Home / Opinion and Issues/ Weather extremes, fossil fuel pollution cost America $240 b: Study

Weather extremes, fossil fuel pollution cost America $240 b: Study


Comments / {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}} Views / Tuesday, 3 October 2017 00:00


Oslo (Reuters): Weather extremes and air pollution from burning fossil fuels cost the United States $240 billion a year in the past decade, according to a report last week that urged President Donald Trump to do more to combat climate change.

This year is likely to be the most expensive on record with an estimated $300 billion in losses from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and a spate of wildfires in western states in the past two months, it said.

“The evidence is undeniable: the more fossil fuels we burn, the faster the climate continues to change,” leading scientists wrote in the study published by the non-profit Universal Ecological Fund.

Costs to human health from air pollution caused by fossil fuels averaged $188 billion a year over the past decade, it estimated, while losses from weather extremes such as droughts, heat waves and floods averaged $52 billion.

Trump could curb the $240 billion costs, equivalent to 1.2% of U.S. gross domestic product, by revising his plans to promote the U.S. coal industry and to pull out of the 195-nation Paris climate agreement, it said.

“We are not saying that all (weather extremes) are due to human activity, but these are the sort of events that seem to be increasing in intensity,” co-author Robert Watson, a former head of the U.N. panel of climate scientists, told Reuters.

Higher ocean temperatures, for instance, mean more moisture in the air that can fuel hurricanes.

And, in a sign of increasing risks, there were 92 extreme weather events that caused damage exceeding $1 billion in the United States in the decade to 2016, against 38 in the 1990s and 21 in the 1980s.

The combined cost of extreme weather and pollution from fossil fuels would climb to $360 billion a year in the next decade, the study said. Trump’s pro-coal policies could mean more air pollution, reversing recent improvements in air quality.

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accused scientists who linked record extreme rainfall from Tropical Storm Harvey to man-made climate change as trying to “politicize an ongoing tragedy.”

The study has been in the works for months, said co-author James McCarthy, professor of Oceanography at Harvard University. He said there was widening evidence that a shift from fossil fuels made economic sense.

“Why is Iowa, why is Oklahoma, why is Kansas, why is Texas investing in wind energy? Not because they are interested in sea level rise or ocean temperatures but because it’s economically sensible,” he told Reuters. 


Share This Article


COMMENTS

Today's Columnists

What is more important? Fixing the Constitution or fixing the economy?

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly has produced an Interim Report on six key issues after 73 sessions between April 2016 and September 2017, without basic consensus among the key partners of political party representatives in the C


Top 10 tourist source markets and marketing of Sri Lanka tourism niches

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The tourism sector is a significant that contribute to the economy of the country. Sri Lanka received over two million arrivals in 2016. This was 14% increase compared to last year 2015. In the case of foreign exchange earnings, Sri Lanka’s earning


The bond robbery and CB’s reputation: Yahapalana Government should stop playing hide and seek

Monday, 16 October 2017

Immediately after the Treasury bond auction on 27 February 2015, the news of a massive impropriety that had taken place in the auction spread across the market like a wildfire.


Robert Knox, different now?

Monday, 16 October 2017

“At their leisure when their affairs will permit, they commonly meet at places built for strangers and way-faring men to lodge in, in their language called Amblomb, where they sit chewing betel, and looking one upon the other very gravely, solidly


Columnists More