0.17 Energy: global warming change  (Page 5/8)

It is, however, apparent that there is wide variation in estimates of just how much rising CO ₂ or other greenhouse gases will warm the earth. Claims of precision in these estimates merit some skepticism. It is also unclear what the net worldwide effects of climate change might be over the next 100 or 200 years, on agriculture, disease or drinking water.

Moreover, there are respected climate economists who, while they do not doubt that global warming is very likely occurring, are skeptical that efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions will, on balance benefit humankind. Economists such as William Nordhaus have argued for years that the near term economic growth benefits from burning fossil fuels outweigh the future estimated costs of climate change. William Nordhaus, The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. Nordhaus arrives at this conclusion by noting that typical studies of effects of future climate change value future costs and benefits equally with present costs and benefits (i.e. they use a near-zero discount rate to value future costs and benefits). Nordhaus, and most other economists, argue that future costs and benefits should be discounted when compared across several years, or even decades and especially centuries. This is because economic growth means that future generations will be wealthier, enabling the latter to better cope with climate change in their lifetime. But the much celebrated Stern Review of climate change (see footnote #4 ) does use a discount rate of near zero. (See the Appendix to this Chapter for a review of cost-benefit analysis and discounting).

The author’s view is that, on balance , the result of warming, realistic discounting of future costs and benefits or not, will not be positive for most of humanity, especially in the tropics.

If that turns out to be correct, then we must ask what can be done to reduce threats from climate change. We have heard from the doomsayers (catastrophe looms) and soothsayers (no climate change is occurring). What are doomslayers , those who seek sensible answers to difficult societal questions, to do?

Strong language has been used to portray a state of “immediate emergency” from the threat from global warming? But perhaps we should be also concerned about the threat of global cooling ? This is a most unconventional statement. Nevertheless, further proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere could mean that today’s university students might possibly face in their lifetime a greater possibility of serious global cooling then of global warming . Why? A nuclear exchange of multiple megaton weapons in one or more regions could easily lead to nuclear winter for the entire world, lasting decades or even centuries. As of 2014, prospects for limiting the spread of nuclear weapons are not bright.

Still, climate change and other pressing environmental issues cannot be ignored especially, since emerging nations are forecast to bear the brunt of costs of warmer climate. Since there are no panaceas, a portfolio of policies must be deployed. Herewith is presented a portfolio with five basic elements, some applying worldwide, some more specific to the U.S., Europe and Japan. Other chapters in this book indicate the portfolio, while focusing on climate change, has spillover beneficial effects as well on deforestation, biodiversity, water pollution and water wastage. It should be noted that the remedies presented are primarily price based, which should be expected from an economist. However, the last two elements in the portfolio would not be viewed as price-based.