By Sheldon Greaves
In one or two previous posts, I’ve made reference to the problem of how the nature of the debate over climate change has shifted. The question used to be about science; it AGW happening? Are humans responsible? Now the debate among the actual policy experts is whether it’s worth doing anything about it. This hinges on some truly incredible arguments on the question: what is the environment worth?
Who Sets the Value?
There is an old saying that economists or capitalists “know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Nowhere does that truism apply more than in the question of how much we should spend in order to quite literally save the planet. A good rule of thumb when faced with something monumentally stupid is to ascribe it to stupidity rather than malice. But as I look at the debate, that rule is being sorely tested. Perhaps “cynicism” is a better word, although “fear of being held responsible” would also do. Just one case in point: the Trump Administration wishes to cut limits on Mercury emissions. However, the emissions that include Mercury also release massive amounts of harmful particulate matter. In fact, Mercury only makes up about 1% of that toxicity. Cutting the non-Mercury emissions is what they call a “co-benefit.” Now the Administration wants a new rule that will eliminate considering co-benefits from the discussion of Mercury emission controls.
This rule change is likely to work its way through the court system all the way up to SCOTUS. If Trump wins this one, it would significantly inhibit our ability to make any case for comprehensive, effective action on climate change or any other environmental problems.
Following the New Debate
Talking to others about the new shape of the climate debate has been frustrating for a couple of reasons. The first is because anyone who cares one way or another has had to learn stuff they didn’t know before. One needs to know the difference between weather and climate, for instance. The science/denial debate is playing out in school curricula. The debate has a great deal of momentum pushing it forward. This is unsettling, because it is also a perfect distraction from the real issues.
The second cause for frustration is the nature of the new debate. Economics is rightly called “The Dismal Science” despite its vast sea of equations and models. The problem is that models are inherently inadequate; they deal in specifics at the expense of the whole. It is drenched in the most impenetrable jargon with things like “social discount rates” and other concepts that ought to be fairly straightforward, but are incredibly obtuse. Of course, these complexities also provide wonderful cover for the cynicism that drives much of the Trump environmental agenda. Further, economics has shown a remarkable resistance to learning from its own mistakes. So much so that I actually question whether it is a science at all. However, it’s what we’re stuck with for this part of the struggle for our planet.
Therefore, I was delighted to find this excellent article from vox.com on “We are almost certainly underestimating the economic risks of climate change” which is one of the single best reviews of the problem that I have ever seen. In short:
One of the more vexing aspects of climate change politics and policy is the longstanding gap between the models that project the physical effects of global warming and those that project the economic impacts. In a nutshell, even as the former deliver worse and worse news, especially about a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius or more, the latter remain placid.
The famous DICE model created by Yale’s William Nordhaus shows that a 6-degree rise in global average temperature — which the physical sciences characterize as an unlivable hellscape — would only dent global GDP by 10 percent.
There’s more; much, much more. Author David Roberts does an outstanding job of laying out the shape of the problem and showing where the obstacles to serious action reside. I would only muck it up if I tried to summarize them all. Better that you read, no study, his article and explore the other items linked to.