Excerpt:

In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.

The report, “Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action,” used existing scientific and economic studies on the projected impacts of unchecked global climate change emissions. It compared those with a future in which global emissions are reduced enough to prevent a rise in average atmospheric temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which, scientists say, the planet will be locked into an irreversible future of rising sea levels, stronger storms, extreme drought, food shortages and other damages.

The report found that global policy to curb climate change could prevent 12,000 deaths from extreme heat and cold, or what it estimated as $200 billion in savings to the American economy by 2100. It also said climate policy could prevent 720 to 2,200 bridges from becoming structurally vulnerable for an estimated savings by the end of the century of $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion.

In addition, the report found that climate policy could prevent $50 million to $6.4 billion in adaptation costs to urban drainage systems, which could be flooded by extreme storms.

If climate change is mitigated, the report found a 40 percent to 59 percent reduction in probability of extreme drought, which would otherwise cost American farmers $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion.

Unchecked climate change could lead to the destruction by wildfire of six million to 7.9 million acres of forest, the report found, at a cost of $940 million to $1.4 billion. And it could lead to the destruction of ecosystems such as coral reefs that support economic activity, including 35 percent of the coral reefs in Hawaii, at a loss of $1.2 billion.

ExxonMobil has been criticized, and is potentially subject to legal sanctions, for having conducted climate change research in the 1970′s and 1980′s, concluding that carbon emissions will have potentially catastrophic consequences, and then stifling its own research findings and going in the opposite direction: denial and funding denial.

But, correctly so, ExxonMobil points out that it has always accepted climate change, and has proposed for a long time that the solution is a carbon tax.

Then, last week, Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of the Washington Post, revealed a conversation he had with internal experts at ExxonMobil. Excerpt of that conversation (in his words):

With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.

“A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement,” Exxon says in a position paper titled “Engaging on climate change.”

Wow!

Then the rest of the Op-Ed piece pokes at Republicans’ climate change denial bullshit. Excerpt:

What then explains the know-nothingism of today’s Republicans? Some of them see scientists as part of a left-wing cabal; many of them doubt government’s ability to do anything, let alone something as big as redirecting the economy’s energy use. Almost all of them, along with quite a few Democrats, would rather not tell voters that energy prices need to rise for the sake of the environment.

But blaming it all on Big Oil lets the politicians off too easily. Yes, McConnell represents a coal state, and, yes, he wants to preserve his Senate majority. If those considerations are more important to him than saving the planet, let him say so to our children and grandchildren. Let’s not blame the oil companies for the pusillanimity of people who are supposed to lead.

Within the past few days, I posted links to a series of papers published by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) describing the efforts of some of the oil companies to fund climate change denial since the 1980′s. The amounts spent have been significant.

In response to those papers, ExxonMobil spokesman said:

“I’m here to talk to you about the present,” Keil said. “We have been factoring the likelihood of some kind of carbon tax into our business planning since 2007. We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.”

This article describes the funding activities by ExxonMobil through 2014 of climate denial scientists, front groups, trade associations and politicians. Basically, busted.

Several Op-Ed columns, essays and other material have been published lately noting a “retreat” by climate change deniers, particularly those of the Republican persuasion. Responding to pressure from the public, with polls showing a majority of Americans believe climate change is a problem to be addressed by the government, and from businesses and major corporations (i.e., the financial spine of the Republican Party), climate change denial is fading away. Now, rather than confront and deny climate change, the Republicans are resorting to their traditional approach: attack the laws and regulations being proposed or adopted to address climate change as expensive, too much, too big, overreach, illegal, etc. That approach may not work, but it reframes the debate, probably to the advantage of the Republicans by removing the “nut case” characterization that the opponents would use in any political campaign.

Here’s an excerpt:

To be sure, this is a tactical retreat, and you shouldn’t expect conservative groups to start lining up in favor of a carbon tax. Rather, they’re resorting to more defensible arguments that don’t make them sound like flat-earthers. My Post colleagues quoted energy lobbyist Scott Segal saying that “the science issue just isn’t as salient as it once was.” Instead, Segal talks about the cost and viability of proposed regulations.

Excerpt from this article from The Guardian:

The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.

Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.

She also told the Guardian she supports climate protests, including the school strikes for climate founded by “superstar” Greta Thunberg, and that “there is room for civil disobedience as a way of communicating, though we also need hope”.

Robinson is chair of the Elders, an independent group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela that works for human rights. She will say in her speech: “I believe that climate change denial is not just ignorant, it is malign, it is evil, and it amounts to an attempt to deny human rights to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”

“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.

“Climate change undermines the enjoyment of the full range of human rights – from the right to life, to food, to shelter and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate change.”

Excerpt from this New York Times Op-Ed:

For some time now it has been clear that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than scientists anticipated. Now it turns out that there is another form of underestimation as bad or worse than the scientific one: the underestimating by economists of the costs.

The result of this failure by economists is that world leaders understand neither the magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods, nor the urgency of action. How and why this has occurred is explained in a recent report by scientists and economists at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

One reason is obvious: Since climate scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change and the severity of its effects, then economists will necessarily underestimate their costs.

But it’s worse than that. A set of assumptions and practices in economics has led economists both to underestimate the economic impact of many climate risks and to miss some of them entirely. That is a problem because, as the report notes, these “missing risks” could have “drastic and potentially catastrophic impacts on citizens, communities and companies.”