A recent Colorado Sun article claims that climate change could cost the state up to $37 billion due to high temperature extremes and drought. This is false, built almost entirely on speculative claims about future weather and ignores the fact that reductions in extreme cold will positively influence health related costs.
The Colorado Sun’s (TCS) post, titled “What will climate change cost Coloradans? Up to $37 billion, a new study says,” discusses a study put out by a group called the Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI), “which uses research to promote equitable economic policies.” In other words, this is a left-wing activist, advocacy group, not a firm that performs straightforward economic analysis.
TCS says that the study “largely avoids scare scenarios about climate vortexes and unlivable homelands,” which is a refreshing change from studies that rely heavily on model scenarios like RCP8.5 and other extremely unlikely scenarios. However, the study still focuses on “predictable costs of higher heat and more frequent drought from now to 2050.”
The $37 billion figure is called a “conservative estimate of real costs” for the state. It primarily comes from the costs due to projected increases in extreme heat, from needing to build out cooling infrastructure, wildfire related costs, and human deaths, which CFI says will increase due to extreme heat over the next 25 years.
Colorado is one of the few states where the number of very hot days (days with temperatures over 95°F) has increased in recent years; however, it’s no worse than it was during the 1930s and 1940s, according to data on Colorado’s weather history from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (See figure below)
Nowhere in the article is extreme cold mentioned, which is notable, because deaths due to extreme cold are declining as the planet has slightly warmed over the past hundred-plus years. In fact, data on heat-and-cold related mortality show that the number of deaths due to extreme cold have declined at a faster rate than deaths due to heat have increased over the same time period. Estimates say that as many as 20 times more people die of cold than heat. This means that global warming has actually been a net life saver, rather than killer. And indeed, extreme cold instances have declined in Colorado over the years even more consistently than highs have increased. (See figure below)
Regarding TCS’s claims about drought, there is little to no evidence that rainfall related drought is striking Colorado more frequently than usual in recent years, or that recent droughts have been more severe than in the past. Data show no consistent decline in precipitation over time. (See figure below)
What is true is that what water exists is under more pressure than in the past, as population growth and agricultural development come with rising water demands in an otherwise fairly arid part of the country.
Climate Realism has covered the fact that Colorado’s water problems are not a function of changes in rainfall patterns or amounts but rather increased development and demand, here, here, and here, for example. This also brings us to the wildfire question: is climate change making wildfires more intense or widespread in Colorado?
Again, the answer is no.
Data from the National Interagency Fire Center show that the acreage burned from wildfires in recent years is actually much less than what fires burned in the early 1900s. As discussed in the first of the Climate Realism posts linked above, much of the Western United States’ woes, when it comes to fire, has to do with poor forest management and an increase in the number of people moving into areas historically prone to wildfires. Not to mention the decline of the timber industry, which has led to less clearing of fuel for fires, and fewer maintained forest access roads that used to serve as fire breaks and critical paths for firefighters to reach isolated fires before they destroyed developed areas.
The study referenced by TCS is yet another in a long line of fearmongering economic studies on climate impacts, which rely heavily on fallible climate models while eschewing real world data that would otherwise show that there is no looming emergency. Trying to appeal to the public’s pocketbook probably doesn’t mean as much as the study authors would like, when enacted climate policies like restrictions on energy use and sources are always so expensive themselves. TCS should stick to the facts and not promote speculative scare stories uninformed by real world data.
Wildlands fires are mostly a matter of bad management, with some Greens being outright opposed to wildlands management. “Nature knows best”?
The initial response to the Marshall fire (December 2021) could have been run by Keystone cops.
In any case, our governor is doing a pretty good job lessening demand on the state’s limited water resources as he and our dem legislatures drive successful companies out.
What is it with these Democratic/Progressive (Communist?) run states alienating businesses? Do they really believe their ideology trumps the reality of a tax base that keeps the wheels turning?
It could be that the communist faction is implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy.
I had to look that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
I believe a modernized version involves out of control immigration, especially that from third world countries.
Here’s a good article on the topic.
https://www.chicagocontrarian.com/blog/chicago-problem-is-the-plan
“Could be”?
In their ideology, rich people should be honored to be given the chance to give everything they have to the government.
One thing I have noticed is how angry your average socialist gets when presented with the fact that people and companies are moving in order to avoid paying taxes.
When I saw Dr. Zhivago in a theater when it first came out- I recall the young doctor went back to Moscow (from where I don’t recall- maybe from the war zone) to find his family’s large home being occupied by several families, after the revolution. One of the commy leaders asked him if he thought it was fair that his family home was now occupied by all these strangers. He pondered that for a few seconds, then wisely said “but of course”. Or something like that- after all, it was several decades ago that I saw it. Anything else and he would have gone to the gulag. 🙂
Nature does know best. The problem is that humans encroach upon nature, but don’t want to be subject to its dangerous aspects. We do need to manage forests because of this.
Humans are natural. We are in and of nature. We don’t “encroach”. “Nature” is not a sentient being with “knowledge”.
Humans have lived in Colorado for thousands of years. We have been the key predators and fire tenders for millennia. We need do only what we have always done: be good stewards of the land.
There really is a massive effort by the greens to stop all forestry- so forests will have one mission- to sequester carbon. After all, they already own a nice wood home with wood furniture and tons of paper products. They’ve raised this idea to an ideological level and call it “proforestation”. I’ve been fighting these bastards for decades.
Not to forget, humans are still part of nature.
Here in Wokeachusetts, the greens are trying hard to get all the state’s fish and wildlife professionals fired.
So if you do nothing, how much will be the tax increase be ?
Even $37 billion is a lot less than we Brits are on the hook for, given mad Ed’s dedication to the cause – now including orbiting solar farms – the price is probably infinity and beyond.
speculative claims about future weather
Can only come from models. And perversely the alleged [alarmist] scientific breakthrough originates in lawfare, not real science.
Climate attribution is a crucial aspect of climate science
…
Climate models are a crucial tool in climate attribution, as they allow researchers to simulate climate change under different forcing scenarios.
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/climate-attribution-cu-boulder
Et tu, Boulder? Yes.
“Climate models are a crucial tool in climate attribution, as they allow researchers to simulate climate change under different forcing scenarios. “
They can simulate climate change on an Earth that doesn’t exist. Wonderful.
I work in Boulder among these fools. From my perspective, I cannot understand how the city, which has among the state’s highest real estate values (Aspen/Vail/etc. are greater) and tax rates, has such poor road maintenance. In some places, there are potholes in potholes.
I can only speak from experience in London. Here the roads are a patchwork quilt of filled in holes that last a short time.
The problem is it is only as a very last resort that a road is resurfaced. And if it is resurfaced, it’s a wafer thin dressing of asphalt. It doesn’t last long before the holes develop all over again.
Our civil engineers follow the same practices. Asphalt paved roads are generally in bad condition.
Roads with concrete pavement (most constructed with shared with the state and federal funds) are in relatively good condition.
There’s no distinctions here. It’s crap, end of.
Maybe they’re thinking if they don’t fix the roads, people will stop driving- thus helping to save the planet!
Oop North, we used to drive on the left of the road. Now we drive on what’s left of the road.
The only thing being forced is their propaganda.
This just in: space alien change could cost Coloradans up to $1 trillion, a new study shows. Why, just one quick burst from a space blaster can wipe out an entire city. Don’t believe it? Then you are a Space Alien Denier. SAD.
Yeah, but the Jewish Space Lasers can be re-targeted to take out the aliens, right?
Colorado has a GDP of apx $550 billion per year as of 2024….from now until 2050 they will generate apx $20 trillion of economic activity…divide $37 billion by $20 trillion and their study says that the cost of Climate Change to Coloradans out to 2050 is .00185 of GDP…no one who is the least bit focused on reality would make a decision to spend large amounts of money and increase regulations based on that small number…just because they are good at manipulating numbers does not mean they are good at basic math.
Story Tip:
Paris Court Holds Historic Climate Trial in Case Against TotalEnergies – Inside Climate News
Paris Court Holds Historic Climate Trial in Case Against TotalEnergiesThe lawsuit challenges the oil major’s expansion plans and could set a significant precedent on climate responsibilities for fossil fuel companies if successful, advocates say.
And here I thought the French were slightly smarter than the Germans regarding AGW. Maybe some French fossil fuel companies should just pull out of that nation- like we see in CA and see how they like that.
Colorado is getting a lot of “Global Warming” dropped on it now.
Cold weather and lots of moisture.
They missed the forecast.
More moisture is needed along the Front Range.
We have 2-3 months of possible snow accumulation left. I have 6 new inches of snow and it was -4°F this morning outside of Carbondale. Even lacking snow to date, we have had plenty of subzero mornings. -20° was the coldest.
Just curious, do people visit Penny hot springs in such conditions?
I’ve never been by there under extreme cold, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Miliband in the news….
The cost to Colorado already happened in overwhelming its housing market with illegals. Get a clue.
True.
Does CO spend billions each year coddling illegals as MA does?
Yes.
I consider it traitorous of states doing this when its citizens need the roads and bridges fixed, improvements to schools, etc.
Warmer is better. More warmth would benefit Colorado by $trillions. More warmth means longer growing seasons, MORE RAIN, more bio-productivity, more bio-diversity, less energy costs for heating, more construction and outdoor project days, more agricultural productivity, more wealth creation, etc.
Let’s drill down on one of these: precipitation. As any third grader knows, rain and snow comes from clouds, and clouds come from evaporation of water in the OCEANS. The globe is 83% ocean. If the globe gets warmer, then there will be more evaporation, hence more clouds, hence more precipitation in Colorado. The entire drought freak out paranoid panic is exactly bass ackwards. Nobody who knows anything thinks global warming causes droughts. It’s just the opposite, stupes.
Evaporation comes from any body of water, not just the oceans. Obviously the bigger the body of water the more evaporation.
Also shallow bodies of water warm faster so they will evaporate more.
Finally, oceans are 70.8% of the earth’s surface. Adding freshwater bodies gets you a bit over 71%.
Does that include Antarctica’s & Greenlands kilometers thick ice?
Yes, 71%. Thank you for the correction, MW. My main point stands, however. Global warming causes more precip, not less. Even the IPCC agrees on this, and of course 97% of all Scientists (TM). The dullards in Boulder should wear dunce caps.
You miss the point. Where do the elites live and prosper? They could care less about agricultural production.
The IPCC still says that the models can’t handle clouds, but they are still confident that droughts will increase. Delusional, each and every one.
” a group called the Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI),”
In other words a greeny communist commune in a concrete palace.
It says “$33 billion to $37 billion”
Wow, they must be geniuses to nail it down like that! /s
Very nice Linnea.
Anyone who’s live here long enough knows (or should) how much of an impact ENSO has here. The warmunist propaganda is strong and has been effective, unfortunately, because even long-time residents will quickly, reactively say “climate change!” whenever there’s a La Niña-powered drought. All we can do is wait it out, but voters don’t show a lot of deliberation at the ballot box.
Nice article. I would make sure and send it to every politician’s office.
Most everyone would vote for summers being about the same and winters warming somewhat. That is, except for the folks that want to keep ski resorts and neighboring properties worth tons of money!
“Nonsense”. The best one word description of this article. It cites little scientific data , and the bit it does reference is misinterpreted or gratuitously distorted. Eg, wildfires globally are down because farming practices in the southern hemisphere have improved dramatically, but in the northern hemisphere, wildfires have been increasing due to a much warmer, and dryer, American West, Canadian forest acreage, and a rapidly warming arctic.