Economists tend to care more for Pakistanis than polar bears. Does this make us unusual? I don’t know, but it would seem to refute the claim that we are nothing more than heartless green eyeshade types obsessed with money and efficiency.
This commentary by John Baden nicely sums up the economic way of thinking about global warming. John (and I) care more about Pakistanis than we do about polar bears. I suspect many non-economists find the economist’s way of thinking peculiar. But it surely is not heartless.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 20 comments }
I would agree with the assessment that stopping global warming is not a cost-effective way to improve the human condition (though a little research into things like iron seeding as a means to carbon sequestration seems like a cheap and reasonable idea). Still, the impact of global warming falls disproportionately on some (Bangladeshis, Kiribati islanders and so on). And if the atmosphere's ability to absorb greenhouse gases is a public resource, we can also see that it's being used by some more than others. So would you favor the idea of purchasable carbon emission rights as a way of funding mitigation for those most affected? Or does international corruption and the fact that this might be a bad precedent make the idea not worthwhile?
bbartlog
It seems to me the question is whether prevention is cheaper than cure, and the research I have seen indicates it will be far cheaper (by two orders of magnitude) to deal with the consequences of global warming than to prevent it. For Bangladesh and Kiribati that might mean constructing sea walls. But that is cheaper than damaging entire economies and will be built at lower cost using technologies not available then but not now.
bbartlog,
How can anyone know that global warming can be prevented? Do you have an answer for those scientists who argue that current global warming is a natural phenomenon? This is their argument, as I understand it:
1. Every 100,000 years or so the earth heats up temporarily, and then retreats back to ice ages.
2. Warming periods have averaged about 15,000 years over the past several million years.
3. We are currently at about year 18,000 of the most recent temporary warming period.
Can you know that these scientists are wrong? and that the climatologists who depend for financing on a global crisis are right? or is your argument that Al Gore may be right so we better lower our standard of living just in case?
I have problems with your premise that the two — caring about polar bears and Pakistanis– are mutually exclusively.
Damage to polar bears may be a consequence of global warming but the reason people care about global warming is the consequence for people, including Pakistanis. Miners use to carry a canary into mines because the canary provided an early warning sign of danger to the miners.
In just the same way polar bear deaths may be an early warning sign of problems for humans, including Pakistanis.
I do not know if global warning is that serious or not.
It must be great to never have doubts.
A british psychologist just said that free-market beliefs are obviously the result of some sort of deficiency in empathy and autism. I first heard of it here: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010935.html
It links to the Independent story.
spencer: "In just the same way polar bear deaths may be an early warning sign of problems for humans, including Pakistanis."
What's the connection, Spencer? Very few humans live in the same habitat as the polar bears. How does warming of the planet – which has occurred many times in earth's history – threaten humans the same way it threatens polar bears? If anything, the longer growing season global warming will bring should increase the available food for humans.
Radical environmenmentalist ideology very clearly elevates the value of animals and plants above that of humans. Hence the choice in the title, polar bears or Pakistanis? You can care about both but only one can be more important than the other.
So rank them, on your own value scale. If you had to choose who lived and who died – the polar bears or the Pakistanis – who would you choose?
Aaaarrrgh, I swear I can spell!
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S T
A consequence of the polar ice caps–both the North and South poles — melting is a rise in average sea level.
In Bangaldesh (population 115 million) — what use to be East Pakistan – -over 95% of the land area is less then 35 feet above sea level. Moreover, it is one of the most densely populated countries in the world — the density is about the same as Belgium and it has almost no urban centers. The mountains in the east that are well above sea level are tropical jungle populated by aborigines praticing slash and burn agriculture. It is Louisiana without about ten times the population density. Much the same can be said about Java. But the melting of the polar ice caps may cause the average sea level to rise enough to flood all of these two tropical area where they already grow two to four crops each year.
Moreover, some say the melting of the Artic Ocean ice cap may cause the Gulf
Stream to disapear causing tempteratures in Europe to drop sharply.
Many who have studied the impact of global warning take such things into account and seriously doubt if global warming will lead to an improved ability to increase food production.
The material I have read cause me to have serious doubts. After looking into the issue I concluded that I did not know enough to reach a conclusion about how global warming would impact food production.
But I guess I can be reassured because John Dewey knows without a doubt even though he apparently did not know enough to figure out the relationship between the well being of polar bears and people.
Thank you John for demonstrating my point.
>A british psychologist just said that free-market beliefs are obviously the result of some sort of deficiency in empathy and autism.
Now there's a guy who doesn't understand markets.
John Dewey
What convinces me that humans have something to do with the recent warming is that atmospheric CO2 has increased sharply in the last 150 years, that this is plausibly the result of humans, and this is higher CO2 concentration is likely to raises temperatures because of its physical properties.
But this, on its own, has no policy implications at all unless your sole objective is to preserve the environment and excludes human welfare entirely.
That is why I believe environmentalists are so dangerous: a combination of political clout with a demonstrated willingness to sacrifice any number of lives in pursuit of their brand of utopia.
I vastly prefer polar bears to people. They and their cubs are so cute. And if the choice were between 165,000,000 suicidal and fanantical Pakistanis and the 30,000 remaining polar bears, what right-minded person would choose the Pakistanis? I also prefer Ubanghis over Pakistanis, if it matters. Should the only remaining bears be stuffed teddy bears? How do we explain their extinction to our children?
Why do I get the feeling that you are a covert bear hunter? You pretend that you want the environment to do your dirty work for you. You don't fool me one bit. I can see you now with your shotgun and your hunting jacket, ready to pull the trigger on a mother bear and her cubs. Heartless and barbaric are what you are!
I would definitely try to save a polar bear's life over your life any day of the week. Your type of thinking comes a dime a dozen. Once polar bears are gone, they are gone for good. I suppose I could say the same thing about Pakistani, but I don't see anyone setting bear traps for Pakistanis. Don't you believe in equal treament for bears and Pakistanis? Do we need to start another equal rights movement, or resurrect Ghandi, and MLK? One last thing: Why do you hate the white race so much? I don't hear you comparing black bears to Pakistanis. Your clear racial preferences disgustingly shine through.
Trumpit: your kind always says "your kind".
Spencer says "It must be great to never have doubts."
Spencer, when you walk across the room, do you have even the least shred of doubt that the floor you see will be there underneath your feet? Or that something will fall when you release it?
Some economic results are *that* reliable.
The real hockey stick graph is human population plotted over 10,000 years.
Condoms might be better than water or
food. (not for the polar bears)
It never helps to respond to a troll, now, does it?
This one didn't make my head hurt, but I was confused until I realized that it was being intentionally idiotic.
Ben: "atmospheric CO2 has increased sharply in the last 150 years, that this is plausibly the result of humans, and this is higher CO2 concentration is likely to raises temperatures because of its physical properties."
How do you know the CO2 level is the result of human activity? How do you know the CO2 level is significant enough to raise temperatures more than a degree or two?
Below are links showing the longer term trends for CO2 levels and for global temperatures. They show that CO2 levels today are at historically low levels, if we look at the very long term (hundreds of millions of years). These links also provide evidence for the simultaneous existence of both ice ages and high CO2 levels. Included as well is evidence that global warming in the 20th century started long before any significant increases in CO2 concentrations.
http://tinyurl.com/p4sft
http://tinyurl.com/muu9a
http://tinyurl.com/kol8p
How can you know that Al Gore's evidence is correct and the evidence cited in these three links is wrong?
spencer: " John Dewey knows without a doubt even though he apparently did not know enough to figure out the relationship between the well being of polar bears and people."
If I understand your argument, the melting of the polar ice will cause sea levels to rise and flood Bangladesh. But the polar ice is not all melting. True, Arctic Sea ice is melting. However, it is Antarctica that contains 90% of the world's ice. The ice on the continent of Antarctica continues to grow.
http://tinyurl.com/fz7o5
Here's a link showing how 110 foot towers built in Anartica 25 years ago are now almost completely covered with ice.
http://tinyurl.com/ehgd9
Finally, here's a recent study from NASA that explains how sea ice is growing in the Antarctic Sea. That's in addition to the land ice that is increasing in Antarctica.
http://tinyurl.com/l9al8
I'll bet Al Gore's movie doesn't include reference to this NASA study.
John Dewey
> How do you know the CO2 level is the result of human activity? How do you know the CO2 level is significant enough to raise temperatures more than a degree or two?
John, for context, I think we are largely in agreement on enviro-skepticism. One can accept global warming is happening and quite comfortably reject all policy which attempts to deal with it.
I believe the evidence indicates that warming is happening and humans have plausibly contributed to some share (perhaps negligible) of warming. I do not believe there is any reliable evidence on what share of total warming that human contribution is.
CO2 concentrations are increasing, global temperatures are almost certainly higher now than before, and, I understand, human-produced pollutants is the best explanitor for this higher concentration. The extent to which higher CO2 concentration has increased temperatures is unknown. Climate is complex and I don't believe Antarctic ice mass on its own contradicts higher temperatures. Even if long term concntrations of CO2 were higher (which I don't doubt) this does not rule out humans as a cause of higher CO2. However, those high historic concentrations do give me great confidence that there is no "precipice" on which so much fear and therefore policy advice is founded.
Ben,
We're pretty much in agreement. I was even more skeptical than you, after reading that volcanoes contribute 110 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. However, I just discovered this is a fraction of the amount contributed by man-made sources.