The price of ignoring climate change

June 19, 2013

Home destroyed nearly five months ago during the landfall of Superstorm Sandy in Mantoloking, New Jersey March 22, 2013. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

The effects of climate change, driven by carbon pollution, hit Americans harder each year. Extreme weather events like hurricanes, wildfires and droughts are growing ever more frequent and severe.

Beyond our borders, these changes are hitting developing nations.

Since our nation’s founding, America has stood as an example for the world. Now, we owe it to ourselves and to other nations, who look to Washington, to lead the way on climate change by putting a price on carbon pollution and taking other steps to minimize the harm being done to developing nations — and our own.

In many of the world’s poorest regions, the sun scorches drought-stricken farmland and parches freshwater sources. Fierce storms bring ravaging floods. Warming, rapidly acidifying oceans and shifting seasons drive off economically valuable species and foster pests and disease.

This year, the worst flood in a decade killed at least 38 people in Mozambique and left 150,000 homeless. Warmer weather allows malaria-bearing mosquitoes to move into previously unaffected altitudes, infecting cities like Nairobi, which had purposely been built above the “malaria line.” Ten of the 15 largest cities in the developing world, including Shanghai, Mumbai and Cairo, are at risk of flooding from rising sea levels or coastal storm surges. Rising seas are swallowing low-lying land in countries such as Bangladesh and India.

Climate change endangers much of the world economy as well. Economists calculate that a 3.5°F rise in global temperature would reduce global gross domestic product by 1 percent. But loss will be 4 percent in Africa, and 5 percent in India. The United Nations estimates that environmental disasters could drive as many as 3 billion people into extreme poverty by the year 2050.

These regions face a crisis not of their making. Developed countries have churned out two-thirds of all the carbon dioxide pollution since the Industrial Revolution — one-quarter of that from the United States alone.

We have much to gain here at home from efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change: safer coastal communities, healthier farming and fishing industries, and cleaner air to breathe. But the American experiment has always been about more than that.

Indeed, as one of the largest emitters of carbon pollution, the United States has a responsibility to help emerging nations adapt to the stark reality of a changing climate, lest, as Daniel Webster warned, our own example “become an argument against the experiment.”

We are now taking important steps to help poorer nations cope with climate change. Indeed, federal agencies, from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, to the Agriculture and Defense Departments, support adaptation strategies in the developing world. We provide financing to support construction and hardening of physical infrastructure. We make available technology to improve weather forecasting and irrigation techniques. While these physical adaptation programs are crucial, the crisis of climate change also requires political and diplomatic adaptation.

This is the mission of the State Department’s Environment, Science and Technology and Health (ESTH) officers. These officers engage on both a bilateral and a regional basis to promote good environmental governance, enable sustainable trade practices, advance resource and wildlife conservation, and improve access to healthcare. Many work closely with our allies around the globe, helping make communities more resilient to the devastating effects of climate change.

This is still a small effort. As of 2011, 260 of the State Department’s more than 13,000 Foreign Service officers handled environment, science, technology and health issues in our embassies. Only 76 were full-time ESTH officers. Theirs is vital work. It is worth replicating on a larger scale.

The United States must also set an example by putting a price on carbon pollution. I’m working with Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and others to finalize legislation that would do so. Right now, the big polluters pump billions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere, forcing the rest of us to pay the price through higher healthcare costs, higher rebuilding costs after carbon-driven extreme weather events, and more.

Our proposal would put those costs back on the polluters. It would generate billions of dollars in new revenue, which could produce substantial benefits for the U.S. economy. But, just as important, it would improve the global environment by encouraging reduced emissions. It would also send a message that we are ready to lead once more on one of the great issues of our time.

The effects of more than a century of Western pollution bear heavily on less-developed countries. The eyes of the world are on us. Without concerted action, we run the risk of allowing climate change to destabilize entire nations — and their confidence in America’s leadership.


PHOTO (Insert A): An aerial view shows the path of destruction in the aftermath of a tornado, at a neighborhood in Moore, Oklahoma May 21, 2013.  REUTERS/Rick Wilking


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

I agree wwe should harden our own infrastructure to stand up better to mother nature’s whims. Perhaps the climate is changing as it has changed back and forth over the past several million years. I sincerely doubt thsat all of man’s polution can compare with the major volcanic eruptions we have had in the past 100 years and therefore I do not think we should institute a policy that places further (carbon)tax burdens on our economy and industry, which would surely hurt our economy and result in even more widespread poverty.

Posted by zotdoc | Report as abusive

Those people who are still denying climate change, even at this late stage, still denying really need to think about who will suffer for our inaction. Not those of us in rich western nations so much. But third world nations now and future generations all over the world.

The science involved is much too complex for almost all of us. The fact that 97% of climate scientist agree, still agree on the threat we all face, should register with even the most smug layman.

Posted by knotsing | Report as abusive

Per one poster: “I sincerely doubt thsat all of man’s polution can compare with the major volcanic eruptions we have had in the past 100 years….”

True, but in the long run there was a balance; the oceans and forests were able to remove CO2 at the rate that volcanoes were releasing it. Now that we are releasing more CO2 by burning fossil fuels, nature is no longer able to remove it fast enough.

Even if our CO2 releases increased total CO2 emissions by only 2% or so, the net effect would, over time, be a significant increase in atmospheric CO2.

Posted by FRE | Report as abusive

Well, this is amazing. The article itself is full of factually innaccurate information, specifically that we are getting more extreme weather (droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes, tornadoes, any extreme weather you care to name). This is provably untrue, and has been shown to be false by NOAA and several other weather sites. So it is the author of this article is ignoring basic science.
With regard to the 97% claim. The question with the 97% consensus was whether human beings have a significant effect on the environment. 97% of the scientists agreed with that, as would any rational person. The science deniers are the people who then claim that 97% of scientists agree that human generated CO2 causes dangerous global warming. About 3% of climate scientists believe the latter claim.

Posted by dbakerber | Report as abusive