Combating climate change has been consistently gaining momentum for the last few years, but recent reports may hold the best news yet for this pivotal movement.

Reports released last week in advance of the Tuesday UN Climate Summit from the New Climate Economy Project and the International Monetary Fund have emphasized the fact that combating climate change will not only be cost-effective, but could even benefit the economy more than continuing business as usual.

This is fantastic news, as the economic effects of limiting carbon emissions and investing in alternative energy has been heavily scrutinized by those opposed to widespread climate reform. These reports could, and hopefully will, refute the claims that drastic reworking of the fossil fuel industry will negatively affect our economy.

The crux of the New Climate Economy Report argument reads like this: over the next 15 years, the world will have to spend $90 trillion dollars on urban development, land use and energy systems. This money can either be invested in existing systems already responsible for our current environment, or used to support a low-carbon future.

The report outlines three major areas of opportunity. The first involves ending fossil fuel subsidies, implementing a carbon tax and emphasizing the growth of alternative energy industries.

Secondly, investing in public infrastructure, which is both aging and energy inefficient.

Lastly, increasing support for low-carbon innovators is crucial. This includes, but is not limited to, developing stronger patent protections and additional public spending on alternative energy research and development.  

These alterations would not only help fight climate change, but would also spur economic growth.

Global leaders “realize there is serious risk of climate change in the future,” said Felipe Calderon, the former president of Mexico and chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, in a Sept. 16 Washington Post article. “However, there is a general perception that taking responsible actions in order to tackle climate change could reduce economic growth and the creation of jobs or other goals.

“Yes, it is possible to get economic growth and tackle climate change,” Calderon said in the article.

The IMF report goes into detail about large co-benefits of reducing carbon emissions. These are additional positives from what would be an already positive switch. The IMF identifies the largest of these co-benefits as improving public health. Burning coal causes many respiratory ailments, thus increasing medical expenses.

For an extreme case examine China, whose government, according to a Sept. 20 New York Times article, “is deeply concerned about worsening local air pollution, which contributed to an estimated 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010.”

These co-benefits help to refute the popular argument that carbon pricing will be futile without a global consensus. Even without universal agreement, protecting the well-being of its citizens through intelligent public policy is something that individual governments should no longer shy away from.

It is an exciting yet equally pivotal time for the climate movement. The People’s Climate March preluding the UN Climate Summit in New York City has generated widespread awareness of our world’s current outlook. The climate movement is receiving an enormous momentous boost as the extremely important 2015 Climate Change Conference in Paris looms large.

This, coupled with these two recent economic reports, should leave skeptics of climate change no excuse to ignore the facts, and should give us hope for a greener future.

Azor Cole is a junior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu.

Published on September 24, 2014 at 12:52 am