13

Experts in the science of global climate change often criticise their opponents by disparaging their expertise in climate science. But experts in climate science are not experts in economics. So when they campaign for particular measures to combat warming there is perhaps some ground for asking whether they are advocating the most cost-effective solution.

This is a big issue not made easier by the fact that questioning the suggested actions is seen as the same as questioning the existence of warming leaving many who accept the reality of warming labelled as "skeptics" or "deniers". An example of this would be Bjorn Lomberg, whose book, Cool It, led to him being likened to a Nazi by Rajendra Pachauri (see footnote 1046 in page 202 in the english edition).

Lomberg's book doesn't challenge the reality of warming (though he questions how evidence has been used to persuade the public). More relevant to this question, he argues that the solutions proposed by many campaigners are poor ways to avoid the expected downsides of warming. For example, if we think malaria will spread in a warmer world (see related question Will a warming world directly damage human health? for more) spending money to avoid warming will be an incredibly wasteful way to hold back malaria (in fact we could probably eliminate it entirely for a tiny fraction of the cost of lowering carbon dioxide emissions).

Several other authors have made a similar argument (though many are regarded as skeptics on the reality of warming). Nevertheless both Nigel Lawson in An appeal to Reason, and Christian Gerondeau in Climate: the Great Delusion, accept the forecasts of the IPCC and base their arguments on the economics of proposed solutions arguing that preventing climate change is both unrealistic and exceedingly expensive and that policy should focus on adapting to change or developing new technologies to sequester carbon dioxide rather than avoid emitting it.

So are their economic arguments credible? Is attempting to freeze greenhouse emissions ridiculously unrealistic? Might the world be better off is we devoted our energy to adapting to warming rather than attempting unrealistic and excessively expensive ways to avoid future greenhouse emissions? Might geoengineering CO₂ capture be better than avoiding emissions?

NB This question is about the economics of warming not the debate about the science or the history. So please stay on topic.

Community
  • 1
matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • In case anyone else is interested in the tidbit about Dr Pachauri "likening [Lomberg] to a Nazi", the quote is: "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? You cannot treat people like cattle. You must respect the diversity of cultures on earth. Lomborg thinks of people like numbers. He thinks it would be cheaper just to evacuate people from the Maldives, rather than trying to prevent world sea levels from rising so that island groups like the Maldives or Tuvalu just disappear into the sea... – Tacroy Nov 25 '12 at 20:20
  • ...But where's the respect for people in that? People have a right to live and die in the place where their forefathers have lived and died. If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing." – Tacroy Nov 25 '12 at 20:21
  • 6
    This question doesn't seem to be answerable, without an agreement on our values. How much is it worth to not have to migrate? How much is it worth not to lose [endangered species of your choice]? How much is it worth to not have to turn off the air-conditioner? This doesn't seem to be a question that can be answered with scientific skepticism. – Oddthinking Nov 26 '12 at 01:29
  • @Oddthinking Exactly. This isn't a scientific question, it's a moral one. If it's just about dollars and cents, I've got [a modest proposal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) for an incredibly cost effective food source, or a significantly more efficient [means of fighting poverty](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCILq6J2yU)... – Tacroy Nov 26 '12 at 01:58
  • @Tacroy This assumes that moral isn’t amenable to scientific inspection. I (and others) take issue with that assessment (cf. *The Moral Landscape*). Of course you can (in fact, you *must*) think in economic terms if you want to be morally responsible. Lomberg just does it (arguably) wrong. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 26 '12 at 08:34
  • 1
    @oddthinking I disagree. The debate has clearly been framed by many campaigners as a *moral* issue in an attempt to drive action. But this framing has befuddled people's ability to think straight about the choices we have. If the goals are to prevent species loss, forced migration, starvation and disease, there might be far better ways to do it than those proposed by climate activists. The question isn't about which goal to pursue or the value of different goals, it is about the cost effective pursuit of the same goals. Hence perfect skeptics fodder. – matt_black Nov 26 '12 at 08:41
  • 1
    @tacroy The question as framed does **not** require moral judgement. The issue is which *means* is the most cost effective way to achieve goals we probably all agree on. So we don't have to trade-off different value judgements just apply some clear thinking about the most *cost-effective* way to achieve those goals. On the other hand, wasting human effort and money on *ineffective* ways to achieve those goals is not a morally responsible approach. – matt_black Nov 26 '12 at 08:50
  • 1
    @matt, I don't yet see that yet. I'm still hung up on not being able to put an agreed value of the goals. But suppose we move on. What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that the (yet to be identified) activists are right and/or wrong in their goals to avoid further climate change? – Oddthinking Nov 26 '12 at 08:53
  • 1
    @Oddthinking I think the issue here is to think in terms of ultimate goals. We don't want to stop climate warming just because we like the current climate but because warming is supposed to bring death, starvation, migration and disease. Our real concern is those. Lowering greenhouse emissions may be a rotten way to prevent those problems. – matt_black Nov 26 '12 at 08:59
  • Many comments removed. According to our [Privileges section](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment), you should only use comments to request clarification from the author or leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving this post. Please review the **When shouldn't I comment?** section and act appropriately in the future. – Sklivvz Feb 07 '13 at 16:56
  • I wish I could find someone who is claiming that the elite and super rich are protecting their wealth by trying to force the poor to try to address a non existant CO2 problem rather than the real problem of the poisoning of our water tables and air through far more damaging pollution. – Chad Dec 15 '13 at 04:49

1 Answers1

5

This question includes two separate questions:

  1. Is it more cost effective to adapt to warming rather than avoiding greenhouse emissions?
  2. Might carbon capture and storage be better than avoiding emissions?

The most comprehensive work on the economics of global warming is the Stern review, which found that it is substantially cheaper to avoid global warming than it is to adapt. This hasn't exactly achieved consensus (as is predictable in both climate change discussions and in economics), but anyone arguing the reverse conclusion should really identify why they disagree with Stern. All of the problems with the report I have seen have been convincingly dealt with, but you may want to check them for yourself.

Carbon capture and storage just gives us another way of generating power without greenhouse gas emissions, much like solar or wind power. It may become cost effective in the future, but today the technology is too immature to realistically estimate the likely cost. For that reason, it is far less promising than more widespread green energy options, for which working plants are already operating.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
eigensheep
  • 147
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    good question, adding an inline quote from your reference will improve it. – Ophir Yoktan Dec 15 '13 at 13:34
  • 1
    Economists have stated what they think is wrong with the economics of the Stern Review (distinct from the climate science issues), a combination of misuse of discount factors (Stern seems to think it better for people to lose a share of their income now than for their richer descendants to lose a smaller share of income in the future), plus using estimates both of the cost of the impact of climate well above the consensus view and the cost of mitigation much less than the consensus. It was explicitly not peer reviewed. – Henry Dec 15 '13 at 15:33
  • 2
    The exploitation of fossil fuels appears to be the driving force behind economic growth since the start of the industrial revolution, so it is not a given that our descendants will be richer than we are. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, we should use them wisely, rather than being wasteful. It is rather ironic that there is so much concentration on the uncertainty in the science (which is generally overstated) and yet there is such certainty about the economics, where there isn't even agreement about discount rates. –  Dec 16 '13 at 11:45