A common argument from climate change minimalists is that its impact on the economy by 2100 will be negligible. They suggest that even if climate change reduces the global GDP by a few percent, the economy will still be significantly larger, perhaps 20 times its current size. So, a slight reduction to 19.7 times larger is seen as a minor issue, suggesting economic growth will offset climate change's impacts. You can see the argument in action
There are as many different types of economists (and different personalities) as there are scientists. The economists at the Environmental Defense Fund and all those we work with take the dangers of climate changes extremely seriously and are spending our lives working out how to design effective policies and actions to make reaching 1.5, or at least 2 degrees possible - and how to do it while improving distributional equity.
The economics literature on the 'social cost of carbon' suggests a cost per ton of at least US$190 (US EPA proposal). It's not these estimates that are constraining the ambition of climate policies - if we had regulation that strong everywhere most of the problem would be solved already. And those who work on the social cost of carbon recognise that these are significant under-estimates. Incorporating global inequality would raise those costs 2 or 3 times at least as explained by these top economists. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701900 Don't just listen to the most vocal 'macro-economists' - they don't reflect us all.
Do behavioral economists have similar perspectives to this, or are they more measured? When I look up work/discussions on climate change by Daniel Kahneman, for instance, I see a lot of pessimism in the human spirit to tackle this economically. A very different---but IMO equally concerning---challenge to enable dismissal of action. But this is not an area I am very familiar with.
Thanks! I remember back in my MIT days we discussed this a lot with the folks in the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (being I think more on the policy side of things) didn't share the perspective that you've highlighted.
I'm sharing this post with my colleagues at Climate Central. Critical for us as we communicate the science to know how people across our own and other fields are discussing this!!
Bravo! for punching holes in the Panglossian fantasy that 3 or 4 degrees C presents no problem. Those people need to talk with insurers, who are already feeling the costs. It’s also good to point out that there is no “green premium” - i.e., economic penalty to implement renewable energy. (It may have been Bill Gates who used the “green premium” in his book of some years ago; would he still say that?)
Yes, that is a fantasy well worth puncturing, but so is the fantasy that we can achieve 2 degrees of warming with current policies of subsidizing zero CO2 emitting technologies and restricting development of specific fossil fuel development and transportation projects. We will not achieve 2 degrees without taxing net CO2 emissions. Environmentalists need to start leveling with the public about that.
As a student of economics, this is not surprising. I had a graduate class where the professor maintained that money invested affected the GDP identically whether it was for subsidizing childcare or building missiles. I and some of my classmates pointed out that these had dramatically different societal value and he commented that this made no difference from a theoretical point of view. Sigh...
He is correct. What he might not have said, or what you might not have heard, is that GDP is not a measure of human welfare and was never intended to be. It's a measure of economic activity. Check out Green GDP for attempts to correct this - though many of the things we value most can't easily be measured.
But ... Is this true? I'm not an economist, but I would guess that childcare would increase economic efficiency (and add to the GDP) by enabling parents to work. By contrast, a missile sits in it's silo, and has no (net positive) effect on the economy. Sorry, I probably don't understand GDP.
It makes no difference in a definitional point of view. If you think we need more resources going to child care (I do), advocate for policies to incentivize the shift from other uses of the resources such as a Child Tax Credit financed by additional taxes. Just don't claim that shifting resources raises GDP.
"Climate science has made successful predictions for decades."
This is true. It's also made a lot of unsuccessful predictions for decades. For instance, the New York Times quoted "some experts" in 1995: "At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years." (full article is here:https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html) At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it's now been 28 years, and no beaches, as far as I know, are "gone". There is, and has been, erosion, and beaches have been "replenished" by dumping sand dredged out of the ocean, but this practice has been ongoing for the last 100 years.
Climate models published in the 1980s and 1990s routinely forecast warming up to 6-8C by 2100; current models seem to have settled to around 2-3C by that time.
I point this out not to impugn the competence of climate scientists, but to point out the limitations in their modeling.
"In reality, we have no idea how bad the impacts of climate change will be." I suppose this is true. The "known unknowns" are large, and the number of "unknown unknowns" is limited only by imagination. This is a good argument for taking feasible, practical actions to reduce future warming while working to deal with the warming we are seeing, and will continue to see. But it's not an argument for doing anything and everything that might help, no matter the cost.
"And given how grim things are looking with our present 1.2°C of warming" This is the real weak point of the argument. There are certainly impacts from climate change, which will continue. But humans have been changing the climate and the ecology for at least the last 5,000 years. 7 billion humans can't help changing the ecology. But the best way to protect against the effects of climate change is also the best way to protect against natural disasters of all kinds: make society more prosperous so we can afford to change what can be changed and deal with what comes anyway. This applies especially for the countries that are now the biggest greenhouse gas emitters - like it or not, they will build up their economies to make their people more prosperous. Whatever warming come from that is the world we will live in.
"And the rate of innovation in renewable energy is such that 2°C is certainly within reach — it’s mainly a question of political will." If this claim means anything, it means that (someone) needs to muster the political will to spend however much is required to decarbonize the economy. If it won't cost anything, then no political will is needed. The people analyzing scenarios for net zero emissions say it will cost a lot.
“But the best way to protect against the effects of climate change is also the best way to protect against natural disasters of all kinds: make society more prosperous so we can afford to change what can be changed and deal with what comes anyway.” Sounds great but if the past few decades are a guide, the prosperity is grotesquely uneven and getting worse ( suggest reading Piketty who argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. ) with money being hoovered up by a few mega rich individuals, corporations and financial institutions eg Vanguard has $4 Trillion in assets under management which dwarfs the UK GDP of ~$3 trillion. Even if we change the current paradigm to divert wealth for the common good, which seems unlikely, making people/society more prosperous currently involves even more resource consumption, very likely exacerbating the current climate trends.
Thanks for the reply. You raised several interesting points - I'll try to address them all.
First, you cite Piketty - I assume specifically his 2013 book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". I confess I haven't read the book, but I did read what people were saying about it back when it was first published. My understanding of his basic idea matches your description. For him, I will just say that his analysis is wrong - not just wrong, but ridiculously, cartoonishly wrong. Several writers (Lawrence Summers, James Galbraith, and Paul Romer for example) have criticized his theory and analysis. My short version is that Piketty errs primarily in comparing the rate of return on capital with the rate of growth of the economy. These are two different things, which measure different and unrelated things in different ways; their only connection is that they can both be expressed as percentages. For example, I assume that you are employed, but even if you aren't, most people are. You could compare your annual salary increases to your tax rate; I expect you'd have annual salary increases in the range of 3-5%, while facing income taxes in the range of 20-50%. This doesn't mean that government revenue is growing and your remaining income is shrinking, because they are different things. For another example (this may not make much sense if you don't understand US baseball), most baseball players have batting averages in the range of 25-30%, but the average of all baseball teams' win-loss percentage is 50% (by definition). This doesn't mean that most players are worse than the average player on their team.
To return to Piketty, his assumptions make sense only if he assumes that the returns to capital are used only to produce or acquire more capital, and that this is the only way to produce or acquire capital. This is obviously false - owners of capital use at least part of their returns to support their lifestyle, while people who have no capital at all can acquire some by using some of their income to buy it, or by producing it through their own work. Piketty's analysis is meaningless.
It's true that income inequality is increasing, at least by some measures. I think it's more significant that real incomes for the vast majority of people in all societies are increasing - the poor are becoming less poor, or even middle class. This is true in every country I'm aware of, but is perhaps most visible in really poor countries, where the number of really poor people is shrinking due to better opportunities, largely driven by international trade. The increase in overall prosperity is driven by (for example) Chinese or Indian peasants leaving farms where they face real risks of starvation and getting better paying, more secure jobs in factories - the pay and working conditions in the factories are often shockingly bad by US or European standards, but are much better than the alternatives these workers previously faced.
You seem to think that our political system is hopelessly tilted to serve the rich at the expense of the common good. I disagree, but if you really think this is true, why would you think the political system can be used to remake the economy to prevent climate change? I agree that there's no will to remake the economy to prevent climate change, but I think the cause is that it would make everyone much poorer, and even the Chinese Communist Party isn't willing to stifle its economy and immiserate its people.
Fifty years ago, we Americans faced an "ecological crisis" where many people saw our problems of air and water pollution as threatening our very existence, and believed the only way to prevent catastrophe was to stop pursuing economic growth. This analysis was wrong at the time - American pollution problems were much less than those in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, because America was much more prosperous and could "afford" to protect its environment. It is wrong today to apply the same logic to carbon emissions - a modern economy makes people safer and more secure. The worst air pollution problems in the world come from "indoor air pollution" in poor countries where people burn wood, dung, or kerosene for cooking and heating; giving people access to electricity will solve their worst problems while giving them smaller ones. Trying to force them to use only "green" electricity will mean less electricity, and less reliable electricity, keeping them poor.
Increasing prosperity will surely involve more resource consumption (and production!), and most likely increase emissions of greenhouse gases, which will continue climate change. This is already "baked in the cake", so we should be focusing our efforts on reducing what we can, while dealing with the impacts we will face.
Yes I was referring to "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". I looked at it in a bookshop but it’s quite a weighty tome so opted for a book that summarised it (an idiot’s guide!). I’m not surprised that some economists disagree because disagreeing is something they excel at.
I would have thought that with many decades of economic data and plenty of crises to study, the economics community would have approached some sort of consensus about the levers that control economies. Instead the spread of economic viewpoints is still highly diverse.
Inequality varies vastly across the globe & between income and wealth. Piketty was concerned with developed economies. My understanding of how wealth flows to the wealthy was clarified by a former stock market/bond trader who explained to me how the real money is flowing (certainly in US/UK). Having made huge sums from trading he can easily exceed 5% return on his >$100M capital so that’s $5M+ income. There are only so many luxury items you can buy so excess wealth buys up land, property and other assets, further inflating their value and further adding to the investor’s wealth. Ordinary folk meanwhile tend to be in debt, paying 5% or more to those who hold the wealth via loans, mortgages, private and commercial rents so effectively transferring ordinary incomes of the masses into even greater wealth for a few.
Economic prosperity has certainly lifted many out of grinding poverty so your thesis may be true for some, especially in the developing world. However, the overwhelming % of global wealth is held or at least controlled by relatively few in the developed economies.
“You seem to think that our political system is hopelessly tilted to serve the rich at the expense of the common good. I disagree, but if you really think this is true, why would you think the political system can be used to remake the economy to prevent climate change?”
I do believe developed economies, specifically US & UK are too heavily weighted towards wealth accumulation by a few. I doubt whether politicians will change things substantially as both US and UK political systems seem rather dis-functional at present. Wealthy individuals answer to no-one and can indulge in pet projects for good or bad but large organisations have boards and risk managers (I used to be one for a multi national corporation) who should provide at least a degree of governance/internal control. Politics also functions better if the system has an independent administration/civil service to act as a cautionary voice.
Most people believe that the main driver of companies is to maximise profits. That’s certainly a high priority but the most fundamental objective for any organisation is survival. A common definition of risk is failure to achieve objectives and survival is the prime objective . Climate change (CC) has been on many corporate risk registers for decades but seen as remote and ill defined. Increasingly, such risks are becoming very real eg to supply chains. Investment & operations decisions are ultimately management’s responsibility but they are fools if they don’t at least scan their radar for looming risks that could seriously damage their business.
Forward thinking organisations having a longer perspective than the typical 4-5 year political horizon and are increasingly aware of CC risks and taking action to avoid them.
Arguably, greedy unrestrained capitalism has got us into this mess but multinationals also have built up massive resources and should be encouraged to help and if they plan ahead could use it as an opportunity to enhance their business.
Increasingly investors also see significant investment opportunities in renewables. The UK is actually quite a leader in offshore wind energy and this has mostly been financed by private investors.
Even without CC there is quite a compelling risk management case for renewables & you won’t be surprised by now when I say I have been an advocate for decades.
Millions of diverse renewable generators of various types ( solar, wind, river hydro, geothermal, tidal) and diverse storage solutions creates a very resilient energy supply. There are many hurdles to overcome but it’s the future in my humble opinion and the cost is now increasingly competitive with fossil fuel.
Indoor pollution is a very serious problem but so is general air pollution which is a major cause of death globally.
Always great to read your comments Brian. They are balanced and respectful. It’s a shame the author rarely responds to them.
From the NYT article you linked, this is a gem:
> the experts are now more confident than before that global climate change is indeed in progress and that at least some of the warming is due to human action, specifically the burning of coal, oil and wood
What?! Burning wood causes CO2 emissions and is partly responsible for global warming? That can’t be true, every climate NGO is now claiming that burning wood is climate neutral. 🤣
You're assuming Homo Economus will act rationally. As a contrary example, the newly elected government in NZ has reversed a successful anti smoking policy to gather additional revenue to fund tax cuts, even though modelling showed a net negative to society through higher costs to health system and reduced life expectancy.
Why would politicians act differently with climate change.
I'm not really assuming anything, except that no power on earth can convince China, India, Brazil, or Nigeria to decarbonize their economies. I'm pointing out that climate science can't yet give definitive answers about anything, and even if it could it would not address the cost climate change or the cost of taking action. Andrew seems to assume that every new example of bad weather is further proof that we "must" immediately set out to decisively decarbonize the economy. This is no better founded than the analyses he cites that simply made up their economic numbers.
New Zealand politicians may be following the lead of US politicians on tobacco. In 1998, the various US states and territories succeeded in getting the tobacco companies to pay huge damages to the states in compensation for the health effects of smoking, and the states' costs in paying for medical care. The agreement entrenches existing tobacco companies and protects them from competition forever. The payments were structured over decades, so the states depend on the tobacco companies continuing to sell tobacco and make profits. The states were supposed to use much of the money to fund anti-tobacco programs, but they didn't. Some states securitized their payments and sold them for immediate cash infusions.
There are certainly public choice problems with any answer on climate change, as most other topics. But any choice will run up against limits imposed by physics, population, and politics.
I have a couple of comments. The first is that the evaluation of good climate policies requires the expertise of economists, scientists and engineers/technologists. Recognizing that few members of any one of these three groups are broadly experts with in and across their respective group, and that fewer still are truly experts in either of the other two, we shouldn't be surprised that each group, in mass, uses different methods and puts forth different recommendations than the other two.
My second comment is that most members of the general public, including politicians, are not experts in any of the three groups that I listed. However, good decisions also require the consideration of the value systems of the general public. For economists, I believe their errors tend to include not understanding the impacts of climate change, the trajectories and implications of new technologies, and the societal view of these by the general public. Overall, society tends to respond to impacts on future generations -- which include our children and grandchildren -- with actions that imply an economic discount rate of about zero percent. These fit into the category of "dread risk".
It's definitely true that economists get things wrong, and in fact the not-very-good arguments you cite in your post were indeed called out... by an economist. The "economists be like" approach isn't that helpful for understanding the contribution economics does make; and let's face it we don't stand a chance of fixing things without it.
Radical idea... consult some economists about what is going on in the field, and write about that. For a peek at some actually good research, see Ishan Nath's paper "how much will global warming cool global growth":
Is the glass half empty or half full? You tend to find you go looking for. I worked in fusion for 34 years and so I tend to be an optimist. It is a job prerequisite. Although, based on my experience, I am skeptical of promises that it can help us get to net-zero in the next 30 to 40 years.
I try to follow thought leaders and influencers including energy system experts like Jesse Jenkins from Princeton and John Bistline from EPRI. As part of the process, I have put together my own list of reasons to be optimistic.
1. Coal is dying in the U.S. The percentage of electrical generation by coal decreased from 51.7% to 19.7% between 2000 and 2022. The last coal plant over 100 MW in the U.S. went online 2013. It will probably be the last one ever built. Ref. EIA
2. Specific emissions of electrical generation in the U.S. have dropped by 40% between 2000 and 2022 from 650 kg/MWh to 390 kg/MWh. Ref. EIA.
3. Renewable generation surpassed coal and nuclear in the U.S. in 2022. When combined with nuclear, carbon-free sources now account for nearly 40% of the electrical generation in the U.S. Ref. EIA.
4. The only fossil fuel competitive with renewables in the U.S. is natural gas. It emits 57% less CO2 per MWh compared to coal, 443 kg/MWh vs 1025 kg/MWh. If it displaces coal, it is still a win. Most utilities see it as transition source on their way to carbon-free generation. Ref. John Bistline.
5. Rocky Mountain Institute analyzed the Integrated Resource Plans of 104 utilities in the U.S. through 2035. Those utilities plan to deploy greater than 4 times more carbon free generation than natural gas generation between now and 2035.
6. 80% of U.S. utility customer account are served by utilities that have net-zero emission targets by or before 2050. Ref. Smart Electric Power Alliance.
Thought provoking as always. I don't get terribly torqued up by any specific economist pronouncement, since as a profession they continually offer a mind-numbing range of forecasts and opinions that in retrospect are often entirely wrong. Given what we know about climate science and the negative impacts see to date, I'd suggest adopting the precautionary principle and assume the almost worst is likely and act accordingly.
Polticians tend to listen to economists who talk about effects on GDP because that GDP correlates best with how likely it is for them to get re-elected. These economists tend to be Chicago School and are known to ignore and be dismissive of any other economists who try to debate the policies they advocate. Unfortunately economics does not have the same robust peer review process as most academic fields. Hence this issue keeps coming up on the fringes of economics but is as ever, ignored. A recent previous attempt to bring sanity into the discussion by Keen et al 2022 is a case in point. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2117308119
I'll bet those models also assume an infinite supply of oil and gas in the ground. How can someone call themselves a professional and do such obviously sloppy work?
"oceans will acidify, sea level will rise hundreds of feet"
You do yourself a great disservice by being scientifically WRONG and scientifically misleading in your writing. The oceans will never turn to acid; they will become less alkaline, just as they have done many times in the geological past. And the melting of the planet's ice will raise sea levels by 230 feet (according to the US Geological Survey) and will take 5000 years (according to National Geographic), giving humanity lots of time to adapt or to properly solve our fossil fuel problems).
I now consider all of your predictions to be suspect.
Bernie, the sentence you quoted isn't scientifically wrong. 'Acidify' means 'become more acidic', i.e. 'become less alkaline', i.e. 'undergo a decline in pH'. You can look it up as easily as anyone can. The oceans are in fact acidifying right now. It's having an impact on marine life, particularly corals (noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification). And '230' is 'hundreds'. Nor did Andrew imply any timeframe for the consequences of a 4°C warming. It's puzzling that you'd make an issue of it. It makes your own arguments suspect.
A liquid is not an acid until its pH reaches or falls below 7.0. No scientist is predicting that the pH of marine waters will fall this low as a result of climate change so to refer to a lowering of pH from, say, 8.4 to 8.3 as 'acidifying' is pure ans simply scaremongering. Just because all the climate activists refer to this mild pH change as acidification does not make it technically or morally correct to do so. And the impact on corals has been shown by researchers to be inconsequential, with corals continuing to grow and thrive in these slightly less alkaline water. Further, no credible climate change scientists are saying that the world will warm by 4 degrees C, with 3 degrees now considered the worst case scenario.
Wow, that's some industrial-strength denialism, Bernie. Are you getting paid to post this nonsense? Are you even a human being? I'm responding for the presumed benefit of the hypothetical uncommitted lurker here:
'Bernie Masters' is hardly the master of the words scientists use for changes in the pH of ocean water. Whether he likes it or not, 'acidifying' means nothing more than 'declining in pH' in this context (here's the dictionary definition: vocabulary.com/dictionary/acidify). Nor does he get to decide what's technically or morally correct on anyone else's behalf, even if he's not a paid disinformer or a 'bot. He doesn't cite those researchers who allegedly showed the impact of acidification on corals to be 'inconsequential', but whoever they are, why does he trust them if he doesn't trust NOAA? And 4 degrees of warming isn't a worst-case scenario, but one of an open-ended range of potential scenarios, some much worse, all depending on how fast the global economy decarbonizes (nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01125-x). We know that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas (it's a metaphor, Bernie), and that it forms a weak acid when dissolved in seawater. From those two facts, we know *beyond a reasonable doubt* that global heat content and sea level will rise, and ocean pH will fall, as long as the anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere continues. 'Climate activists', rather than denying the scientifically credible risks of continued global warming, are advocating collective action to end large-scale carbon transfer as soon as possible. The worst case scenario is that science-denialists like Bernie will delay decarbonization until collective action is no longer possible on a scale larger than a fortified town.
Too clever by half, Mal,. but nice try. Bottom line is: I'm not a climate change denier or skeptic but a rationalist, able to see the wood for the trees. My simple complaint remains valid, namely, that the oceans will never ever become acidic and the process underway is more truthfully described as reducing alkalinity, but of course, acidifying the oceans sounds more scary. As for corals being able to handle lower pH waters, you would do well to provide evidence in support of your claim that corals are being badly affected by this reducing pH. Geologically, the world has been through eras when atmospheric CO2 levels were 3000ppm or higher, yet corals survived.
It's 'clever' to back up factual claims with links to sources, Bernie. I've done that consistently, while you've consistently failed to do so. Regardless, I'm tired of playing whack-a-denier. I'll let someone else take a turn with the mallet.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and links to new information. In the past I have questioned what might be the relationships among these factors: GDP, CO2, population growth. It's not a stretch to believe that CO2 emissions (Mauna Loa data) are "correlated" with GDP (a surrogate for work that require fossil fuels) and population growth (which demands more food, housing, goods and services, etc., which are dependent upon fossil fuels). cheers
The 2014 cost estimates of how much it would cost to hold global warnings to 1.5-2 degrees were probably overestimated at the time. They were not based on the least-cost policy taxation of net CO2 emissions. And those cost have dropped significantly since then. Unfortunately we have still not embarked on the least cost solution. Given political opposition to taxation of net CO2 emissions [but this "given" is at least partly the fault of environmentalists not pushing for it], subsidizing zero CO@ emitting technologies is probably better than nothing, but I do not think it will be enough. I sincerely hope we will move to taxation of net CO2 emissions before it is too late.
You believe the "least cost" approach to holding warming to 1.5-2 degrees is a carbon tax. Let's agree that approach could work. But the critical question is: "How high would the tax have to be?" If I understand the current argument, achieving 1.5-2 degrees requires net zero emissions by 2050. I have heard of no plausible routes to Net Zero that don't involve carbon capture and sequestration, which doesn't yet exist. So, achieving Net Zero would mean taxing fossil fuels high enough to stop their use entirely. If that's true, why not simply ban their production and use?
If we banned production and use of fossil fuels immediately people would starve to death in their millions if not billions. And, no one would agree to do it. But we can agree to phase it out - and we can meet energy needs in other ways given time to make the change - we need to keep pushing ourselves to do it faster.
And carbon capture and storage does exist. Biological capture has been going on for a wee while. And even direct air capture and geological storage is technically possible - it's just really expensive. But stopping emissions as fast as possible is still critical.
Come on. Banning production and use wouldn't have to be immediate - we could muster the political will to require 50% reduction within 10 years and complete ban by 2050. Setting a carbon tax to achieve the same goals is economically attractive, but no one knows how high the tax would have to be to achieve these goals. And if we did know, there'd be no political will.
You had quoted a US EPA estimate of $190 per ton as "social cost" of carbon. This would be equivalent to about $1.90 per gallon of gasoline. Many countries, including New Zealand, have gasoline taxes much higher than this already, and they aren't enough to displace gasoline as a motor fuel. If, as Andrew says, it's wrong for economists to make up numbers to justify some targeted level of warming, it's just as wrong for other economists to make up numbers to imply that some simple policy tweak will usher in a green, carbon-neutral future.
Was your remark about biological capture intended to be illuminating? Of course trees capture carbon, but it's only stored as long as the wood exists as wood. If the wood is burned or rots then the carbon re-enters the carbon cycle. The US has seen a great deal of reforestation over the last 75 years, which has captured a lot of carbon. But this is a one-shot deal, unless the wood is kept for a very long time.
I liked this as soon as I saw it, but since I can only 'like' it once, I'm here to say I really appreciate Jeff's defense of Economics as a discipline. Before finding an easier way to make a living, I trained in Ecology to the doctoral level, taking a few Economics courses along the way. Among other useful things, they helped me recognize anthropogenic global warming's origin in the Tragedy of the Commons.
I'm acquainted with the bias of physical scientists against the 'squishier' biological and social sciences. Nonetheless, human behavior is a primary factor in our environmental impact at all scales; and to the extent our individual and aggregate behaviors are observable phenomena, they can best be understood by the principles of science, namely empiricism and intersubjective verification by trained, disciplined peers. The science of Economics may still let us fool ourselves, but without it we have no way to know whether we're fooling ourselves or not.
Besides, my brother is a retired Economics Professor!
There are as many different types of economists (and different personalities) as there are scientists. The economists at the Environmental Defense Fund and all those we work with take the dangers of climate changes extremely seriously and are spending our lives working out how to design effective policies and actions to make reaching 1.5, or at least 2 degrees possible - and how to do it while improving distributional equity.
The economics literature on the 'social cost of carbon' suggests a cost per ton of at least US$190 (US EPA proposal). It's not these estimates that are constraining the ambition of climate policies - if we had regulation that strong everywhere most of the problem would be solved already. And those who work on the social cost of carbon recognise that these are significant under-estimates. Incorporating global inequality would raise those costs 2 or 3 times at least as explained by these top economists. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701900 Don't just listen to the most vocal 'macro-economists' - they don't reflect us all.
Do behavioral economists have similar perspectives to this, or are they more measured? When I look up work/discussions on climate change by Daniel Kahneman, for instance, I see a lot of pessimism in the human spirit to tackle this economically. A very different---but IMO equally concerning---challenge to enable dismissal of action. But this is not an area I am very familiar with.
I don't know the answer to that, but if they have a different perspective it's been much less influential.
Thanks! I remember back in my MIT days we discussed this a lot with the folks in the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (being I think more on the policy side of things) didn't share the perspective that you've highlighted.
I'm sharing this post with my colleagues at Climate Central. Critical for us as we communicate the science to know how people across our own and other fields are discussing this!!
Bravo! for punching holes in the Panglossian fantasy that 3 or 4 degrees C presents no problem. Those people need to talk with insurers, who are already feeling the costs. It’s also good to point out that there is no “green premium” - i.e., economic penalty to implement renewable energy. (It may have been Bill Gates who used the “green premium” in his book of some years ago; would he still say that?)
He used the term in his book, but referred to it only when consumers go to buy products in the marketplace, externalities we're not considered.
Yes, that is a fantasy well worth puncturing, but so is the fantasy that we can achieve 2 degrees of warming with current policies of subsidizing zero CO2 emitting technologies and restricting development of specific fossil fuel development and transportation projects. We will not achieve 2 degrees without taxing net CO2 emissions. Environmentalists need to start leveling with the public about that.
As a student of economics, this is not surprising. I had a graduate class where the professor maintained that money invested affected the GDP identically whether it was for subsidizing childcare or building missiles. I and some of my classmates pointed out that these had dramatically different societal value and he commented that this made no difference from a theoretical point of view. Sigh...
He is correct. What he might not have said, or what you might not have heard, is that GDP is not a measure of human welfare and was never intended to be. It's a measure of economic activity. Check out Green GDP for attempts to correct this - though many of the things we value most can't easily be measured.
But ... Is this true? I'm not an economist, but I would guess that childcare would increase economic efficiency (and add to the GDP) by enabling parents to work. By contrast, a missile sits in it's silo, and has no (net positive) effect on the economy. Sorry, I probably don't understand GDP.
It makes no difference in a definitional point of view. If you think we need more resources going to child care (I do), advocate for policies to incentivize the shift from other uses of the resources such as a Child Tax Credit financed by additional taxes. Just don't claim that shifting resources raises GDP.
"Climate science has made successful predictions for decades."
This is true. It's also made a lot of unsuccessful predictions for decades. For instance, the New York Times quoted "some experts" in 1995: "At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years." (full article is here:https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html) At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it's now been 28 years, and no beaches, as far as I know, are "gone". There is, and has been, erosion, and beaches have been "replenished" by dumping sand dredged out of the ocean, but this practice has been ongoing for the last 100 years.
Climate models published in the 1980s and 1990s routinely forecast warming up to 6-8C by 2100; current models seem to have settled to around 2-3C by that time.
I point this out not to impugn the competence of climate scientists, but to point out the limitations in their modeling.
"In reality, we have no idea how bad the impacts of climate change will be." I suppose this is true. The "known unknowns" are large, and the number of "unknown unknowns" is limited only by imagination. This is a good argument for taking feasible, practical actions to reduce future warming while working to deal with the warming we are seeing, and will continue to see. But it's not an argument for doing anything and everything that might help, no matter the cost.
"And given how grim things are looking with our present 1.2°C of warming" This is the real weak point of the argument. There are certainly impacts from climate change, which will continue. But humans have been changing the climate and the ecology for at least the last 5,000 years. 7 billion humans can't help changing the ecology. But the best way to protect against the effects of climate change is also the best way to protect against natural disasters of all kinds: make society more prosperous so we can afford to change what can be changed and deal with what comes anyway. This applies especially for the countries that are now the biggest greenhouse gas emitters - like it or not, they will build up their economies to make their people more prosperous. Whatever warming come from that is the world we will live in.
"And the rate of innovation in renewable energy is such that 2°C is certainly within reach — it’s mainly a question of political will." If this claim means anything, it means that (someone) needs to muster the political will to spend however much is required to decarbonize the economy. If it won't cost anything, then no political will is needed. The people analyzing scenarios for net zero emissions say it will cost a lot.
“But the best way to protect against the effects of climate change is also the best way to protect against natural disasters of all kinds: make society more prosperous so we can afford to change what can be changed and deal with what comes anyway.” Sounds great but if the past few decades are a guide, the prosperity is grotesquely uneven and getting worse ( suggest reading Piketty who argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. ) with money being hoovered up by a few mega rich individuals, corporations and financial institutions eg Vanguard has $4 Trillion in assets under management which dwarfs the UK GDP of ~$3 trillion. Even if we change the current paradigm to divert wealth for the common good, which seems unlikely, making people/society more prosperous currently involves even more resource consumption, very likely exacerbating the current climate trends.
Thanks for the reply. You raised several interesting points - I'll try to address them all.
First, you cite Piketty - I assume specifically his 2013 book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". I confess I haven't read the book, but I did read what people were saying about it back when it was first published. My understanding of his basic idea matches your description. For him, I will just say that his analysis is wrong - not just wrong, but ridiculously, cartoonishly wrong. Several writers (Lawrence Summers, James Galbraith, and Paul Romer for example) have criticized his theory and analysis. My short version is that Piketty errs primarily in comparing the rate of return on capital with the rate of growth of the economy. These are two different things, which measure different and unrelated things in different ways; their only connection is that they can both be expressed as percentages. For example, I assume that you are employed, but even if you aren't, most people are. You could compare your annual salary increases to your tax rate; I expect you'd have annual salary increases in the range of 3-5%, while facing income taxes in the range of 20-50%. This doesn't mean that government revenue is growing and your remaining income is shrinking, because they are different things. For another example (this may not make much sense if you don't understand US baseball), most baseball players have batting averages in the range of 25-30%, but the average of all baseball teams' win-loss percentage is 50% (by definition). This doesn't mean that most players are worse than the average player on their team.
To return to Piketty, his assumptions make sense only if he assumes that the returns to capital are used only to produce or acquire more capital, and that this is the only way to produce or acquire capital. This is obviously false - owners of capital use at least part of their returns to support their lifestyle, while people who have no capital at all can acquire some by using some of their income to buy it, or by producing it through their own work. Piketty's analysis is meaningless.
It's true that income inequality is increasing, at least by some measures. I think it's more significant that real incomes for the vast majority of people in all societies are increasing - the poor are becoming less poor, or even middle class. This is true in every country I'm aware of, but is perhaps most visible in really poor countries, where the number of really poor people is shrinking due to better opportunities, largely driven by international trade. The increase in overall prosperity is driven by (for example) Chinese or Indian peasants leaving farms where they face real risks of starvation and getting better paying, more secure jobs in factories - the pay and working conditions in the factories are often shockingly bad by US or European standards, but are much better than the alternatives these workers previously faced.
You seem to think that our political system is hopelessly tilted to serve the rich at the expense of the common good. I disagree, but if you really think this is true, why would you think the political system can be used to remake the economy to prevent climate change? I agree that there's no will to remake the economy to prevent climate change, but I think the cause is that it would make everyone much poorer, and even the Chinese Communist Party isn't willing to stifle its economy and immiserate its people.
Fifty years ago, we Americans faced an "ecological crisis" where many people saw our problems of air and water pollution as threatening our very existence, and believed the only way to prevent catastrophe was to stop pursuing economic growth. This analysis was wrong at the time - American pollution problems were much less than those in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, because America was much more prosperous and could "afford" to protect its environment. It is wrong today to apply the same logic to carbon emissions - a modern economy makes people safer and more secure. The worst air pollution problems in the world come from "indoor air pollution" in poor countries where people burn wood, dung, or kerosene for cooking and heating; giving people access to electricity will solve their worst problems while giving them smaller ones. Trying to force them to use only "green" electricity will mean less electricity, and less reliable electricity, keeping them poor.
Increasing prosperity will surely involve more resource consumption (and production!), and most likely increase emissions of greenhouse gases, which will continue climate change. This is already "baked in the cake", so we should be focusing our efforts on reducing what we can, while dealing with the impacts we will face.
Yes I was referring to "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". I looked at it in a bookshop but it’s quite a weighty tome so opted for a book that summarised it (an idiot’s guide!). I’m not surprised that some economists disagree because disagreeing is something they excel at.
I would have thought that with many decades of economic data and plenty of crises to study, the economics community would have approached some sort of consensus about the levers that control economies. Instead the spread of economic viewpoints is still highly diverse.
Inequality varies vastly across the globe & between income and wealth. Piketty was concerned with developed economies. My understanding of how wealth flows to the wealthy was clarified by a former stock market/bond trader who explained to me how the real money is flowing (certainly in US/UK). Having made huge sums from trading he can easily exceed 5% return on his >$100M capital so that’s $5M+ income. There are only so many luxury items you can buy so excess wealth buys up land, property and other assets, further inflating their value and further adding to the investor’s wealth. Ordinary folk meanwhile tend to be in debt, paying 5% or more to those who hold the wealth via loans, mortgages, private and commercial rents so effectively transferring ordinary incomes of the masses into even greater wealth for a few.
Economic prosperity has certainly lifted many out of grinding poverty so your thesis may be true for some, especially in the developing world. However, the overwhelming % of global wealth is held or at least controlled by relatively few in the developed economies.
“You seem to think that our political system is hopelessly tilted to serve the rich at the expense of the common good. I disagree, but if you really think this is true, why would you think the political system can be used to remake the economy to prevent climate change?”
I do believe developed economies, specifically US & UK are too heavily weighted towards wealth accumulation by a few. I doubt whether politicians will change things substantially as both US and UK political systems seem rather dis-functional at present. Wealthy individuals answer to no-one and can indulge in pet projects for good or bad but large organisations have boards and risk managers (I used to be one for a multi national corporation) who should provide at least a degree of governance/internal control. Politics also functions better if the system has an independent administration/civil service to act as a cautionary voice.
Most people believe that the main driver of companies is to maximise profits. That’s certainly a high priority but the most fundamental objective for any organisation is survival. A common definition of risk is failure to achieve objectives and survival is the prime objective . Climate change (CC) has been on many corporate risk registers for decades but seen as remote and ill defined. Increasingly, such risks are becoming very real eg to supply chains. Investment & operations decisions are ultimately management’s responsibility but they are fools if they don’t at least scan their radar for looming risks that could seriously damage their business.
Large financial organisations make major investment decisions based on the carefully considered and usually sage advice of actuaries so when they start to warn of escalating costs of CC we should all take note - https://blog.actuaries.org.uk/2022/11/climate-emergency-tipping-the-odds-in-our-favour/
Forward thinking organisations having a longer perspective than the typical 4-5 year political horizon and are increasingly aware of CC risks and taking action to avoid them.
Arguably, greedy unrestrained capitalism has got us into this mess but multinationals also have built up massive resources and should be encouraged to help and if they plan ahead could use it as an opportunity to enhance their business.
Increasingly investors also see significant investment opportunities in renewables. The UK is actually quite a leader in offshore wind energy and this has mostly been financed by private investors.
Even without CC there is quite a compelling risk management case for renewables & you won’t be surprised by now when I say I have been an advocate for decades.
Millions of diverse renewable generators of various types ( solar, wind, river hydro, geothermal, tidal) and diverse storage solutions creates a very resilient energy supply. There are many hurdles to overcome but it’s the future in my humble opinion and the cost is now increasingly competitive with fossil fuel.
Indoor pollution is a very serious problem but so is general air pollution which is a major cause of death globally.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32345-0/fulltext#seccestitle10
Always great to read your comments Brian. They are balanced and respectful. It’s a shame the author rarely responds to them.
From the NYT article you linked, this is a gem:
> the experts are now more confident than before that global climate change is indeed in progress and that at least some of the warming is due to human action, specifically the burning of coal, oil and wood
What?! Burning wood causes CO2 emissions and is partly responsible for global warming? That can’t be true, every climate NGO is now claiming that burning wood is climate neutral. 🤣
You're assuming Homo Economus will act rationally. As a contrary example, the newly elected government in NZ has reversed a successful anti smoking policy to gather additional revenue to fund tax cuts, even though modelling showed a net negative to society through higher costs to health system and reduced life expectancy.
Why would politicians act differently with climate change.
I'm not really assuming anything, except that no power on earth can convince China, India, Brazil, or Nigeria to decarbonize their economies. I'm pointing out that climate science can't yet give definitive answers about anything, and even if it could it would not address the cost climate change or the cost of taking action. Andrew seems to assume that every new example of bad weather is further proof that we "must" immediately set out to decisively decarbonize the economy. This is no better founded than the analyses he cites that simply made up their economic numbers.
New Zealand politicians may be following the lead of US politicians on tobacco. In 1998, the various US states and territories succeeded in getting the tobacco companies to pay huge damages to the states in compensation for the health effects of smoking, and the states' costs in paying for medical care. The agreement entrenches existing tobacco companies and protects them from competition forever. The payments were structured over decades, so the states depend on the tobacco companies continuing to sell tobacco and make profits. The states were supposed to use much of the money to fund anti-tobacco programs, but they didn't. Some states securitized their payments and sold them for immediate cash infusions.
There are certainly public choice problems with any answer on climate change, as most other topics. But any choice will run up against limits imposed by physics, population, and politics.
I have a couple of comments. The first is that the evaluation of good climate policies requires the expertise of economists, scientists and engineers/technologists. Recognizing that few members of any one of these three groups are broadly experts with in and across their respective group, and that fewer still are truly experts in either of the other two, we shouldn't be surprised that each group, in mass, uses different methods and puts forth different recommendations than the other two.
My second comment is that most members of the general public, including politicians, are not experts in any of the three groups that I listed. However, good decisions also require the consideration of the value systems of the general public. For economists, I believe their errors tend to include not understanding the impacts of climate change, the trajectories and implications of new technologies, and the societal view of these by the general public. Overall, society tends to respond to impacts on future generations -- which include our children and grandchildren -- with actions that imply an economic discount rate of about zero percent. These fit into the category of "dread risk".
It's definitely true that economists get things wrong, and in fact the not-very-good arguments you cite in your post were indeed called out... by an economist. The "economists be like" approach isn't that helpful for understanding the contribution economics does make; and let's face it we don't stand a chance of fixing things without it.
Radical idea... consult some economists about what is going on in the field, and write about that. For a peek at some actually good research, see Ishan Nath's paper "how much will global warming cool global growth":
https://www.ishannath.com/research
I've asked Kalshi.com for a market on how many billion-dollar disasters per year declared by NOAA.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
Is the glass half empty or half full? You tend to find you go looking for. I worked in fusion for 34 years and so I tend to be an optimist. It is a job prerequisite. Although, based on my experience, I am skeptical of promises that it can help us get to net-zero in the next 30 to 40 years.
Good news and optimism based on progress and projections about the energy transition is not that hard to find. Even the WSJ this week thinks there is room for optimism, https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/now-for-some-good-news-about-climate-27236f56?st=272jeb7ceqhikta&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Renewables have grown globally at the rate of 17% the last seven years, if we can keep that up we will triple renewables by 2030, https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-deals-at-cop28-to-triple-renewables-and-double-efficiency-are-crucial-for-1-5c/ . I live in NM and I follow the electrical sector closely. We are on track to at least double and maybe triple the amount of renewables here.
I try to follow thought leaders and influencers including energy system experts like Jesse Jenkins from Princeton and John Bistline from EPRI. As part of the process, I have put together my own list of reasons to be optimistic.
1. Coal is dying in the U.S. The percentage of electrical generation by coal decreased from 51.7% to 19.7% between 2000 and 2022. The last coal plant over 100 MW in the U.S. went online 2013. It will probably be the last one ever built. Ref. EIA
2. Specific emissions of electrical generation in the U.S. have dropped by 40% between 2000 and 2022 from 650 kg/MWh to 390 kg/MWh. Ref. EIA.
3. Renewable generation surpassed coal and nuclear in the U.S. in 2022. When combined with nuclear, carbon-free sources now account for nearly 40% of the electrical generation in the U.S. Ref. EIA.
4. The only fossil fuel competitive with renewables in the U.S. is natural gas. It emits 57% less CO2 per MWh compared to coal, 443 kg/MWh vs 1025 kg/MWh. If it displaces coal, it is still a win. Most utilities see it as transition source on their way to carbon-free generation. Ref. John Bistline.
5. Rocky Mountain Institute analyzed the Integrated Resource Plans of 104 utilities in the U.S. through 2035. Those utilities plan to deploy greater than 4 times more carbon free generation than natural gas generation between now and 2035.
6. 80% of U.S. utility customer account are served by utilities that have net-zero emission targets by or before 2050. Ref. Smart Electric Power Alliance.
Thought provoking as always. I don't get terribly torqued up by any specific economist pronouncement, since as a profession they continually offer a mind-numbing range of forecasts and opinions that in retrospect are often entirely wrong. Given what we know about climate science and the negative impacts see to date, I'd suggest adopting the precautionary principle and assume the almost worst is likely and act accordingly.
Polticians tend to listen to economists who talk about effects on GDP because that GDP correlates best with how likely it is for them to get re-elected. These economists tend to be Chicago School and are known to ignore and be dismissive of any other economists who try to debate the policies they advocate. Unfortunately economics does not have the same robust peer review process as most academic fields. Hence this issue keeps coming up on the fringes of economics but is as ever, ignored. A recent previous attempt to bring sanity into the discussion by Keen et al 2022 is a case in point. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2117308119
I'll bet those models also assume an infinite supply of oil and gas in the ground. How can someone call themselves a professional and do such obviously sloppy work?
"oceans will acidify, sea level will rise hundreds of feet"
You do yourself a great disservice by being scientifically WRONG and scientifically misleading in your writing. The oceans will never turn to acid; they will become less alkaline, just as they have done many times in the geological past. And the melting of the planet's ice will raise sea levels by 230 feet (according to the US Geological Survey) and will take 5000 years (according to National Geographic), giving humanity lots of time to adapt or to properly solve our fossil fuel problems).
I now consider all of your predictions to be suspect.
Bernie, the sentence you quoted isn't scientifically wrong. 'Acidify' means 'become more acidic', i.e. 'become less alkaline', i.e. 'undergo a decline in pH'. You can look it up as easily as anyone can. The oceans are in fact acidifying right now. It's having an impact on marine life, particularly corals (noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification). And '230' is 'hundreds'. Nor did Andrew imply any timeframe for the consequences of a 4°C warming. It's puzzling that you'd make an issue of it. It makes your own arguments suspect.
A liquid is not an acid until its pH reaches or falls below 7.0. No scientist is predicting that the pH of marine waters will fall this low as a result of climate change so to refer to a lowering of pH from, say, 8.4 to 8.3 as 'acidifying' is pure ans simply scaremongering. Just because all the climate activists refer to this mild pH change as acidification does not make it technically or morally correct to do so. And the impact on corals has been shown by researchers to be inconsequential, with corals continuing to grow and thrive in these slightly less alkaline water. Further, no credible climate change scientists are saying that the world will warm by 4 degrees C, with 3 degrees now considered the worst case scenario.
Wow, that's some industrial-strength denialism, Bernie. Are you getting paid to post this nonsense? Are you even a human being? I'm responding for the presumed benefit of the hypothetical uncommitted lurker here:
'Bernie Masters' is hardly the master of the words scientists use for changes in the pH of ocean water. Whether he likes it or not, 'acidifying' means nothing more than 'declining in pH' in this context (here's the dictionary definition: vocabulary.com/dictionary/acidify). Nor does he get to decide what's technically or morally correct on anyone else's behalf, even if he's not a paid disinformer or a 'bot. He doesn't cite those researchers who allegedly showed the impact of acidification on corals to be 'inconsequential', but whoever they are, why does he trust them if he doesn't trust NOAA? And 4 degrees of warming isn't a worst-case scenario, but one of an open-ended range of potential scenarios, some much worse, all depending on how fast the global economy decarbonizes (nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01125-x). We know that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas (it's a metaphor, Bernie), and that it forms a weak acid when dissolved in seawater. From those two facts, we know *beyond a reasonable doubt* that global heat content and sea level will rise, and ocean pH will fall, as long as the anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere continues. 'Climate activists', rather than denying the scientifically credible risks of continued global warming, are advocating collective action to end large-scale carbon transfer as soon as possible. The worst case scenario is that science-denialists like Bernie will delay decarbonization until collective action is no longer possible on a scale larger than a fortified town.
Too clever by half, Mal,. but nice try. Bottom line is: I'm not a climate change denier or skeptic but a rationalist, able to see the wood for the trees. My simple complaint remains valid, namely, that the oceans will never ever become acidic and the process underway is more truthfully described as reducing alkalinity, but of course, acidifying the oceans sounds more scary. As for corals being able to handle lower pH waters, you would do well to provide evidence in support of your claim that corals are being badly affected by this reducing pH. Geologically, the world has been through eras when atmospheric CO2 levels were 3000ppm or higher, yet corals survived.
It's 'clever' to back up factual claims with links to sources, Bernie. I've done that consistently, while you've consistently failed to do so. Regardless, I'm tired of playing whack-a-denier. I'll let someone else take a turn with the mallet.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and links to new information. In the past I have questioned what might be the relationships among these factors: GDP, CO2, population growth. It's not a stretch to believe that CO2 emissions (Mauna Loa data) are "correlated" with GDP (a surrogate for work that require fossil fuels) and population growth (which demands more food, housing, goods and services, etc., which are dependent upon fossil fuels). cheers
The 2014 cost estimates of how much it would cost to hold global warnings to 1.5-2 degrees were probably overestimated at the time. They were not based on the least-cost policy taxation of net CO2 emissions. And those cost have dropped significantly since then. Unfortunately we have still not embarked on the least cost solution. Given political opposition to taxation of net CO2 emissions [but this "given" is at least partly the fault of environmentalists not pushing for it], subsidizing zero CO@ emitting technologies is probably better than nothing, but I do not think it will be enough. I sincerely hope we will move to taxation of net CO2 emissions before it is too late.
You believe the "least cost" approach to holding warming to 1.5-2 degrees is a carbon tax. Let's agree that approach could work. But the critical question is: "How high would the tax have to be?" If I understand the current argument, achieving 1.5-2 degrees requires net zero emissions by 2050. I have heard of no plausible routes to Net Zero that don't involve carbon capture and sequestration, which doesn't yet exist. So, achieving Net Zero would mean taxing fossil fuels high enough to stop their use entirely. If that's true, why not simply ban their production and use?
If we banned production and use of fossil fuels immediately people would starve to death in their millions if not billions. And, no one would agree to do it. But we can agree to phase it out - and we can meet energy needs in other ways given time to make the change - we need to keep pushing ourselves to do it faster.
And carbon capture and storage does exist. Biological capture has been going on for a wee while. And even direct air capture and geological storage is technically possible - it's just really expensive. But stopping emissions as fast as possible is still critical.
Come on. Banning production and use wouldn't have to be immediate - we could muster the political will to require 50% reduction within 10 years and complete ban by 2050. Setting a carbon tax to achieve the same goals is economically attractive, but no one knows how high the tax would have to be to achieve these goals. And if we did know, there'd be no political will.
You had quoted a US EPA estimate of $190 per ton as "social cost" of carbon. This would be equivalent to about $1.90 per gallon of gasoline. Many countries, including New Zealand, have gasoline taxes much higher than this already, and they aren't enough to displace gasoline as a motor fuel. If, as Andrew says, it's wrong for economists to make up numbers to justify some targeted level of warming, it's just as wrong for other economists to make up numbers to imply that some simple policy tweak will usher in a green, carbon-neutral future.
Was your remark about biological capture intended to be illuminating? Of course trees capture carbon, but it's only stored as long as the wood exists as wood. If the wood is burned or rots then the carbon re-enters the carbon cycle. The US has seen a great deal of reforestation over the last 75 years, which has captured a lot of carbon. But this is a one-shot deal, unless the wood is kept for a very long time.
I liked this as soon as I saw it, but since I can only 'like' it once, I'm here to say I really appreciate Jeff's defense of Economics as a discipline. Before finding an easier way to make a living, I trained in Ecology to the doctoral level, taking a few Economics courses along the way. Among other useful things, they helped me recognize anthropogenic global warming's origin in the Tragedy of the Commons.
I'm acquainted with the bias of physical scientists against the 'squishier' biological and social sciences. Nonetheless, human behavior is a primary factor in our environmental impact at all scales; and to the extent our individual and aggregate behaviors are observable phenomena, they can best be understood by the principles of science, namely empiricism and intersubjective verification by trained, disciplined peers. The science of Economics may still let us fool ourselves, but without it we have no way to know whether we're fooling ourselves or not.
Besides, my brother is a retired Economics Professor!