NEWS

Midwest scientists, economists call for swift, deep cuts in global warming pollution

07/30/2008

CHICAGO (July 29, 2008) - Hundreds of Midwestern scientists and economists today issued a joint statement calling on the region’s elected officials to require immediate, dramatic reductions in the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.

University of Wisconsin emeritus ecology professor John J. Magnuson and atmospheric physicist Susan Nossal released the statement on behalf of 278 Midwestern scientists and economists at the first hearing held by the Midwest Governors Association’s (MGA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord Advisory Group that solicited public comments. The advisory group, which is meeting in Milwaukee this week, is designing a cap-and-trade program to reduce global warming emissions in the MGA member states.

"The Midwest’s climate has already begun to change and we expect it to get worse," said Magnuson, one of the statement’s endorsers and an author of both the 1995 and 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. "We need deep, rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to have a reasonable chance to limit the worst consequences of climate change."

More than 1,700 leading scientists and economists across the country have signed the statement, which is the first such appeal by both scientists and economists. (For the statement and the list of signatories, go to: http://www.ucsusa.org/climateletter.)

The signers include Leon M. Lederman of the Illinois Institute of Technology, a Nobel prize winner in physics and a National Medal of Science recipient; Dr. Herbert E. Wright, a U.S. National Academy of Sciences member and a University of Minnesota emeritus professor; and Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a 2007 IPCC report lead author. The signatories, compiled by UCS, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Sciences members, and more than 100 IPCC authors and editors, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

According to the statement, "the strength of the science on climate change" compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change’s growing risks, including "sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions."

Ron Burke, director of UCS’s Chicago office, urged public officials to take heed. "When hundreds of climate and economic experts say policies that would quickly make deep cuts in global warming pollution are economically sound and critical to avoid the worst, policymakers should take that very seriously," he said. "The Midwest Governors Association needs to come up with a cap-and-trade policy that is at least as strong as what these scientists and economists think is necessary."

The statement notes that acting promptly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change. If the United States delays taking action, future cuts would have to be more drastic and would be much more expensive. Those costs would come on top of the costs of adapting to more climate change. Conversely, the statement says, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.

The statement concludes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution "on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050" and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. The statement calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.

Columbia University Business School economist Geoff Heal says the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of addressing climate change. The costs of cutting emissions to safe levels would be between 1 and 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), he said, while the costs of allowing climate change to proceed unabated would be 10 to 20 percent of GDP.

Heal sees the challenge of reducing global warming emissions as an economic opportunity. "Limiting global warming emissions is a great investment," he said. "When you compare the cost of acting to the cost of not acting, cutting emissions would give the world a return of 10 to 1. That’s attractive even to a venture capitalist."