Image: Chris Gould
In Brief
- Future generations will suffer most of the harmful effects of global climate change. Yet if the world economy grows, they will be richer than we are.
- The present generation must decide, with the help of expert advice from economists, whether to aggressively reduce the chances of future harm or to let our richer descendants largely fend for themselves.
- Economists cannot avoid making ethical choices in formulating their advice.
- Even the small chance of utter catastrophe from global warming raises special problems for ethical discussion.
What should we do about climate change? The question is an ethical one. Science, including the science of economics, can help discover the causes and effects of climate change. It can also help work out what we can do about climate change. But what we should do is an ethical question.
Not all “should” questions are ethical. “How should you hold a golf club?” is not, for instance. The climate question is ethical, however, because any thoughtful answer must weigh conflicting interests among different people. If the world is to do something about climate change, some people—chiefly the better-off among the current generation—will have to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to save future generations from the possibility of a bleak existence in a hotter world. When interests conflict, “should” questions are always ethical.
This article was originally published with the title The Ethics of Climate Change.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
68 Comments
Add CommentI think perhaps empathy, not ethics, would strike a stronger note here. Here on the West Coast we just had a heat wave that was 20+ degrees above normal, and it's not even summer yet! It struck me that you don't really get a taste of what CAN happen till it affects you personally. Selfishness has been politically cultivated in this country for the last 30 years now, so a detached mindset
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoward those less fortunate is not on the whole terribly unusual. The author speaks of those in the future as being richer. When I was a boy, one car,one bathroom, no TVs was the norm. But we had open fields to wander and could explore nature in all it's variety. Are kids richer today with all their electronics? I don't think so. One might reasonably ask; where in the heck are we going? And at what cost to us and future generations?
I think it's probable that the only solution available to us is technological, via improved power density in storage cells and the increasing use of wind and solar power. We (the US) should certainly pursue aggressive strategies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but unless there's a breakthrough in alternative energy, the emerging world will simply subsume our reductions in their expansion. If, on the other hand, we develop (for instance) a solar cell that's just 40% efficient, and costs very little, so that PV power is MUCH less expensive than coal or other fossil power, it won't take long for the CO2 generation to start to drop worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA should learn about logical fallacies so as to reject articles that present them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entire premise of this article is that the current climate is the perfect climate.
The real question should be: Which will be worse? The effects of climate change, or the effects of fixing climate change?
The food riots and shortages going on around the world right now as energy prices spike and food is diverted to ethanol are strong evidence that the cure is far worse than the disease.
But, of course, SA long ago ceased being a science journal and has become a political activism rag.
--
Edited by frgough at 05/19/2008 7:17 AM
It appears that frgough judged the article without reading it. The entire article examines in thoughtful detail how one should do a cost-benefit analysis regarding dealing with climate change. Rfgough's entire complaint is that the article is a worthless polemic because the only worthwhile approach to climate change is a cost-benefit analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have no more reason to believe tomorrow will be warmer than we have to believe tomorrow will be cooler; there is no scientific "consensus" except in the minds of the press.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have no reason to believe that today's climate is better than tomorrow's will be (actually, even today, more are dying of cold than heat).
What is immoral is to take "things" away from me because of your baseless fears... or your desire for power.
I think solar roof panels are becoming more and more of an attractive option now that the prices will be coming down because of better materials being used. Already the utility companies are requesting voluntary installation of radio controlled devices to shut down your AC compressor during periods of peak demand. At first I rejected this as an unnecessary intrusion into my creature comforts, but on further contemplation, I reasoned that this would be better than a complete "blackout". I think we will be better served with technology and political motivation moving in this general direction rather than continuing to use fossil fuels and tapping into our food sources for this purpose. Most importantly, it will mean people can at least retain most of their lifestyles without too great an impact on the climate, and less dependency on the "grid" and the other usual sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLest some think that there is some "immorality" involved with "taking things away from them". The utility company I was referring to pointed out that to build excess capacity for a growing population living in hot areas only using their ACs for occasional heat waves would be very wasteful. Using solar technology would be an excellent way to mitigate this problem and would be very unobtrusive. Wouldn't this be a better solution than sitting sweltering in a darkened house claiming there is no problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the utility company is free to make its own decisions about whether it wants more business or not, let them be my guest. In case you have not noticed, utility companies are not free to act rationally. If they were, and their "rational" decision was to not service peak demand, I might voluntarily put a solar panel on my roof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what needs to be discussed more often is BOTH sides of this climate change debate. Why do all you science magazines and such so boldly go with only ONE side, when science dictates that you carefully investigate all sides to make sure you're as close to the truth as possible?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article leans so far to one side it's pathetic. It acts as if there are no other opinions on the subject, that global warming is happening, when there's a lot of evidence to the contrary.
This is sad...when science has gone so far over the edge that they're politically motivated now rather than seekers of truth.
This article proves the failures of American education and science just like President Eisenhower gravely warned us in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation. While our institutions of higher learning sold out their ethics our scientific community was profiting from the oil and war economies instead of fighting like hell for humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEconomists can discount value of goods, but can not and should not discount or calculate value of human beings. A life lost now and a life lost in the future is a life lost. Cyclones in Myanmar and tornado in the mid-west killed many people at different times and locations, but lives were lost. Do we value human lives more or our living standards more? I think our current climate problems are caused by the fact that we have a wrong value system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question of the value of human life brought an interesting thought to mind. When I was in the Navy, a Chief once asked us "what is more valuable, you or that piece of machinery over there?" The machinery of course, for we all knew we could be more easily replaced. In the end Solar, Wind, Thermal and other new technologies will incrementally win the day because people will eventually see that as the way to go. Personally, I'd like to see the "Grid" go the way of the big "Landline" telephone companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is crap because it doesn't address the two major issues in global warming: 1) Consumption Rate, and 2) Population Growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt only talks about consumption rate. Our rate of consumption doesn't matter if we keep having zillions of babies.
This article is stupid. Why are we preparing for global warming when there is global cooling?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of us seem to be expert at ignoring the elephant in the room. Even if global warming is some way down from the worst-case scenario, one of the major effects at the end of this century will be that sea-levels rise - possibly by tens of metres. This will generate mass migrations, because a high percentage of the current human population live within 20m of mean sea-level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure that ethical considerations really work under these conditions, and the assumption that our descendants will be more affluent than us is dependent on access to infinite resources - which we don't have. Fossil fuels are already past their maximum output - from here on it's all downhill - & our political leaders really need to make difficult decisions now (but they won't).
No, I didn't misread the article. I've taken courses in propaganda and so recognize the rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen an article uses phrases like "fend for themselves" "utter catastrophe," etc. I know I'm dealing with a piece of propaganda.
If we cannot stop global warming, the environment situation today should be the best situation of the rest of human age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe younger ones among us can watch reality overtake all other high-born considerations. The intellectual context of the article is exquisite. Its materiality, however, may wane as other influences gradually overwhelm ethical considerations. Modern man enjoys a robust understanding of the wage paid when he denies undesirable aspects in his perceptions of reality. This is our legacy from our brave Homo Erectus forebears. Ethical questions may be very relevant now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect the day may come when they are actually more of a luxury, an indulgence in a past time when challenges were perceived through a more comfortable image of scope.
I will attempt to send (via email) a copy of my recent paper " Managing the Global Warming Project" without cost or obligation if you request. Send your address.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack in the 70's we were all gonna die on a frozen rock. In the 1800's the US Geological group said we had enough oil for about 20 years and Natural gas was about depleted. Scare tactics such as this article only work on the simple minded and those educated beyond their inteligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPay now or someone else pays later? I much prefer: Start now and finish later!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is completely appalling how stupid and short-sighted some people are. Any way you slice it there is not a single benefit to pumping CO2 into the air, warming globe or not. Did I miss the meeting where we all declared our undying love for coal and the gas combustion engine?
Everyone talks about the costs. What about the payoffs.
Last time I checked updating your infrastructure (which we have to do any ways) created jobs, and new products attract new customers. Sure there will be losers (Exxon, Opec, etc) but there will be winners as well.
--
Edited by Natedog at 05/20/2008 2:43 PM
"Any way you slice it there is not a single benefit to pumping CO2 into the air"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean other than the fact that CO2 is an essential plant nutrient?
The ignorance of many Americans is truly mind-boggling.
"one of the major effects at the end of this century will be that sea-levels rise - possibly by tens of metres. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen again, probably not. Global temperatures were warmer during the Roman empire, and there was no appreciable raise in sea levels.
You see, what if warming temperatures increases polar precipitation?
The truth is, global warming-mongers don't have a clue as to how the climate will respond to temperature changes.
Did ANY of them predict the cooling cycle we are currently in? Any of them?
Yet you swallow whole the pronouncement that we're all going to suffer apocalypse unless we shut down capitalism.
>"Any way you slice it there is not a single benefit to pumping CO2 into the air"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>You mean other than the fact that CO2 is an essential plant nutrient?
>The ignorance of many Americans is truly mind-boggling.
You have to be joking. There are more than enough natural sources of CO2 without us helping it along. Do you seriously think plants are going to start dying off if we do not burn fossil fuels? That has got to be the absolute lamest excuse I have ever heard.
And for the record, I am a mechanical engineer from [u]Canada[/u] who happens to know a thing or two about alternative energy sources.
>Did ANY of them predict the cooling cycle we are currently in?
Seeing as we are not in a cooling cycle I would have to say not many.
>Yet you swallow whole the pronouncement that we're all going to suffer apocalypse unless we shut down capitalism.
Oh please. Capitalism thrives off change. If companies started producting better environmentally friendly products people would start buying them. Nothing will change except the companies making the profits
>Then again, probably not. Global temperatures were warmer during the Roman empire, and there was no appreciable raise in sea levels.
So I guess all the glaciers that have melted between then and now do not factor into your equations?
Seriously frgough where you do get your information from, the back of a cereal box?
--
Edited by Natedog at 05/20/2008 3:26 PM
The Ethics may be serious, but feel Broome is missing the fact that will probably overcome the whole discussion. That is the imminent disappearance of cheap energy. It seems likely that energy prices will continue to spiral upwards, alternate forms notwithstanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA large part of the fruit of the Industrial Revolution is due to discovery of, by every other era's standards, a super-abundant source of cheap energy (petroleum). Pretty certainly that is coming to an end and it's hard to see how it's loss can be offset in calculating future standards of living.
A little-acknowledged fact is that US Real Wages peaked in the 1970's! It's true that our overall standard of living and consumption have increased slightly since then, but there are several reasons why this does not represent most people's actual well-being. First, most people work longer hours now. Second, many women have joined the workforce. Third, distribution of income has changed drastically. Warren Buffet claims that income of the top few % has gone up 7 times over that period of time, while that of the rest of us has declined. He is in a position to know.
Thus, the whole assumption of a rising standard of living / income is doubtful.
Fantastic article. my views on climate change have always been based on "rights" issues. this article gives a balanced philosophical side to the need to reduce our effects on global climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThings from the economists perspective, sometimes, seem out of acceptance in moral. I dont know whether it really worthies, but I do believe that our human being have to take some steps to prevent more tragedies caused by disrespecting to our nature mother. Deadly floods, hot waves, devastate earthquakes, everyday, thousands lives are destroyed by them. This is the cost of our inappropriate human action. It will get worse years later. I am not willing to image the picture that someday our planet being covered by flood or something terrible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author of this article makes the rash assumption that humans are causing global warming.He and Al Gore need to sit and visit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally disagree with that assumption, so the article is scary because someone is coming after my money (and other taxpayers). Spending billions may make some non-analytical people feel better, but it will not change the climate. Check with the real scientists not Al Gore.
Prof Broome misses the very concept of risk management, and disregards all intrinsic uncertainties about dealing with the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis is also a collection of negatives, a logical fallacy if there ever was one. It is know for example that heat kills the already-dying, whilst cold simply kills. A population is better off after a heat wave than a cold wave.
Where are the people whose lives will be saved by an increase in global temperature? Certainly nowhere to be seen or taken care of in Broomes article. And why not? Are some deaths more equal than others?
Until such huge reasoning and moral gaps are not filled up properly, I will say "thank you, but no thank you", I dont need your ethical lessons, Prof. Broome
1) An Aspen Institute and National Geographic ad in the new June issue of National Geographic quotes Pacala and Socolow: Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Bill McKibben’s Op-Ed “Civilization’s Last Chance†in the L.A. Times on May 11 stated: A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
Considering these statements, the number one question is:
Where is the leadership to solve the carbon and climate problem today?!
As an interested observer and economist (start throwing the tomatoes now), I'm quite surprised at Dr. Broome's argument. If, as his bio states, he was previously an economics professor then he should already know that much of what he writes about is already incorporated into the marketplaces that allocate resources. People maximize their well-beings in any number of ways -- not just monetarily like he wants to argue. Yes, ethical decisions guide people as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the comments to this article frightens me. The new environmentalist religion is quite dangerous and -- though it appears that most who have commented disagree with the article and the environmentalist dogma -- to see even one person blindly follow this faith at the same time that he/she no doubt does not follow a religious faith just shows how historical movements displace reality.
I do everything I can to recycle, save fuel usage and cut back on extravagent living, but I also don't buy into the man-made global warming argument as settled like some on here would have you believe. We've lost some sanity in this mix of political mudslinging. I'd suggest you read this piece by Jonah Goldberg at the National Review to help you distinguish between polemics like that written by Dr. Broome and changes in behavior that all of us could likely support. Hopefully you don't need a subscription to read it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjEyZjRiOTVhOWE1NmViOTIzMzVhMjg1MGViOTViYjI=
>The new environmentalist religion is quite dangerous and -- though it appears that most who have commented disagree with the article and the environmentalist dogma
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly there are people who are unqualified themselves to interpret the data and must rely on the word of others more adequately qualified. Not being an environmental engineer I would put much stock in the opinions of such engineers or scientists, almost all of whom agree that our climate and the environment are suffering as a direct result of human activities. So is it a religion to accept the opinions of engineers and scientists who themselves base those opinions on research and not personal beliefs?
> to see even one person blindly follow this faith at the same time that he/she no doubt does not follow a religious faith just shows how historical movements displace reality.
I fail to see what anyone's religiuos beliefs or lack there of has to do with anything. Religion has no place in science.
>I also don't buy into the man-made global warming argument as settled like some on here would have you believe.
So? You don't believe it, some people do believe it. Those actually qualified to answer the question overwhelmingly agree that it is happening. Fact is not affected by opinion polls, politics or economic policy, the only thing you can hope to do is convince people not to do anything about it.
--
Edited by Natedog at 05/22/2008 12:46 PM
Interesting article, but I'm having great difficulty with the basic premise that what needs to be considered are "costs of mitigating climate change", i.e. "sacrifices the present generation will have to make to reduce greenhouse gases". Surely the logical argument is to consider today's greenhouse gas emissions to be a debt? If we look at how comparable debts are dealt with (e.g. government bonds, insurance losses for long-term risks), then we appear to end up with a discount rate of zero - i.e. we have to be temporally impartial and utilitarian, in the terminology used in the article. I've put more detailed thoughts on this point on my blog at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://unchartedterritory.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/sternly-bemused/
and
http://unchartedterritory.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/still-sternly-bemused/
Good article. It largely ignores more proximate issues: What are the costs of massive migration and resource wars, and what are the potential benefits of immediate investment in emerging technologies and industries. Historically, the cascading effects of wars and new technologies have far exceeded "realistic" forecasting. Choosing between resource wars and profitable new investment should be a no-brainer for any ethical person. The question for the financier might be this: which investment has a richer, more immediate payout, General Dynamics (a defense contractor) or Nanosolar (a new photovoltaic technology)? If you choose the defense contractor, you've made a morally indefensible discount-rate decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comment train following the article is also instructive. It's amazing how many flat-earth climate-change deniers are still out there, and reading Scientific American. --Seth Masia
If one uses the "GPI" or Genuine Progress Indicator, one sees that there has been little or not substantive improvement in the quality of life in the developed world since around 1970-1975. Yet we (collectively) have tremendously increased our per-capita and total consumption of stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe GPI tells us that all of that consumption has not improved our lives. But Politicians don't like the GPI--they prefer the GDP/GNP. Their measure double counts mistakes--the Exxon Valdez disaster added to the US GDP when it (and its clean up) should have been subtracted.
So why increase our consumption?
Which one of us will be the one who 'cuts down the last tree on Rapa Nui' in our environment?
Seth, your observation: “It's amazing how many flat-earth climate-change deniers are still out there, and reading Scientific American†is most sadly correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven worse, in a recent May 8 Pew Poll Release on Global Warming it was emphasized that only “47% of Americans say that the earth is getting warmer and that this is occurring because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.â€
A root cause of the failure to comprehend reality was defined by President Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation: “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.â€
We are paying dearly for ignoring Ike’s grave warning because America’s academic/scientific community has indeed failed to care more for humanity than it does for profit and the perpetuation of an academic welfare state that has lost all credibility. Berkeley’s continued manufacture of humanity destroying hydrogen bombs and $500 Million research sellout to BP Oil is a worst-case example.
I have to thank Dr. Broome for further muddying the waters about the real social responsibility and need to address climate change. World population, greed vs. need and social responsibility are the real issues. Not the capacity of a capitalistic society. Imagining free markets and market adjustments in the time of goverment sponsored monopolies is foolish. The resources of our world belong to all generations and we are only caretakers of the time. What heritage would you have us pass on to our future generations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article like many in SciAm starts with the assumption that CO2 is the driver of global warming. There is weak evidence for this and a large body of evidence that warming is caused by a 1500-year solar cycle. (See Unstoppable Global Warming, Singer/Avery). Has SciAm ever attempted to get real scientists (Not Al Gore) to discuss and resolve this issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally this survey is excellent. But Broome is incorrect to say that money market interest rates support the Nordhaus view. The real rate of interest on government bonds (the relevant baseline since default risk on lower-grade bonds is irrelevant here) has generally averaged close to Stern's 1.4 per cent and is currently negative in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is how to charge future generations for what we do now in their service. Leaving huge public debts is our apparent answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on Sciam for publishing these most important of issues! The major problem though, is the viewpoint that people will be "richer" with the ability to solve all of our problems. By then it will be too late because the fossil fuels we rely upon will only be afforded by the rich. I believe in GW, but death by oil depletion is a certainty that could'nt be any less "planet destroying".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a Point Of No Return as to when it will be physically impossible to cover the deserts with the solar concentrators necessary to both generate unlimited juice (storage willing) and reverse the albedo affect that is helping the glaciers to melt by reflecting the sky back into space (dark solar panels could overheat the planet).
It is proven that gas prices are rising for the intent to get rich, call it China hogg'in (we did it, too!), And it is proven that mirrors are the best way for solar (CPV and CSP). So why not get together NOW and MANDATE 10,000 SQUARE MILES OF DESERT to be used for simple post mounted solar structures! Imagine the jobs, imagine the future...
10,000 - 7,000 sq mi for inbetween and spread about space (and for preserving habitat) = 3,000 sq mi * .2 (for 20% effic) = 600 sq mi of 100% converted sunlight (or 16,727,000,000 sq ft) * 0.08 kilowatts per sq ft (1,000 w/sq meter at best). = 1,338 Terawatt capacity * .25 = capacity (for clouds and night) = 334 billion watt capacity * 8,760 (hours in year) = 2,930 billion kWh / 12,000 (average as noted by CA energy commission)...
Equals enough juice for 244 million (average) homes!!!
2/5th of th mohave desrt would provide TWICE this much. At $2 per installed watt, this (2X figure) would cost a lot... 5.352 trillion payable as we go (financing is impossible) = $4.66 per day per household (not business, not industry, not per person). Obviously, everyone will have to pay including industry in the form of carbon tax and/or other fees and taxes. Oh well, (I say cut 75% of the "secure our oil" war funds).
Ya, about one pack of cigarettes for just one person in the house! Figure a pack and a half with other associated costs like powerlines and storage... untill competition drives the component costs down (in relation to higher inflation).
Now, let's consider the real costs of not doing this... UH we run out of gas and die... like duh!
> Back in the 70's we were all gonna die on a frozen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> rock. In the 1800's the US Geological group said we
> had enough oil for about 20 years and Natural gas was
> about depleted. Scare tactics such as this article
> only work on the simple minded and those educated
> beyond their inteligence.
which one are you? Simple or educated beyond your intelligence?
A. I enjoyed the Broome article - well thought out and well presented. I have two questions (followed by several comments on how this article relates to other topics in this issue:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. If we don't believe the future is going to look better than today (oil and gas resource scarcity plus climate impacts) does this justify a negative discount rate? (Since apparently the positive discount rate is justified by believing future per capita wealth will be greater than today's.) Or is it better ethically to keep all discount rates > 0?
2) I strongly believe in the need for low (maybe negative) discount rates - but would still like to believe in that aspect of prioritarianism that says there is "greater social value to a given increase in well-being if it reaches a poor person". It is not yet obvious to me that one must require high discount rates if one is striving to better equalize well-being. (I have ordered up the two Broome references Anyone able to help on this non-understanding?)
B. There is a short squib ("Charred for Life") on p 39 about biochar - which looks like the best way I have seen to start us on a carbon negative path (Warning - I am spending half time trying to promote the biochar concept). Biochar is endorsed in the forthcoming Jim Hansen article noted by the editors on p 39. It also directly addresses the food problem noted by Jeffrey Sachs on p 40. Onee discount rate question related to biochar is: Can we use the Broome article to justify a negative discount rate - to get us going faster - or will we just be laughed at by economists? The social equity question following from my second question above is - can we justify promoting biochar first in developing countries (where biomass growth rates are generally better and low wage rates are likely to provide better economics)? How should social equity issues (a big topic for Jeffrey Sachs) influence plans to promote biochar? Do we jeopardize the use of low discount rates by raising this issue?
C. Last few comments on "fireofenergy" comment immediately before this one - on PV costing. (There is minor error in going between terrawatts and gigawatts, but the daily $ number is in the right order of magnitude). First, at $2/watt the roughly $5 per family per day will provide savings - not extra expense. The cost of wind systems is already in this ballpark - and we have plenty of that resource as well. At $130/BBl oil, these prices are a bargain - not a huge expense (natural gas prices will soon be double today's prices as well - just to catch up). Both PV and wind are doubling in annual installations in less than two years - much faster than any other form of energy and costs are declining by better than 10% for each doubling. If this wasn't so, we'd be in really big trouble. But these are only carbon neutral.
We need the carbon negativity of the biochar idea equally - and it is supportive of, not competing with PV, CSP, wind, etc.
Pay later. If we can send a probe to and land on Mars, we can solve the alleged global warming problem. If we can't it's because the thermal inertia of the eaarth system is beyond our control. To leave the economy and oour futures in the hands of a bunch of economists is asking for trouble. They could't even predict the savings & loan mess, the housing bubble burst or the alleged current recession. Now we're going to allow them to subjugate the entire world with the Green Communism of the Enviornmentalist Whacko's. Not in my lifetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point- climate change is an ethical issue. Is it ethical to shake down businesses and taxpayers for a still unproven phenomenon? Is it ethical to use force (government) to further an ideologically driven agenda? Use whatever perjorative terms you wish, but those of us who are still agnostics on the subject of climate change will not "go gentle into that good night".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article. So, after the economists, scientists and other experts have calculated the discount rates and measured the hard data, whose job is it to pull up a chair to the table and invite society to weigh in? If it's "arrogant" for the experts to assume they are the final arbiters (and I agree), how do we engage the diverse stakeholders--represented by the public--so they are informed enough to have the capacity to determine the final outcome of these important decisions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am all for treating the future generations as if they are present generations. There is no question of using discount rates in ethical matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAncient Indian Proverb
The discount rate is an extension of a money system that we take for granted. The fact that interest is attached to everything makes it so that money is worth more later. These currencies are very destructive, especially if they are the only of these tools we use. People have in the past, and are now more than ever using different kinds of currencies, which are often backed by real things, like commodities, and are thus "credit", and not "debt" and interest based. People have even used currencies that decrease in value over time, so it is more valuable now than later. This made those societies look well into the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is, when we look at things from the perspective of these currencies, it is using what is partly causing the problem in the first place. Interest is by far the biggest social and environmental problem, and as long as we look at things from that lens, at the very least it is like, as Bernard Lietaer put it, "Painting with a screwdriver."
Ethically, the choice of discounts rates keeps responsibility on corporations, government agencies, and not individuals. Instead of a rate of 6.0 or 1.4, I suggest 2.0—population growth of 2.0 children per mother. It’s absurd to forecast only 100 years and form an ethical question on the discount rate to sustain it. Mathematics may be a comfortable balm, but try compounding $1 at 1.4% over 1000 years or longer. It’s one million times today’s economy. It’s as if we decide the speed of light must be exceeded to make our dreams come true. Long before the maximum possible population is reached, the effects of it will strain every activity, as it already has with global warming and in China and India approaching the middle class lifestyle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis debate should be centered on population. People make ethical choices. We can still grow, but we don’t need to grow forever (and we can’t) to support a population of 2.0.
Climate change due to human activity is a hoax. There are no historical empirical data accurate enough to correlate temperature with carbon dioxide levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was invented by the "Club of Rome" in order to rally world governments and populations around a cause so that they relinquish their right to self determination and freedom to a handfull of elite eugenists who are drunk with power.
For more details read the following link:
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200802/20080211_MTP_1_Organic.htm
The best test of the methods of this article would be to test them retrospectively on today, from the viewpoint of 1908. Would the economist have accounted for WWI? WWII? The Great Depression? The Internet? Solar Energy? Nuclear Energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn prioritarianism vs utilitarianism:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne might actually turn out to be the other. It depends on what is being measured. If one seeks to maximize the total benifit (utilitarianism), one might apply prioritarianism to the distribution of resources (including/and/or money).
There is a logic to a discount rate based on uncertainty. For individuals, for example, each is (typically, at least for adults and older children) an expert on him/herself, in fact, typically, the foremost expert on that subject. The level of expertise may tend to decline with 'distance'. So it does tend to maximize profit (benifit-cost) for people to take more care of that which is close to them because in this they are more effective in their accomplishments. However, it is notable that in doing this, we expect people in their own expertise to seek out the help (whether in the form of charity, paid service, or friendly advice (paid or prepaid with social capital)), in some circumstances or for some purposes, from a different kind of expert whose expertise applies to something other than instances of people or things but rather to categories, etc - doctors, lawyers, mechanics, electricians, computer programmers, economists, meteorologists, ... climatologists.
[**ADDED DURING EDIT: And for some matters, one might use his/her limited expertise to decide to direct other resources towards those who have the expertise to direct them better... etc. ...
Other resources are not always paired with expertise in a near optimal way, of course.]
This personal or small group discount rate, of couse, is, as a personal realization of value, a motivating factor in personal behavior and not an actual decree of value independent of the person; it is not going to be the same as the discount rate used on the societal level.
----------------
Of course, it is ultimately the personal realization of value (or the potential for that) that justifies any value outside of that. (?) (It is the justification for behavior that results in the end user demand that combines with ultimate supply to determine economic value (end user and ultimate used to differentiate from intermediary supply and demand relationships; intermediate supply can change via changes in investment in response to ... etc.).
-----------------
The discount rate would be affected by planning. Since it depends on future conditions, it seems to me that the discount rate is at least somewhat dependent on what we do, and might actually be reduced by long-range planning. While future people are undetermined (from our perspective as moral and economic agents), if we assume that there will be some number of people at a time t, this affects the weight given to the effects, as the coeffiecient of effects per person of conditions at time t(those conditions themselves including and being dependent in part on the number of people). There are also projections of the future that factor into what the benifits and costs of anything will be. For example, presumably we can assume that these people will have similar dietary needs as we do (up to some time horizon); if that were not the case, then it would be harder to calculate the benifits and costs of climatic effects on food supply. And to the extend that people are richer or poorer in the future depends on what we do now. Well, that was actually implied in the article - to make sense of it, the wealth per person (the complete wealth - going beyond monetary stuff, etc - in other words, the net benifit per person of everything (most easily taken together as one, because the effects of each piece interact with other pieces)) that determines the discount rate must be a baseline, before climatic benifits and costs are included...?
--
Edited by Patrick 027 at 06/05/2008 7:20 PM
--
Edited by Patrick 027 at 06/05/2008 9:35 PM
A lot of assumptions the biggest one being that AGW is real and not a hoax
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point that everyone seems to ignore is that there are too many people competing for dwindling resources. Solve the over population problem and most of our environmental problems will go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article. But it does avoid the question of what well-being is. Broome's implicit answer is that economic growth and increasing wealth make people better off, and other things don't. This is in conflict with a growing body of work that says that, once basic needs are satisfied, humans are not made happier by increasing material goods or even convenience and mobility. What matters is a rich network of stable, equitable relationships with other people and with their environment -- that is, community, nature, and meaning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne implication of this is that putting economic slowdown on the "costs" side of the equation might be fallacious. Broome's math depends a lot on who is richer and who poorer (future and past). Admittedly it's harder to quantify who is more in sustainable harmony with their natural environment and who lives in a safe, interdependent, egalitarian community, but those are the real terms.
The wealth/richer argument is meaningless. Each generation has to compete more with less time for themselves to do anything with what they get. The net effect being diminishing returns. So throw the wealth/richer argument in the trash and focus on preventing a major disaster. If it takes all the money in the world to prevent a major disaster then do it - no more debate. The economics will always take care or themselves by creating new jobs and technology around the initiative. In other words there is no cost to combating global warming, that is a myth created by narrow minded conservatives. There is only benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely the people at Scientific American know that it is 39 years after the moon landing. Shouldn't they know that planned obsolescence has been going on in automobiles for decades? What about all of the pollution created by manufacturing useless variations in cars that didn't last as long as they should have? When are the scientists and economists going to address that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf AGW is a problem, it is a global problem; and, it is amenable only to a global solution. It cannot be solved without China and India. China is both the largest and fastest growing emitter. India is the 3rd or 4th largest emitter and also growing quickly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal average temperature has been increasing (this time) since ~1600, the trough of the Little Ice Age. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been rising since ~1750, when CO2 emissions were 1/2000th of what they are today. Stopping the accumulation would require reducing emissions to pre-1750 levels; or, essentially, to zero.
China is currently installing CO2 emitting capital equipment (coal-fired power generation) equivalent to 20% of US coal-fired generation capacity each year. This capital equipment has a 40-60 year useful life. India is doing the same thing at a slower pace. Neither shows any willingness to stop.
President Bush is correct in stating that China and India must participate. The rest of the world cannot stop CO2 accumulation without them, no less in the face of their rapidly increasing emissions.
While I welcomed this article by John Broome, I found too simplistic so that the uninformed reader might get the wrong idea. For example that the main difference between Nick Stern and Bill Nordhaus was a difference in the discount rate they used. The rate used by Stern 1.4% has been criticised as unreasonably low. Readers might be surprised to learn however that Stern's work contained an additional implicit risk premium that makes the real value much more than that. Sterns models basically simulate many trajectories into the future to form an average welfare outcome. This averaging is not linear, downsides weigh more heavily than upsides, meaning an implicit risk premium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA game some commentators play is to take these models and calculate an implicit dollar per tonne of CO2 emitted that needs to be set aside to cover the future economic damage of Global Warming. For Nordhaus this is $10, for Weitzman it's $50, and for Stern $80. The only proven technology that can remove this CO2 back from the air would cost more than $100.
I just don't find Nordhaus's work very credible and it's not just his choice of a discount rate. Some commentators having read his works formed the opinion that you can put aside $10 per tonne and that 200 years hence it will have compounded into a vast sum enough to compensate all claims that might arise. This is total nonsense. The question arises as to how the $10 per tonne would be invested. We do not want the possibility of the funds going bust sub-prime style due to risky investments that underperformed compared to the liabilities. Such a fund would need to invest in something like carbon credit futures, i.e. carbon credits that have yet to be allocated and traded.
The pricing of such futures does not work the same way as with other investments. Firstly because uncertainty about future policies, the future price is bounded upside only by the cost of removing CO2 from the air. Secondly because financial markets react to new information in different ways, credits will often go up in value when the market falls, implying a low risk premium for credits compared to other financial assets.
A scientific consensus has been reached. The IPCC, 8 national academies of science, and all major scientific societies acknowledge the rise in global climate temperatures and the anthropogenic source of this trend. It is only a small group of noisy right-wing iconoclasts who continue to dissent not on the basis of science, but on politics. Those of you who claim that the consensus on global warming is an illusion created by the media are mistaken-- the perception that there is any significant doubt in climate change in the scientific community is the result of the media. It's very easy for ignorant people and scientific smatterers to harbor a belief that they are right when they claim that the media is biased or researchers are biased (I have heard both from global warming deniers). It's time to face the music: climate change is real, and it carries significant ecological and economic repercussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA scientific consensus has been reached. The IPCC, 8 national academies of science, and all major scientific societies acknowledge the rise in global climate temperatures and the anthropogenic source of this trend. It is only a small group of noisy right-wing iconoclasts who continue to dissent not on the basis of science, but on politics. Those of you who claim that the consensus on global warming is an illusion created by the media are mistaken-- the perception that there is any significant doubt in climate change in the scientific community is the result of the media. It's very easy for ignorant people and scientific smatterers to harbor a belief that they are right when they claim that the media is biased or researchers are biased (I have heard both from global warming deniers). It's time to face the music: climate change is real, and it carries significant ecological and economic repercussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may be fool to pay more attention to the side of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports rather than to the side of would be experts on the topic, such as, comedian/commentator Rush Limbaugh. More than 3000 scientists from more than 130 countries contributed to the IPCC panel's Climate Change 2007 report. Please do not believe anything youre told. Read the report and then make up your mind. All thats required is a small dose of healthy logic and your conclusion, I trust, will be based strictly on datalots of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may be fool to pay more attention to the side of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than to the side of would be experts on the topic, such as, comedian/commentator Rush Limbaugh. More than 3000 scientists from more than 130 countries contributed to the IPCC panel's Climate Change 2007 report. Please do not believe anything you’re told. Read the report and then make up your mind. All that’s required is a small dose of healthy logic and your conclusion, I trust, will be based strictly on data—lots of it. Thousands of scientists have looked at many more than simply "BOTH sides" of the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne cant do a correct ethical analysis unless one first poses the correct question. I believe that global warming is not the problem. Rather it is a symptom of global overpopulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the sustainable world population is about 1 billion people. Whoops, we already have 6 billion. Does anyone really believe that if we had only 1 billion people that we would have climate change, and lack of energy, lack of arable land, lack of sea food, lack of fresh water, and a surplus of trash, and endless genocides in Africa.
If we eliminate poverty and increase the life span to 150 years, then the sustainable population should perhaps only be 500 million.
So, the correct question to analyze is, how do we ethically decrease world population from 6 billion to 1 billion ASAP? Thermonuclear war would, I guess, be judged unethical. How about sterilizing everyone on the planet by a method 90% effective? Would that be ethical? Would it be ethical to do nothing about overpopulation?
The premise that the uncomfort will be there for the future generations only is itself incomplete. The climate change effects are visible even today and those who have been contributing to them in their youth are reaping its fruits now in their old age. So the discounting should take place considering the various phases of the lifespan of a single generation only, say over a period of 60 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me quote Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona - Tucson:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” .... “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness. ‘First do no harm’ should be the watchword of those who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,” .... “I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‘consensus’ view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science."
Cheers.
The anthropogenic global warming deniers are unethical in their willful ignorance. At least one commenter here correctly observes that the "best" the deniers can do is prevent action to address the problem (human generation of GHCs). All the blogging baloney in the world is not going to change our rush toward horrible impacts, and potentially civilization destroying tipping points. Arguing with them borders on pointless. For example, Dr. Schaffer is quoted, "The recent lack of warming..." This is total nonsense; do the research--warming continues apace. One reference: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, C_G_Kick_PhD put up the only post here that addresses a critical flaw in the author's reasoning: increases in material wealth do not automatically lead to an increase in human well-being. To the contrary: numerous studies show that beyond a fairly well defined level of material wealth, additions add nothing except environmental impacts. Many researchers points out that the U.S. passed this point of diminishing returns thirty or forty years ago (notwithstanding our terrible mal-distribution of wealth).
So, it seems to me the ethical issues around climate change have little to do with potentially denying increased wealth to our descendants and more to do with our responsibility to stop the continued destruction of our own habitat.