| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Weitzman on “When does the world wake up and address climate change?”
I am reading the transcript of Martin Weitzman's recent appearance on Econtalk. Professor Weitzman seeks to attract readers for his excellent new book Climate Shock (joint with Gernot Wagner). At the 28th minute of the interview, here is an exact quote. Keep in mind that the guest is Martin Weitzman and he is being interviewed by Russ Roberts (Russ).
“Guest: So you've got to negotiate with n parties somehow.
Russ: It's not going to happen.
Guest: Yeah.
Russ: I want to read a paragraph from the opening of your book. It might be the first paragraph. I can't remember. But I cut and pasted it. It says:
Climate change is an urgent problem. But you're fooling yourself if you think getting off of fossil fuels would be simple. It will be one of the most difficult challenges modern civilization has ever faced, and it will require the most sustained, well-managed, globally cooperative effort the human species has ever mounted.
Well, 'sustained, well-managed, and globally cooperative'–I can't think of anything that we've ever done that fulfills those adjectives. So, it's a long shot. One nation–a particular nation can put a tax through its own political process on its own carbon emissions. The odds that we will as a globe come together to figure out and solve the problems you are talking about seems to me to be close to zero.
Guest: Well, this gets into another point, which is: When does the world sort of wake up? And the pessimistic side of me says it would take the perception of a catastrophe, of a climate change catastrophe, in order to make this be an issue on the grass roots level. Like analogous to the 2008 Recession.
Russ: To give it salience. For it to rise to the level of fear and panic on the part of the everyday person, you'd need to see things like there are no vegetables in the grocery store or they are only available on a limited basis because of agricultural change. Right? And then it's too late–probably, as you'd suggest.
Guest: That's right. But, the pessimistic part of me says that that makes the perception of the catastrophe not exogenous but endogenous. Because if we go up by another hundred parts per million and there's no terrible outcomes perceived, we'll go up another hundred parts per million. And then another hundred. Until there is this perception on a grass roots level that this is really biting, this is really hurting. Though, then it becomes a question not whether there will be a perceived–it's the perception that's important–a perceived catastrophe, but when that will occur.”
SO, note that any discussion of the possibility of successful adaptation to the emerging threat is dangerous for Prof. Weitzman's hope to scare the hell out of people for their own good.
Permit me to propose an alternative vision for how we will cap global GHG emissions.
1. India and China continue to ramp up their exports of renewable power equipment such as wind and solar panels and EV production. Given global supply chains, world prices for these goods decline and their quality increases due to competition. Read my 2012 paper.
2. Liberal/progressive states such as California with its nascent AB32 continue to be green guinea pigs creating a field experiment environment for attempting to integrate green products into the economy. Rich progressives purchase these products and learning by doing takes place. Non-environmentalists buy these products as their quality increases (i.e Tesla or households who are on the upper pricing tiers for electricity and swap out grid electricity by installing solar). Read my 2014 paper.
3. As solar panels and EVs grow cheaper, suburbanites will buy them and the median voter's carbon footprint will shrink and this will increase their propensity to support carbon taxes because their own carbon burden is declining over time (as their carbon footprint shrinks). Read my 2013 paper and my 2015 paper.
4. China and India and the rest of the developing world are the wild card. They have not “locked in” to fossil fuel infrastructure yet. There are multiple equilibria here. The resulting GHG emissions from their future GNP growth is a function of what choices they make. If renewable power does become cheaper, then the GHG emissions associated with GNP growth will shrink.
Note that unlike Professor Weitzman, I do not need to evoke “silver lining” of disaster hypotheses to point out a smooth adjustment path to the climate change challenge. My optimism concerning our ability to adapt to climate change is due to innovation, competition and migration (read this) but also due to steps 1, 2, 3 listed above. As U.S suburbanites decarbonize their lifestyle, there will be greater support for carbon pricing (even without a “big disaster”). As the U.S leads a global coalition, global emissions will flatten out and adaptation will naturally take place and because the world is urbanizing this process will be relatively straightforward as compared to the damage that would have taken place for a bunch of small isolated farming areas (i.e they would suffer greatly due to the volatility of climate shocks).
A final point. Successful adaptation means that Professor Weitzman's “devastating shock” never actually occurs. He appears to reject rational expectations models of how risk averse and forward looking people respond to an emerging threat. I will soon publish a piece in the Economist's Voice that explores the different predictions between behavioral economists and rational expectations economists concerning the consequences of climate change.
Source: http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2015/06/weitzman-on-when-does-world-wake-up-and.html
Sorry, but ACTUAL science doesn’t support Climate Change or any kind of urgency. It’s hard “wake up to it” when you have the same discredited people in the system and you have a failure rate of 95% on your models. It’s a hoax that only mindless buffoons buy into.