Dear Editor:
It is important to understand the driving force behind the Climate Superfund Act. It is the existing and growing costs of a warming world. These costs are coming at us like a runaway locomotive, and there is no way to stop them in the short term. The fact is that carbon dioxide, once emitted into the atmosphere, stays there for centuries and continues to warm the planet. Even if we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, the world will continue to warm, and the impacts of climate change will continue to become more severe. CO2 acts like a blanket that continues to capture more and more heat daily. Each year we add another layer of blanket. But It would take more than two centuries, even if emissions dropped close to zero by the end of this century, for CO2 concentrations to fall back below 400 parts per million, which is where they were in 2015, let alone 280 parts per million, where they were at the start of the industrial revolution.[1]
Several studies have looked at the expected costs of damages from this increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases:
Forbes magazine reported on a study in Nature stating, “Climate change is on track to cost the global economy $38 trillion every year in damages within the next 25 years.” This is extremely dangerous since the total global GDP today is only about $100 trillion.
A 2022 research paper said that an estimated $16 trillion was lost between 1992 and 2013, due to the effect of high temperatures on human health, productivity, and agricultural output.
U.S. economic costs of extreme heat alone are estimated to reach $100 billion every year, just in heat-induced declines in productivity. Nearly all US counties are feeling the economic burn of extreme heat, with labor-productivity losses expected to cost half a trillion dollars annually by 2050.
In 2024, the World Economic Forum predicted that a 2.5 degree C rise in global temperature (which is where we are today) would cause 14.5 million deaths and $12.5 trillion in economic damage by 2050.
Another study estimates that by 2050, climate disasters could wipe out 10% of the U.S. GDP annually.
An analysis by NYPIRG found New York State taxpayers were heavily burdened by $2.2 billion in climate costs in 2023 or $300 per household. A second analysis of NYC taxpayer climate costs estimated future costs of $162.9 billion, or $50,906 per household.
The point is that while these estimates vary, and even if they are off by 50%, these costs are enormous, and we will not be able to stop this in this century. And by the way, virtually all estimates about the depth of climate change problems have been too conservative. This is about as guaranteed that the sun will come up each morning.
How are we going to deal with these costs? Will the government pay? The U.S. is deeply in debt and getting deeper every year. Is Congress going to approve more debt to spend money on climate costs? States are all stretched to the limit. Are states going to issue billions of dollars in bonds? Are big companies and billionaires going to open their pocketbooks? No, the only answer is that individual citizens will pay directly for their damages and/or towns and states will increase taxes.
The Climate Superfund Act (CSA) attempts to deal with these costs and make life less painful for everyone in the future. It’s not perfect and will take a lot of work to implement, but it is trying to deal with this impending disaster. If anyone who does not like the CSA approach has a better idea, please let us all know.
Ken Dolsky
