Who should pay the costs of climate change?

We should move from fossil fuel subsidies to fossil fuel liability.

Hardly a week goes by without the scientific community hearing about another record-breaking weather event, an ongoing climate catastrophe, or an “act now” warning.

Occasionally there is a price tag attached. Hurricane Katrina cost $125 billion (and 1,800 deaths). Wildfire suppression that cost federal agencies $2.2 billion in 2020 cost Utah $60 million. Saving the Great Salt Lake with water from the Pacific Ocean could cost over $100 billion.

There’s no doubt that climate change damage means a lot of money. But how much? Who pays for this? And perhaps equally important, who should Pay?

Let’s first identify some of the damage associated with climate change that, according to the global scientific consensus, is caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels. In its 1989 resource plan, Rocky Mountain Power’s parent company, PacifiCorp, attempted to identify the range of impacts from its facilities emitting carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The electric utility, which still operates coal-fired power plants in Utah, made a “partial” list of more than 30 potential “externalities.” It defined these external costs as impacts of its operations “that may be imposed on society as a whole and not borne directly by the business. [PacifiCorp] or its customers. These impacts included effects on ozone, effects on crop yields, effects on visibility and property values, movement of people and wildlife, impacts on surface waters, and effects of thermal pollution.

Thirty-three years later, the real list of costs of climate change/global warming has grown considerably to include recovery efforts after a “natural” disaster, prolonged and intensified wildfire seasons, health public health and associated economic costs, mega-droughts in some areas, floods in others, and more.

Close to home, a team of researchers led by Brigham Young University in 2020 estimated air pollution linked to climate change could cost Utah’s economy up to $3.3 billion. per year while causing up to 8,000 premature deaths and reducing life expectancy by up to 3.6 years.

What can be done to address the threats and damages of climate change at the local level?

The Salt Lake County Public Health Climate Adaptation Plan proposes actions that include heat wave cooling centers, better air pollution tracking, toxic water monitors and new diseases, provisions for particularly vulnerable populations and health impact assessments for new projects – the inland port, for example.

All of this costs money. So who now pays for climate change damages and mitigation measures? Taxpayers, of course. When state and federal agencies provide relief to climate victims — individuals and communities — the tax-paying public pays the tab. More and more as insurance companies stop offering flood and wildfire coverage.

Preparation is expensive. Salt Lake County’s climate plan remains largely unfunded. Too expensive. The Inflation Reduction Act could provide federal dollars; but, again, either taxpayers foot the bill now or they pass on more debt to future generations.

Then there are the costs of Utah’s growing number of asthmatic children and adults. Costs that include missed school days, parent workdays, and uncompensated medical expenses. Even with all of this, BYU researchers found that state legislators were unaware, with “a near complete absence of quantitative health and economic cost estimates” shaping policy.

In the end, we come to a crucial question: who should cover the costs of climate change? The fossil fuel industry that produces greenhouse gas emissions to provide dirty energy? The consumers of this energy who heat and cool homes and offices, drive gasoline and electric vehicles, and subsidize the carbon burning industry with every utility bill?

Legislators and agency heads beholden to fossil fuel interests?

Fortunately, there are individuals and groups who have found innovative ways to deal with the situation. The Citizens Climate Lobby, for example, is proposing a carbon tax on the use of fossil fuels across the economy, with the benefits distributed as dividends across the country.

Others see the “user pays” principle applied to utility rates, so that health, economic and environmental costs are built into monthly bills rather than passed on to the general public. We are reminded that what utilities consider “profitable” is not always in the public interest.

Shifting the current energy model from fossil fuel subsidies to fossil fuel liability is central to solving the challenge of climate change. Consider the ways each Utahn can be part of the solution.

David Bennett is a retired criminal justice consultant living in Park City.

Stan Holmes is a retired teacher living in Salt Lake City.

Both represent the all-volunteer Utah Citizens Advocate for Renewable Energy.