Given the Reality of Global Warming, Mitigation Costs are Politically Feasible

 

With the certainty that global warming presents a serious risk to society, the environmental economist
Jaime Echeverría states that the phenomenon’s mitigation costs are “politically feasible”.

 

The Tropical Science Center in San Jose, Costa Rica brought up the issue in the conference “ The Importance of Monitoring the Climate Change Economy” at the beginning of the seminar “Evidence of global warming in the Dominican Republic” organized by the Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo and its sister organization in the U.S., Global Foundation Democracy and Development (GFDD), through FUNGLODE’s Center of Environmental Studies.

 

With a vast international experience as an environmental advisor,
another conclusion drawn from the presentation is that beyond economic analyses and evidence of impact in nature, the political aspects are the ones that will set the direction of actions, given the impact suffered by the world.

 

In his speech, which counted with attendants such as the recently appointed secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Omar Ramirez, and environmentalists from NGOs and public institutions, Echeverria
declared the need to weight the costs involved in global warming.

 

In relation to this issue, his recommendation suggests the consideration of two factors: determine the cost of not taking action in natural disasters, the rise of the sea level, the impact of production, for instance, and the cost of taking action. In this aspect, it includes the cost of even changing our life style to reduce consumption patterns that have an impact in
the environment.

 

Through the use of data and international reports, it was estimated that global warming reduces the global Gross Domestic Product in 1% or 2%, which represents an outstanding figure. Furthermore, this impact is stronger, according to his sources, in regions of the planet that live out of agriculture. He highlighted India and Africa because of their dependence on crops.

 

He also shared statistics on losses suffered by insurance companies. He stated that between 2004 and 2005 their losses went up to US$145 and US$200 thousand millions, respectively.

 

The environmentalist’s suggestions are framed in multiple actions that take into account reduction of carbon consumption as well as the systematic evaluation of the costs implied in the substitution of energy sources, among
others.

 

Knowing the cost on not taking action to stop the infectious hubs derived from climate change – including the proliferation of tropical diseases such as malaria- was another point raised by Echeverria.

 

Asunción Sanz, project director at GFDD, introduced Echeverría in the conference that took place at FUNGLODE’s auditorium as part
of a three-day conference that included the already mentioned seminar. The event also included a consultive workshop about the national capacities to fight Climate Change, understood as a national discussion among key national actors to identify the country’s strengths, opportunities and weaknesses facing the effects of Climate Change. The proprietary actions that should be taken were further discussed.

 

Sanz shared
the main table with the coor