Club at Michigan Tech hosted a panel on the economics of climate change featuring five research scientists from different departments and institutes at Michigan Tech. The panel began by providing the latest evidence for human-caused climate change.
Dr. Sarah Green, professor of chemistry, presented a slide detailing one of the major consequences of unmitigated emissions. Green argued that we can expect hotter weather more frequently, and that by the end of this century average temperatures will have risen by 8.3°F relative to the pre-industrial era. “This is an economic issue… labor productivity goes down as temperature increases,” Green said.
Dr. Nancy Langston, professor of Environmental History, investigated one of the biggest roadblocks for emissions reduction policies. While 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human activities are a contributor to climate change, the public doesn’t have nearly as much confidence. In contrast, the public believes that just 55 percent of scientists agree with human caused climate change, she noted. “What we should be having is a lively disagreement over what we do about it, not ‘is the science right’. What is the most efficient, just, economically viable way to enact policy reforms,” Langston said. “It’s all of us who make political will. The politicians carry out our political will…”
Additionally, Dr. Jessica McCarty, a research engineer at the Michigan Tech Research Institute in Ann Arbor, pointed out some of the misconceptions regarding the economic implications of climate mitigation policies. One misconception is the importance of the coal mining industry as a source of jobs for Americans. “Arby’s employs more people than coal mining in the U.S.,” McCarty said. Indeed, coal mining is becoming less economically viable as energy utilities switch their plants to cheaper, cleaner burning natural gas. The panel also discussed some policy solutions to address climate change.
Langston proposed that governments tax carbon to cover some of the costs suffered by the general public. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, estimates that there are 200,000 premature deaths in America each year due to air pollution. The tax would be redistributed back to citizens on a monthly basis as a way to encourage less carbon use. “70 percent of households in America would get more back in dividends than they would be paying out in extra energy costs,” Langston insisted.
Molding public sentiment to support action on climate change is also necessary, asserted Dr. Craig Waddell, Associate Professor of Rhetoric. According to Waddell, there are some people who are interested in deceiving the public about the seriousness of climate change. To counter misinformation, we have to change our message depending on where people are and how they are affected, he said. “There isn’t one universal message that you would prescribe for climate change. If you’re in the American southwest talking to farmers… you might want to spend a little more time talking about droughts and crop failure. If you’re in the Pacific northwest you might want to talk to people about the risks of forest fires and bark beetles and how that’s related to climate change. If you’re on the coast of Florida, you might want to talk about sea level rise,” Waddell said.
To learn more about last week’s panel discussion, or to learn how you can participate in future discussions, contact Jerrid Burdue, the President of the Economics Club at Michigan Tech. You can also join the Keweenaw Climate Community, a grassroots, bipartisan organization that coordinates local policy efforts and organizes educational events in local schools.
