• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Mobility
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Mobility
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Mobility
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance
  FEATURED
REVEALED: Imperial Oil, Alberta Regulator Knew of Toxic Seepage at Kearl Mine for Years, Kept First Nation in the Dark October 3, 2023
Oil and Gas, Buildings Drive 2.1% Rise in Canada’s Climate Pollution October 2, 2023
Shell CEO Doubles Down on Renewable Cuts Despite Internal Pushback October 2, 2023
Leading Climate Models Underestimate Clean Energy Progress, Overstate Cost, Study Finds October 2, 2023
UAE Holds Major Oil and Gas Conference Before Hosting COP 28 Climate Summit October 2, 2023
Next
Prev

CBC: Climate Action Costs Less, Delivers More Side Benefits Than Estimates Usually Assume

July 14, 2019
Reading time: 3 minutes

Joel Pett/USA Today

Joel Pett/USA Today

16
SHARES
 

Reversing the climate crisis will cost less and deliver more positive impacts than most estimates usually assume, and that gap in analysis is shaping up as a barrier to climate action, CBC reported last week, as part of its In Your Backyard climate series.

“Co-benefits such as reducing deaths from air pollution and boosting technological innovation may lower the net costs of climate action to zero or even lead to a net economic benefit rather than a cost,” CBC states. “And failing to take those into account—effectively miscalculating the costs of climate change—may lead to bad decisions and inaction that are more costly in the long run,” by wrongly making greenhouse gas reductions look like a bad deal for participating countries.

  • Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
  • A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
  • The Weekender:The climate news you need.
Subscribe

The post leads with a now-10-year-old cartoon, published before the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit by U.S. illustrator Joel Pett, that showed a conference presentation slide listing the benefits of climate action. “What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?” asked one audience member.

A decade later, “there is stronger scientific consensus than ever that climate change is real, and more and more evidence that fighting climate change has positive side effects,” writes reporter Emily Chung. “Environmental researchers and policy advisers now say it’s crucial to take those into account when making decisions about climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

“Essentially, we’re just leaving dollars on the table by ignoring co-benefits,” said environmental economist Kirk Hamilton, a visiting professor at the London School of Economics who has done in-depth work on the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. “In some ways, we’ve been doing the modelling wrong.”

While those co-benefits will accrue on their own, “you’re just not feeding [them] into your decision making process, which means you’re making bad decisions,” he added.

CBC notes that air pollution can cut GDP by more than 10% in a heavily-polluted country like China, citing a 2016 United Nations report that showed air pollution-related deaths falling 20 to 40% if greenhouse gas emissions are halved between 2005 and 2050. 

“Hamilton’s research has found that the health co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be worth US$100 per tonne of CO2 in high-income countries like the U.S. and Canada and $50 per tonne in middle-income countries like China,” the national broadcaster adds. “That’s quite a lot, given that the cost of abating a tonne of carbon pollution in 2015 was estimated to be less than $36 per tonne on average—meaning that any country that cut its emissions would get a significant net benefit from health impacts alone.”

The UN report found that co-benefits represent 53 to 92% of the economic gain from climate-related forest projects and more than half the positive impact of investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, while “reducing fossil fuel dependence in the U.S. decreases the danger of disruptions in the energy supply and economic losses due to price volatility, worth about $5 per tonne of CO2.,” CBC states. “Some co-benefits, the UN notes, are indirect, such as freeing public resources for other uses.” And “Hamilton said environmental regulations targeting emissions can give companies an incentive to invest in knowledge and technology,” leading to new innovations that amplify their positive economic impact.

The news report cites a recent project by Ann Dale, a professor in the School of Environment and Sustainability at Royal Roads University, to map the co-benefits of climate action on behalf of the British Columbia Climate Action Secretariat. “The map shows, for example, that greener buildings lead to higher energy efficiency, better water quality, and new job opportunities,” CBC reports.

With that kind of information in hand, “you can show political decision-makers it’s not jobs versus the environment—there’s money to be saved by doing the right thing, and there’s benefits to be achieved,” Dale said. “What we need them to do is track the costs and benefits when they implement a climate action.”

Meanwhile, a team at Simon Fraser University is applying a similar approach to climate change adaptation measures. Deborah Harford, executive director of the university’s Adaptation to Climate Change Team, said green roofs that reduce flooding and bring down building temperatures also help reduce emissions by cutting demand for air conditioning. And “restoring wetlands to reduce flooding can sequester carbon and cut emissions by reducing the energy needed to filter and pump stormwater,” CBC says.



in Biodiversity & Habitat, Buildings & Infrastructure, Canada, China, Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics, Forests & Deforestation, Health & Safety, Heat & Power, Sub-National Governments

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

jasonwoodhead23/flickr
Tar Sands / Oil Sands

REVEALED: Imperial Oil, Alberta Regulator Knew of Toxic Seepage at Kearl Mine for Years, Kept First Nation in the Dark

October 3, 2023
147
Dawn Ellner/flickr
Carbon Levels & Measurement

Oil and Gas, Buildings Drive 2.1% Rise in Canada’s Climate Pollution

October 2, 2023
62
Solarimo/pixabay
Ending Emissions

Leading Climate Models Underestimate Clean Energy Progress, Overstate Cost, Study Finds

October 2, 2023
261

Comments 1

  1. Murray Reiss says:
    4 years ago

    Might help if the post spelled out what “reversing” the crisis means. That we end up with less CO2 in the air than we have now? Is that possible? Most wildly optimistic scenarios I’ve come across give us maybe a 50-50 chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees if we start making drastic cuts tomorrow and keep them up for the next decade or so and if unforeseen tipping points don’t kick in etc. Reversing sure would be nice but this is the first I’ve heard of it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

jasonwoodhead23/flickr

REVEALED: Imperial Oil, Alberta Regulator Knew of Toxic Seepage at Kearl Mine for Years, Kept First Nation in the Dark

October 3, 2023
147
Ramon FVelasquez/Wikipedia

Shell CEO Doubles Down on Renewable Cuts Despite Internal Pushback

October 2, 2023
142
Iota 9/Wikimedia Commons

‘Huge Loss’ for Local Green Economy as Vancouver Shutters Its Economic Commission

September 28, 2023
359
YouTube

UAE Holds Major Oil and Gas Conference Before Hosting COP 28 Climate Summit

October 3, 2023
75
Solarimo/pixabay

Leading Climate Models Underestimate Clean Energy Progress, Overstate Cost, Study Finds

October 2, 2023
261
Jon Sullivan/flickr

Thorold Gas Peaker Plant Won’t Be Built After Unanimous City Council Vote

September 21, 2023
880

Recent Posts

Dawn Ellner/flickr

Oil and Gas, Buildings Drive 2.1% Rise in Canada’s Climate Pollution

October 2, 2023
62
Northvolt plant in Sweden, Spisen/wikimedia commons

Quebec Lands $7B Battery Gigafactory Investment from Sweden’s Northvolt

October 2, 2023
62
GFDL/Wikimedia Commons

Clean Energy Funding Isn’t Just About Money, Policy Expert Warns

October 2, 2023
39
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Wikimedia Commons

Climate Change Brings Rapid Ice Loss to Antarctica, Arctic, Swiss Glaciers

October 2, 2023
58
Duffins Agriculture Preserve/North Country House Media via Greenbelt Foundation

Green Space Groups Gear for Bigger Fights After Ontario Reverses Greenbelt Land Grab

September 28, 2023
221
DiscoverEganville/wikimedia commons

EV Rentals to Improve Transportation Access for Ontario Townships

September 28, 2023
82
Next Post
Andrew Scheer/Flickr

Scheer’s Climate Plan Costs More, Achieves Less Than Current Federal Policies: Clean Prosperity Study

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
The Energy Mix - Energy Central
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Cities & Communities
  • Electric Mobility
  • Heat & Power
  • Community Climate Finance

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}