The Effects Of Climate Change On The United States

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

During the past several hundred years, civilization has made rapid progress in industries like air travel, automobiles, and energy production. These developments were made without consideration of the long-term effects that their emissions may have on the planet. Changing weather patterns are now wreaking havoc around the world, and scientists attribute this to human-caused climate change. During President Obama’s State of the Union address in 2015, he stated that, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” (“Remarks by the President”). Warming temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change have disastrous consequences that pose a threat to humanity and the environment.

Climate change and its link to increased terrorist activity will directly and indirectly affect the United States in the next ten years, while also laying the foundation for climate change to become one of the most pressing security challenges that the United States will face in the coming years.

We have all heard statistics over how unmitigated global warming can lead to rising sea levels, increased temperatures, lower rates of precipitation. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that climate change, if unmitigated, would create costly damage not only to the United States’s economy, but also to the world as a whole (source). Despite a scientific and general consensus that climate change is real and a problem, actual committed action against climate change has been disappointingly slow, until recently. We also know the cause of climate change. The United States EPA finds that “Carbon dioxide accounts for most of the nation’s emissions and most of the increase since 1990” (EPA). What we don’t know is a solution.

The 21st century has begun with one of the most challenge security threats to the United States of America have had to face. The perils of climate change have the ability to impact the national interest concerning power, prosperity and peace. The continued challenges around the world, and domestically, it is critical the US implements a comprehensive grand strategy. Cooperative security gives the US the best possibility to achieve the goals that will lessen the effects and place the US ahead of the international agenda. Combating climate change will require successful policies such as international climate pacts, collective-action and cap and trade initiatives. In the past, we have seen the US shy away from such accords worried about the

Climate change, specifically in reference to C02 Emissions released by human use of fossil fuels and their consequential effects on the environment, is perhaps one of the most pressing issues we, not just as Americans, but as human beings face in our lifetimes. Though it may sound like a sensationalist statement the facts are hard to deny. In May of 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. policies towards climate change has continued to develop throughout the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and currently Barack Obama. In this paper I will focus specifically on Clinton. One of the Clinton administration’s main goals was to make the United States the global leader in protecting the environment.  Throughout Clinton’s administration from 1993 to 2001, the ambitious goals of environmental protection had many highs and lows. The United States had to make decisions about how it would go about tackling climate change and what roles of other countries would play. There was opposition in congress about how the U.S. economy would fare with many of the ideas the Clinton administration was coming

Today, people in the United States and around the world face a changing climate that threatens our way of life. An increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions poses a threat to food security, infrastructure and economic affluence. In the United States, climatologists from the United Nations project that a seven-degree Fahrenheit increase in average temperatures will cause more frequent droughts affecting agriculture in the Midwest and more severe and frequent tropical storms and hurricanes affecting major cities along both coasts (“Climate” 7). Addressing these issues will require rigorous cuts in greenhouse emissions. The implementation of a comprehensive economic policy that includes the use of cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxation, and clean energy subsidies is one step toward addressing the increasingly-critical issue of climate change.

In a poll taken in 2014 by Yale University, it was shown that one in five Americans don’t think global warming is happening. In another poll, one in four Americans think that global warming won’t harm future generations (Holthaus). Climate change is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the recent increase in the world's temperature that is believed to be caused by the increase of certain gases (such as carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere” ("Global Warming | Definition of Global Warming by Merriam-Webster"). During the ice ages, the levels of carbon dioxide in the air were 200 parts per million (ppm), in the warmer intergalactic periods, the levels stayed around 280 ppm, and in 2013, the level of CO2 passed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

Across 800,000 years of data of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels at record highs, and being added daily, have already begun disrupting established climate patterns and damaging ecosystems upon which nearly all living things depend (CTC). Tremendous and rapid reductions of carbon emissions in the United States, and developed nations around the world, are essential to avoid runaway climate damage and minimize severe weather events. Inundation of coastal cities and islands, infrastructure destruction, failure of agriculture and water supply, forced migrations, political upheavals, and international conflict are among the devastating and costly side effects of climate change, many of which have already begun to be seen (CTC). Enacting a transparent and equitable tax on carbon dioxide emissions is imperative to hand over a sustainable Earth and habitable climate for future generations. A robust tax on carbon would provide compelling incentives to reduce emissions and pollution through conservation, substitution, and innovation (Sutter). The carbon tax is also a crucial policy tool for achieving the “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDC’s) to which the 193 countries that signed the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 committed to in effort to prevent global warming from reaching two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels (CTC).

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be

Climate change otherwise known as global warming has been an ongoing issue for decades. Beginning in the 19th century, climate change has increasingly affected Earth and its atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth’s atmosphere, causing rising sea-levels, melting snow and ice, extreme fires and droughts, and intense rainfall and floods. Climate change has and will continue to affect food production, availability of water, and can add to many health risks in humans and animals. In fact, in an article by Justin Gillis titled, “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries” he focuses on a paper written by a former NASA climate scientist, James E. Hansen, explaining the effects of climate change on Earth today. Although many believe Hansen’s theories in the paper are quite far-fetched, the author mentions, “Despite any reservations they might have about the new paper, virtually all climate scientists agree with Dr. Hansen’s group that society is not moving fast enough to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, posing grave risks” (Gillis). Gillis validates the fact that climate change has been rapidly expanding throughout Earth and society has not been able to reduce it fast enough. Many negative risks are being posed and will continue to mount if the issue of climate change is not taken seriously. Although climate change negatively affects nearly all aspects of Earth, it poses a big

As Earth 's population continues its rapid growth, natural resources will become increasingly strained. Conservative estimates predict the 2015 population of roughly 7 billion will increase to 11.2 billion by 2100, with undeveloped countries becoming increasingly developed (UN 2015). Historically, gross domestic product (GDP) has been used as a measure of development and has been positively correlated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCCC 2014). If this correlation holds true in the future development will further increase GHG emissions that contribute to climate change, which will add more pressure to an already strained natural resource supply. This paper attempts to quantify and simplify the perceived relationship between GHG emissions and GDP by conducting a linear regression. The correlation could be used to predict when GHG levels may reach destructive levels defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under a business as usual approach with perceived growth in developing countries. A positive linear correlation was found between the natural logs of GDP as the independent variable and GHG emissions as the dependent variable, with every 1% increase in GPD being associated with a 0.79 % increase in GHG emissions.

Implementing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction policies is motivated by the occurrence of climate change and its projected damage to world economies, ecosystems and communities. Climate change is becoming increasingly urgent in the world sphere with its main cause being observed anthropogenic and thus certain mitigation and adaptation policies must be put in place to attempt to slow the current rate of warming and allow world economies to adapt to the already inevitable effects (Stern, 2006). The targets outlined in the Stern Review require an ideal abatement resulting in stabilised CO2 levels of 450 parts per million (ppm), which requires stronger mitigation on