Thank you, Carol. Thank you so much, Carol. I'm so delighted to be with everybody here today. Carol originally asked me to talk about truth in global warming science and because I was so wrapped up in legal issues I thought that I would talk about truth in the law in relation to global warming. I will touch on that briefly but realizing that my colleague, Sam, has said everything that I probably would want to say on the law and more, I think I will focus on the science. What I've done here is I've printed out a PowerPoint presentation that I prepared for today. It's not in full glorious color but the pictures, I think, are still pretty self-explanatory.
But I do want to just make a couple of quick points on the law maybe that Sam didn't touch on. The centerpiece of the Obama Administration's climate agenda is an EPA regulation called the Clean Power Plan. I'm sure many of you have heard about it. A few weeks ago in late September there was oral argument on it before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. What this is an attempt to do is compel the U.S. electric sector to de-carbonize. The Clean Power Plan is actually part of a pair of regulations. Under the law, the relevant statute, which is §111 of the Clean Air Act, before the EPA can promulgate this type of regulation, which is for so-called existing sources, which means facilities, structures, buildings, installations, that have already been built that emit air pollutants or have the potential to emit air pollutants, EPA must first, or concurrently, promulgate a regulation for new sources, in other words, for the power plants or the steel mills or the oil refineries of the future.
Well, so, EPA did that. As far as I know it's the first time EPA has ever promulgated both regulations, both for new and for existing sources at the same time. But they did that in 2015. Basically, what the new source rule is designed to do is make it prohibitively costly for anyone to build a new coal-fired power plant ever again. So, it's a de facto ban on building new coal-fired power plants. The existing source rule is an attempt to make fossil fuel generation, that's currently provided, less and less economical, less and less competitive, so as to prematurely retire, shut down, coal power plants. And then this is interesting also in relation to the Paris Agreement, which is the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's international climate policy the Clean Power Plan is the core, the single largest component, of U.S. emission reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement, which is the global warming treaty that recently went into effect. It's the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. All three of these pieces; the new source rule, the existing rule, they call it the new source rule, the carbon pollution standards rule; the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement should make all of us fear for our country if we love the Constitution and liberty because, basically, the two power plan rules are extreme examples of executive lawmaking. The Paris Agreement, which they feed into, is, by the administration's own account and correctly so, the most ambitious climate agreement ever in the history of the world, which means that it's the most ambitious environmental treaty because what it attempts to do is restructure the world's energy markets, energy policies, and energy infrastructure over decades from now to 2050 and beyond. President Obama did not submit this to the Senate for its review and claims that he need not do so. That he can adopt it. He can make the United States a party to it on his sole authority.
So, just a fact or two about each of these rules. The new source rule establishes what's called a performance standard for carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants which no coal-fired power plant can meet unless it adopts a technology called "carbon capture and storage." And that is supposed to be affordable. It supposed to be "adequately demonstrated," which means not only technically feasible, in other words you not only can you capture CO2 emissions from a coal-fired power plant but you won't go broke doing it. In fact, you will go broke doing it. So, it fulfills Obama's 2008 campaign platform, which was not announced but was revealed through an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Many of you may have seen it, where he says, "Under my plan of a cap and trade program you can build a new coal-fired power plant except that it will bankrupt you." Now, the flagship of carbon capture and sequestration power plants in this country, the one that the EPA tried to rely on to prove that this technology is adequately demonstrated is the Kemper carbon capture and storage power plant down in Mississippi. It was initially budgeted for 2.2 billion dollars. Guess what the cost of the power plant is today? 6.9 billion dollars. Anyone who invested in that with all of his own money would not be in the marketplace for very long. It is propped up by lavish subsidies, both from taxpayers and ratepayers. The idea that this is adequately demonstrated that this technology is commercially viable is preposterous.
One other point which is incredible. Even with the subsidies the only way you make a carbon capture and storage coal power plant economical is if you can then take the carbon dioxide that you've captured and sell it to an oil company that will inject it underground for what's called enhanced oil recovery. The CO2 injected under the ground builds up pressure in the well and it also makes the oil less viscous, so, if you've got an older well or it's hard to get the oil out, you inject the CO2 in it and you can recover some of that. That's the only thing that would make this technology economically viable. At this stage it's the only thing that would make it economically viable even with subsidies. But guess what? What happens to that oil once it's recovered? People use it and when they use it, it emits carbon dioxide. Right? I can show you. I wish I could give you the papers right here. Based on EPA's own data as to how much carbon dioxide is released per a barrel of oil and based on the Department of Energy's data of how much, how many barrels you get out. For every ton of CO2 you inject into the ground it turns out that carbon capture and storage coal power plants actually emit more carbon dioxide than a conventional coal power plant when you look at it on the lifecycle basis, which all the environmentalists say you must do. Right? Not just at the point of combustion but the entire economic arrangement, which is required to bring that carbon dioxide into the air, you find that these plants are not even systems of emission reduction. They increase emissions. So, it's a totally illegal rule. It's the basis for the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan is based on the conceit that instead of what the law says which is that you can regulate it a source, which means a facility, building, installation, or structure, in other words an individual physical object that you, the EPA, have the authority to regulate the economic transactions of the owners of such sources anywhere in the entire U.S. electric marketplace. EPA is trying to get away with saying that the best system of emission reduction of carbon dioxide from existing coal power plants is cap and trade. In other words, we're going to restructure the marketplace based on a provision that really only allows us to hold individual facilities to standards based on what is technically feasible or some management practice that can be applied at the source. Instead, what EPA did was say, "Well, gee, how much carbon dioxide could we reduce if we shift as much generation as possible from coal to gas and from gas to renewables without driving electric prices up so high that we have a revolt on our hands and without clearly causing a risk to electric supply reliability. How far can we restructure the whole electric power system and get away with it politically." And on that basis, they set standards for existing coal and gas power plants that no individual coal and gas power plant can meet even if it's a new plant using state of the art technology. And then all of this allows Obama to go to Paris and say, "This is what we're going to do." And it's the basis for the whole U.S. bargaining position and then it is baked into our commitment under the Paris Agreement, which the President declines to submit to the Senate, as if the Senate has nothing to say about the most ambitious environmental agreement in the history of the world. So, I'll stop with that but that's what I wanted to say, basically, in a nutshell, about standing up for the rule of law in global warming policy.
Now, what I'm going to discuss here today is why the alleged justification for this kind of executive overreach, this breach of the separation of powers, this trashing or even burning of the Constitution, that's what Larry Tribe, that's how a Harvard law professor, a liberal, described the Clean Power Plan. He thought it was burning the Constitution. The basic idea behind this, the justification is, well, this is an existential crisis. This threatens the habitability of the Earth. This threatens the survival of civilization. Desperate times require desperate measures. And oftentimes, not only do they use the imagery and phrases of war, of warfare, but they claim this is a national security threat. Even the generals are worried. So, I want to debunk all that today, basically.
And I'm going to make three main points. One is that however strong the scientific case may have appeared at one time for alarm about global warming, there's really nothing to it. It gets weaker all the time. It's worse than we thought. That's what they like to tell us, right? Oh, climate change. Scientists today discovered that it's worse than they thought it was yesterday. Actually, their case keeps getting worse than we thought it was last year or the year before.
Another key point that all of these folks forget about is that fossil fuels have actually done more to make our climate a livable system than any other force on this planet. If it weren't for fossil fuels our lives would all be nasty, brutal, and short. That applies to climate risk especially. Just think of how nasty it is outside right now and here we are in this room. We have made Albany, and, you know, it's not quite the severe winter yet but Albany, even in the winter, can be a nice place to live thanks to affordable energy. My final point is that all of these emission reduction policies, which they claim are necessary to save the world, are one of two things. They're either all pain for no gain, in other words, they're a highly costly exercise in symbolism, or they're a cure that's worse than the alleged disease. They are a humanitarian disaster in the making. That's what I want to present to you today, those three big ideas.
And so, the first thing I want to do again is show that their case for alarm has feet of clay. They basically have three arguments that they package together. One: They argue that the release of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and other emission byproducts, are going to rapidly warm the Earth. The Earth is going to get really hot, really fast, and that is going to have really big, really terrible, impacts and those impacts are so extreme that we can't adapt to them at any reasonable cost and that's why we've got to treat this like, well, like Secretary Kerry said, "Climate change is perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." It's all hands on deck. Everybody grab a pail and start bailing because otherwise we'll all drown. So, if you would turn to the second page of your handout, there, and if you don't have one or can't share with your neighbor, my esteemed colleague, Sam Kazman, may have a few extra copies. No, he's out of them. Don't bother Sam he's done all that was required of him today. [Many of these graphs can be found at Social Cost of Carbon: Computer-Aided Sophistry, Menace to Society, referred to as SCC for the remainder of this speech.]
The first little graph on the right of the top where it says "History Lesson." It's interesting to trace the pedigree of ideas. Actually, it's quite irksome because you usually find out that the first guy that really came up with something blundered seriously. Anyway, what that graph shows is the climate model that James Hansen of NASA used as the basis for his testimony before Congress in 1988, which launched the whole bonfire of the climate vanities. This is really what put global warming on the political map in the United States and therefore the world, it was this testimony of Jim Hansen. The top squiggle line there that you see is what he projected would happen under business as usual, in other words, if the world did nothing to control emissions. And then there are two lines below that that are kind of faint on your black and white graph here. One of them was that emissions would be stabilized at late 1980s levels. In other words, the world would keep emitting that many tons but no more. And then the line below that would be if drastic action were taken over the next decade all the way up to the year 2000 to reduce emissions. And the bottom two lines, those are observations. In other words, the actual amount of warming that we experienced over the next twenty years was not only lower than Hansen's business's usual projection, it was lower than his drastic climate action projection.
The next graph that you see, that was the second most famous action that put global warming on the map. This comes from the IPCC's first assessment report from 1990. You can see the IPCC is kind of a wedge and that is the range that the IPCC thought global warming might take over the next twenty-five years. And the line through the range is their mid-range estimate. What you find there, once again, is that the actual amount of warming was less than the low end of their range. It was basically half of what their mid-range estimate was. Then the graph to the right of that comes from a wonderful climate scientist down at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, John Christy. What that shows is that in the tropical troposphere where most of the energy of the Sun enters the Earth's climate system, these models and these are not the old models from 1990, they're not from Jim Hansen in 1998 no, these are the state-of-the-art climate models that are used by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the U.N. body that allegedly represents the consensus of scientists. That's from 102 model runs by the IPCC as of 2013 when they came out with their latest big report. What you find out there is that the observations from satellites and weather balloons show only about a third as much warming as the mid-range estimate of the IPCC models. If you look at that range, those are those little spaghetti lines, you see that the observations fall below the low end of the range. Not only are these models way off base, but, if you look at the observations now, what you find is that this climate is already on track to meet the goal of the Paris Treaty. The alarm community claims and the premise of the Paris Treaty is that the world must de-carbonize rapidly. We must reduce global emissions by 70% by 2050 in order to keep global warming from exceeding two degrees beyond the average of pre-industrial times.
What the graph at the left corner at the bottom of page two shows is that the actual rate of warming as measured over the last thirty-seven years by satellites brings us to under two degrees by the year 2100. That's how much they are overestimating what is called "climate sensitivity." Climate sensitivity just means how much does the climate react to a given increase in greenhouse gas concentration. Here's one of the things that there is, pretty much, a consensus on. There is a consensus that if the climate has no feedbacks, positive or negative, and the only thing that were to change is that the carbon dioxide concentrations would increase twofold, that you'd actually get a doubling, then in the long term it might be very long, it might take centuries and centuries you'd raise the average surface temperature of the planet by 1.2 degrees Celsius.
All of these end-of-the-world type predictions are based on hypothesized positive feedback mechanisms, which take this 1.2 degrees and warp it up dramatically. This is just not observed by the satellites, by the weather balloons, even by the surface data, which often is a very questionable quality.
Let's get to the next page, page three. They say that this warming, which isn't happening, is going to have terrible impacts. And there I just kicked it off with a movie poster from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, with a great quote from H. L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." That's a great deal of what politics is about. I would say that that's half of what politics is about. The other half is the reason why you scare people to death and that's because politics in general is the organized pursuit of plunder. All of you folks who defend property rights understand that very well.
So, what are some of those horrible impacts? [SCC pages 5, 6, 8 & 9] Hurricanes. Hurricanes are supposed to get more frequent and more destructive and more violent. Here you can see that I've just put a bunch of graphs down here. This is all official government data. This doesn't come from denier web sites. If you look at land-falling hurricanes in the five major hurricane basins going back to 1970 there's been no trend either in the number of strikes or in the destructiveness of those strikes, going back to 1970. If you look at the United States, the frequency, the long-term frequency of hurricane landfalls since 1900, it is actually going down. The same thing with a measure of cumulative hurricane strength called the power dissipation index. It's diminishing. If you look at another measure of hurricane strength, cumulative over a period of time, called global accumulated cyclone energy, this is a global measure, not the United States, you can see that there are ups and downs by decades and sometimes even by years. But there's no long-term trend since 1970.
Not surprisingly, if you flip over to the next page, you find out that once you adjust for changes in population, wealth, and the consumer price index, there is no long-term trend in damages economic losses related to hurricanes. [SCC page 7] You have to adjust for those factors. Just consider that two counties in Florida, Dade and Broward, in 1995, had more people living there than all of the coast of the United States from Texas all the way up through North Carolina in the year 1900. So, where there are more people, there's more stuff in harm's way. There are more things to be broken by extreme weather. But, if you make the adjustments there is no trend.
Similarly, in the United States there actually has been no long-term trend in drought for the country as a whole. In some regions the Southwest, California but all the paleological records shows that California has been drought prone for as long as we can trace it back, for centuries and centuries. But the country as a whole is actually getting wetter. [SCC page 29] That's if you blew up that graph you'd see that there is a slight wetting trend rather than drying trend. But, go down to the middle graph there, [SCC page 12] which comes from the United States Geological Survey, there is no trend in U.S. flood frequency or strength since 1950. That's the other thing they say is going to get worse and worse. And this just in, this was a paper that just came out. This was [produced] by a whole bunch of researchers led by Karen Vanderwiel of NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], another government scientist. In part because of large intrinsic variability, no evidence was found of changes in extreme precipitation in the continental United States attributable to climate change in the available observed record. That's a record that goes back to 1948. So, over seven decades: no trend. And then this may be because the weather is getting milder but it may be just because fossil fuels have enabled us to manage better and better the risks of extreme weather.
U.S. flood damage, as a proportion of GDP [Gross Domestic Product], has gone down significantly since 1940. So, even if it were true and there's no good evidence that there is but even if it were true that somehow severe weather in the form of precipitation that could create floods was getting worse, as an impact on our society, it is getting smaller, you see. The idea that somehow these climate impacts are spiraling out of control and pretty soon they will overwhelm us, no, we're becoming less and less climate sensitive as a civilization as we get wealthier and more technologically advanced. The same thing is true globally. That next slide at the bottom of page four, at the right, [SCC page 11] as a percentage of GDP, global disaster losses have been declining from 1990. I don't think we have very good global data going back before then. But the trend is in the right direction if you favor human prosperity, progress, and well-being.
Now, here's something that should have made headlines, but it didn't. This graph at the top of page five at the left [SCC page 37] is a chart of the doomsday scenarios, as you might call them. There are three in particular that Al Gore featured in An Inconvenient Truth. One is the collapse of the great ice sheets. Another one, which Al Gore said could raise sea levels suddenly by twenty feet. When he was pressed on this later, he back peddled, "Well, you, know, I didn't really mean all at once." But, yeah, you did, because you talked about people being evacuated, driven from their homes, and displaced. So, that's one of them. The other is the shutdown of the ocean's circulation system in the Atlantic, which, supposedly, would plunge Europe into an ice age. This is the theory that global warming could actually cause global cooling or regional cooling with destructive consequences. Regional cooling would be really horrible. Cooling, generally, is much worse than warming. It was also the premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, which I feature in my next slide there.
And finally another of these catastrophic scenarios is that the warmth of the global warming will cause frozen methane deposits in the Arctic tundra at the sea floor to melt. Then you'll have all this methane pouring into the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That will raise planetary temperatures again, which will melt even more methane. Then we're all going to die. What the IPCC concluded is that and here I'm quoting Judith Curry who's one of my favorite climate scientists. This is from one of her House testimonies. "Every single catastrophic scenario considered by the IPCC has a rating of very unlikely or exceptionally unlikely and/or has low confidence."
The third point that they make is, "Well, but this is all going to happen so fast or it is all happening so fast we can't adapt, which is why we have to quickly wean ourselves off of fossil fuels." Basically, what I show here in these next graphs is that it is true that urban air temperatures are warming in the United States and have for decades. Maybe some of that is part of global warming but I think most of it is due to the urban heat island effect. We all know that as cities expand they generate their own heat because asphalt retains a lot more heat than grass does or trees. Anyway, the death rate related to extreme heat in the United States has been falling, decade by decade, as long as we've been measuring it 1960's, '70s, '80s, '90s, all the way up through the 2000s. The other thing is if this were really the terrible crisis that we can't adapt to that they say, then the population shifts in the United States should have all been moving in the other direction, which is what my next slide shows. It shows that the states that are warmest are the states that have had the most rapid population growth over the last fifty years. People are voting with their feet by the millions to embrace and endure more climate warming in a short space of time than even these outlandish models predict will happen in a century. If you move from Albany to Florida or to Texas, the climate is really going to change for you. Or Arizona.
This segues into my next sort of big point, which is that fossil fuels have made the planet more livable. They make the climate more livable. I think nothing illustrates that better than this graph at the bottom of page five at the left. [SCC page 19] That's a graph of deaths and death rates related to drought. Why do I pick on drought? Drought is the most lethal form of extreme weather historically, because it curtails the availability of food and water. Historically, more people have perished from drought than any other form of extreme weather. In the 1920s this shows globally, 472,000 people died from drought conditions. What happened since then? Drought deaths, the aggregate number, even though population of the globe increased threefold at least, and especially in drought-prone areas there was huge population growth. What happened? A 99.8% reduction in total deaths related to drought between 1920 and today. If you look at death rates, in other words how many people die from drought out of every million of population, then it's a 99.9% reduction.
If fossil fuel-based civilization were unsustainable as they say, these numbers should all be going in the other direction. The fact that the planet now has four times more people should mean that the drought deaths should be going up and that the drought-related death rate should be going up. It's basically fallen off the chart. If you look at all forms of extreme weather combined you get numbers that are similar to those. Not quite as spectacular but you get a 93% decrease in total deaths related to extreme weather since the 1920s and a 98% decrease in the death rate related to extreme weather. A lot of that is due to the fact that, hey, you know, we can now grow food using tractors and harvesters. We have motorized transport to bring food from areas that grow it to cities that don't produce it or from regions that are in surplus to regions that are in deficit. Then we have all of the information systems that allow for early warning of extreme weather events. And we also have the wealth creation that sustains emergency relief. And then, of course, we have these wonderful buildings that are strong and can resist wind and rain. Anyway, the thing is that fossil fuels have just made this gigantic it's almost an astronomical contribution to the livability of our planet. Somehow this fact, which everybody knows from experience, including children, is somehow completely overlooked, or even denied.
I don't know if I need to go into the rest of these but we hear about malaria. Oh, well, global warming is going to make malaria worse. It will expand. Yeah, if you make more of the world more like a tropical place, it can be better for breeding mosquitoes but look at this chart at the top left-hand corner on page six. That shows that the most of the United States was a malarious area way back in the good old days of 1882 when carbon dioxide levels were still at pre-industrial levels. And when the world was colder because we were just coming out of the Little Ice Age. What this shows is that diseases like malaria are primarily diseases of poverty and technological backwardness. They're not diseases of climate. By 1932 we had practically wiped malaria out in the United States. If you look at the other part of that little graph you'll see that the Soviet Union in the 1920s was stricken with horrible malaria epidemics. They're up in the Arctic Circle. What really matters is wealth and technology not climate for determining how at risk you are of malaria. And here's the thing. They want to pretend, "But, no. It's different now because climate is changing so rapidly. All that progress that we made is about to be lost." Well, no, because here's what the World Health Organization says. The global death rate from malaria declined by 95.4% between 1900 and the year 2012. And that just in the years 2000 to 2013 the malaria mortality rates in Africa, which is the most malaria-prone part of the world right now fell by 54%. So, in this allegedly unprecedentedly warm, which is nonsense because it's been warmer, even in the recent decades we are making great strides against malaria and not by modifying the climate but by better practices which all require wealth and you don't get wealth if you don't have energy.
How many of you have heard of Michael Mann and his hockey stick? Sam may be getting the jitters here because we're engaged in litigation against Michael Mann. But Michael Mann was famous for producing this graph which allegedly showed that global temperatures were stable for close to a thousand years and then they shoot up like the blade of a hockey stick. You have the shaft and then the blade or actually, I should be doing it this way. You're looking at it from the other side of the fence. Here's the real hockey stick is down at the bottom of page six. [SCC page 23] What it shows is that global population, global per capita income, and global average life span, were pretty much flat until the Industrial Revolution. And, also, CO2 emissions were flat. But then CO2 emissions, population, per capita income, and life expectancy all shoot up once civilization begins to transition from a carbohydrate economy, based on the muscular power of backs and legs, to a machine economy powered by fossil fuels. I have at the bottom of page six this wonderful quote from a book by Alex Epstein. Actually, it's not quite a quote because I've corrected him a little bit. I think he didn't quite get it exactly right. But he got the point right which is, "Human beings using fossil fuels did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous. They took a dangerous climate and made it dramatically safer." What he says in the original is they made it safe. Well, no. There's no such thing as absolute safety. There are always risks. There are always tradeoffs but we have made it dramatically safer.
Then, this I think is just awesome. If you look at the picture at the right-hand corner at the top of page seven, this is from a NASA satellite study that looked at green foliage cover, in other words leaves on trees and shrubs and things throughout the world from 1980 to 2015, a thirty-five year period. [NASA study] The increase, 70% of which they attributed to rising carbon dioxide concentrations. They thought maybe warming actually helps some of it, that warming made a contribution. But the thing was that the amount of increase in green foliage cover as measured by these satellites is equivalent in the words of one of the lead scientists to an area twice the size of the continental United States. That is spectacular. Can you think of a single environmental policy that has done that much good to the biosphere? No, of course not. It's gigantic. It almost beggars the imagination that thanks to the positive externality of fossil fuel consumption the world has gained the equivalent of two continental United States in area of increased leaf cover, green foliage. Carbon dioxide emissions, just in and of themselves, are greening the planet.
I'll wrap up here very quickly. My last point is that these policies that they urge us to adopt are either all pain and no gain or a cure worse than the alleged disease. Gosh, I wish you could read that cartoon there. It's very funny. The cartoon says something like I can't even read it now but it's something like, "I stopped taking my medicine, nurse, because I decided that the symptoms were preferable to the remedy" or "to the side effects." And the thing is that these people posture as physicians not just to the body politic but of the planet. They're going to save the planet. One of the things that a physician knows, in fact, that everybody knows today from watching commercials for these pharmaceuticals on TV, is that all cures have side effects, which can include everything from dry mouth to suicidal thoughts or actions, susceptibility to fungal infection. What else do they have? Of course, heart attack, stroke and death. So, they pretend like, no, no, no, the only person who could possibly ever be harmed is the CEO of a fossil fuel company. Some bloated oil plutocrat. I will discuss that in a second.
Let me first get to the "all pain, no gain" problem. Here is the Clean Power Plan. Now, this is what EPA itself estimates it's going to cost just the utilities to implement it. Roughly eight billion dollars a year to implement it. So, okay. That's just one industry. But if you look at the economic effects, this is according to the Energy Information Administration, which is the U.S. government's energy statistics agency which by law is independent of any administration. Even though politics being what it is, sometimes I think the EIA pulled its punches. It's one of the more credible agencies of the U.S. government, in part because of the independence, also because it has no regulatory authority. So, it has no direct incentive to produce a report that would justify additional regulation because it doesn't get to regulate. They estimate that the Clean Power Plan will reduce manufacturing sector jobs in the United States by 70,000 to 140,000 a year between 2021 and 2030. So, that's a significant cost and that it will reduce GDP by 28 billion to 148 billion dollars a year. That's also significant.
What do we get for that? According to EPA's own modelling, we avert less than two hundredths of one degree Celsius of global warming by the year 2100 and we avert less than two hundredths of an inch of sea level rise according to the EPA's own model. So, that's all pain for no gain, a costly exercise in symbolism.
The retort to that is, "What if we get the whole world to do it with us? Then we'll make a significant dent on global warming and then it will be worth it. Right?" Well, no. Because that's what the last two graphs there show on the bottom of page seven. [SCC pages 50 & 51] Already the developing countries are emitting more carbon dioxide emissions than the developed industrial countries. The projection is that about 90% of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2050 is going to occur in those developing countries. So, if you really want to reduce emissions dramatically, those developing countries have to reduce their emissions dramatically. What it turns out to be is this. If you assume their climatology remember I said we're already on track to stay under the two degree Celsius warming goal. But if you assume their climatology which is, "Oh, no. We've got to reduce emissions 70% between now and 2050 in order to stay under two degrees." Then even if the industrial countries, like the United States, magically become zero emissions societies by the year 2050, the developing countries are still going to have to cut their emissions by 35%. And if we only, we the developed countries, the industrial countries, only reduce our emissions 80%, which is the official goal of the Obama Administration, then the developing countries have to cut their current emissions I'm not talking about future, but current emissions by 48%, nearly in half.
What are we talking about here? We're talking about an area of the world where about 1.3 billion people don't even have electricity at all and another 2.3 billion people have too little electricity to support development. How are these people going to power their way out of poverty and at the same time cut their current carbon dioxide emissions by this much. It is clearly a humanitarian disaster in the making. The only reason why it won't come to pass, I think, is because at some point developing countries The Philippines already has just said, "No, we're not going to do that. That's crazy."
I think with that I will stop and welcome any questions you may have. We're out of time. I'm sorry I got long-winded. It's never happened before.