Alaska Town an Object Lesson in the Costs of Climate Change
Friday, June 15, 2007 / AS
One thing I learned when writing The Triple Bottom Line and speaking to audiences about its message is that you can't tell people something and expect it to stick. You have to show them. A gripping story is much more powerful than a lecture.
Sustainability is the worst of buzz-words, and I am always looking for ways to make it come alive. What does it really mean to meet the needs of today without hosing future generations?
Climate change seems the obvious example: Unless we take steps now, painful and expensive as they may be, our children and grandchildren will experience much greater pain and be forced to spend much more of their GDP dealing with the problem than we will.
But that's telling . . .
Here's showing: The town of Newtok, Alaska is in danger of being washed away due to rising sea levels and melting permafrost, according to the New York Times. Eventually the 315 residents will need to be evacuated at a cost of $130 million, or almost $413,000 per person, says the Army Corps of Engineers.
Thirty or fifty years from now, when our kids are in charge, if they have to move three million people away from the coasts, it will cost them a staggering $1.2 trillion, a number which could be much larger for two reasons. First, the costs per person could be higher when you consider the roads, sewers and the like that would have to be replaced (fully loaded Katrina-related costs are estimated at $200 billion). Second, because 150 million of us live within 50 miles of the coast today, including everyone in Manhattan and California, the number of people needing to be moved thirty years hence could be much, much higher.
No wonder insurance companies are lobbying Congress for relief and sponsoring boardroom seminars on how to deal with climate-related risk. But it will be my children and yours that will be left holding the bag, not AIG.
A billion spent on prevention today could save trillions tomorrow.
0 comments -
Sustainability is the worst of buzz-words, and I am always looking for ways to make it come alive. What does it really mean to meet the needs of today without hosing future generations?
Climate change seems the obvious example: Unless we take steps now, painful and expensive as they may be, our children and grandchildren will experience much greater pain and be forced to spend much more of their GDP dealing with the problem than we will.
But that's telling . . .
Here's showing: The town of Newtok, Alaska is in danger of being washed away due to rising sea levels and melting permafrost, according to the New York Times. Eventually the 315 residents will need to be evacuated at a cost of $130 million, or almost $413,000 per person, says the Army Corps of Engineers.
Thirty or fifty years from now, when our kids are in charge, if they have to move three million people away from the coasts, it will cost them a staggering $1.2 trillion, a number which could be much larger for two reasons. First, the costs per person could be higher when you consider the roads, sewers and the like that would have to be replaced (fully loaded Katrina-related costs are estimated at $200 billion). Second, because 150 million of us live within 50 miles of the coast today, including everyone in Manhattan and California, the number of people needing to be moved thirty years hence could be much, much higher.
No wonder insurance companies are lobbying Congress for relief and sponsoring boardroom seminars on how to deal with climate-related risk. But it will be my children and yours that will be left holding the bag, not AIG.
A billion spent on prevention today could save trillions tomorrow.
Labels: Alaska, Climate and Carbon, Newtok, Water
Email blog entry to a friend
