Economics Nobel Highlights Climate Action Necessity

William Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis,” with Paul Romer, "for integrating technological innovations into long-run macroeconomic analysis."

Receding glacier near Juneau, AK, 2014.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“The first thing is that people have to come to grips with the difficulties we face. I think the scientists have and many of the people have, but the governments have to.”

Yale University’s William Nordhaus, who on October 8th shared the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis.” He spoke by phone to a representative of the Nobel Prizes.

“And then the second thing that’s most important is that we take some kind of economic steps—I have advocated for many years a carbon tax as a way of implementing policies. And then the third thing is we’ll have to have a significant technological transformation. Of course, those first two would help the third. But those three have to go together. You can’t do it without public support. But you can’t do it without some kind of economic signals, in the form of a carbon tax. And then all of those will help induce the technological changes that are necessary to make a transition to a low-carbon world.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Nordhaus shared the prize with Paul Romer of New York University, for his work “integrating technological innovations into long-run macroeconomic analysis."

Nordhaus continued: “The most recent work I’ve done is studying actual trends in abatement and in policies, suggests we’re doing much less than what needs to be to reach any of the targets, whether it’s a 1.5-degree or 2-degree or even a 3-degree target. I think the policies are lagging very very far, miles, miles, miles behind the science and what needs to be done…but it’s not too late. But the steps we have to take are more difficult now than if we’d started earlier.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe