green room
columns
- The Big Necessity
Can excrement solve the energy crisis?
Rose George
posted Oct. 10, 2008 - Adam Smith Meets Climate Change
How the theory of moral sentiments could be applied to cap-and-trade greenhouse-gas emissions.
Ian Ayres
posted Sept. 25, 2008 - Rusted Roots
Is organic agriculture polluting our food with heavy metals?
James E. McWilliams
posted Sept. 8, 2008 - The Life of a Jellyfish
From a continuing series on revolting creatures.
Constance Casey
posted Aug. 29, 2008 - Paparazzi in the Woods
Hidden surveillance cameras are making the wilderness less wild.
Etienne Benson
posted Aug. 14, 2008 - Search for more green room articles
- Subscribe to the green room RSS feed
- View our complete green room archive
Save the Earth in Two Not-So-Hard QuestionsWhat Steven Landsburg doesn't understand about climate change.
By Joseph RommPosted Friday, Oct. 26, 2007, at 5:37 PM ET
Now we know what truly meaningful "quality of life" losses future generations may face: Irreversible destruction of our coasts, hundreds of millions of environmental refugees, whole regions of the planet in permanent or near-constant drought, and massive species extinction on land and sea, to name but a few. (And these impacts are the genuine threat to world peace that Al Gore has sought to warn people about, which justifies his Nobel Prize.)
Which brings us to the second question:
2. Will significant action on climate change require sacrificing our quality of life in any meaningful sense?
You don't need to be an economist to realize the answer is a definite no. I ran the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under Clinton-Gore, and our research showed that action on climate change does mean we will have to spend a lot of money on carbon-free energy sources—but we will also save a lot of money over the long term. Consider that in terms of electricity consumption, the average Californian generates less than one-third the carbon dioxide emissions of the average American while paying the same annual bill. This has not required sacrifice, just intelligent regulations that encourage energy efficiency and clean energy.
According to a major PricewaterhouseCoopers study (PDF), we can reduce carbon emissions by around 60 percent by 2050, with a total reduction in GDP of just 2 percent to 3 percent. So, either we sacrifice one year of economic growth over the next four decades, or else the next 50 generations will have to sacrifice a livable climate. And this is very similar to the Stern Review's conclusion that Landsburg endorses in his final paragraph. Not a very tough choice—even for noneconomists.
Landsburg seems to believe that only economists can discuss climate change seriously, while the rest of us are wasting everyone's time: "If you're not talking about discount rates and levels of risk aversion, you're blathering." Landsburg's piece proves that you can talk about those things and still be blathering.
Steven E. Landsburg responds:
Nothing that Joe Romm (or Al Gore) can tell us about the dire effects of global warming can tell us how much we ought to spend to combat it. Should we spend 1 percent of our incomes? Five percent? Twenty percent? "A whole lot" is not a useful answer to that question.
Because future generations are among the beneficiaries of climate control, the appropriate expenditure level depends critically on the questions Mr. Romm would prefer to ignore: How much do we care about those future generations? How likely are they to be around in the first place? And how rich are they likely to be?
Those are hard questions. But a refusal to confront them is a refusal to take climate issues seriously. I think climate policy is important enough to think about. Mr. Romm, apparently, prefers to bury his head in the sand.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- 900-Pound Giant Squid Joins Cast Of 'The View'
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:00:00 -0400 - Scott Bakula Jumps Into McCain's Body Just Before Election
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:54:13 -0400 - Financial Planner Advises Shorter Life Span
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:00:53 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Imagine if...Hiatt | What if McCain had waged his campaign based on respect?
Editorial: Meddlesome PalinKing: The Danger of Palin Power
- Telnaes Animation: Bush Ponders His Legacy
- Editorial: The World's Expectations for Obama
- Dionne: The Rebirth of American Capitalism
- Samuelson: The Real Engine of Mayhem
- Today's Headlines
- The Economy: What We Need Is Leadership
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:39:13 GMT - Samuelson: The Engine of Mayhem
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:15:23 GMT - Cars: GM-Chrysler Merger Would Be A Lemon
Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:51:58 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Letter From North Carolina
Fri, 10 October 2008 18:50:36 GMT - Poll-arized Mistrust
Fri, 10 October 2008 20:16:32 GMT - Oh, Lord, Kumbaya
Fri, 10 October 2008 18:31:56 GMT - » More from The Root

green room













