[GPSCC-chat] Environment and Economics: a hot topic.

[Wes Rolley]

      Environment and Economics: a hot topic.

It may be that economists and ecologists speak very different languages. 
The gap of understanding seems as big as that between Vulcan and 
Klingon. Nowhere does this seem more apparent than in the exchanges 
between Dr. Joseph Romm (Physicist, owner of the Climate Progress 
<http://climateprogress.org/> blog) and Dr. Matthew E. Kahn (Economics, 
Professor at UCLA and owner of the Environmental and Urban Economics 
<http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/> blog.

At issue is the question of whether the capitalist system of markets 
will enable us all to adapt to the realities of climate change. Kahn's 
main thesis seems to be that, "cities and regions will adapt to rising 
temperatures over time, slowly transforming our everyday lives as we 
change our behaviors and our surroundings". Maybe Miami will be under 
water, but spring in Fargo might be nice. He has described this at some 
length in a recent book: Climatopolis <http://climatopolis.com/>.

This is beginning to look like a pissing contest between two academics 
intent on preserving their reputations. It would be a mistake to leave 
you with that impression. This is very serious and we had better get it 
right the first time. There might not be a second chance.

T split the rest of this comparison as well as some comments on what it 
means for Green Politics off the main page and you can read it here 
<http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/12/environment-and-economics-hot-topic.html>:



Romm has reviewed Kahn's book twice. After the first scathingly negative 
review
(Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future [Not! 
<http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/20/climatopolis-how-our-cities-will-thrive-in-the-hotter-future-revie/>], 
( Kahn accused Romm of the sin of reviewing a book that he had not yet 
fully read. So, Romm read it cover to cover, and then wrote another 
review that was sharper than the first.(Review: Climatopolis: How our 
cities will thrive in the hotter future by Matthew Kahn is not a good 
book 
<http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/16/review-climatopolis-cities-thrive-matthew-kahn-not-a-good-book/>)

Kahn could hardly be expected to refrain from a reply 
<http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2010/12/joe-romm-punches-climatopolis-again.html>. 


    Joe Romm is a smart angry man. He throws some new punches at my
    Climatopolis. Under the scenario that greenhouse gas concentrations
    reach 1000 ppm (which sounds high and if we reach that number this
    would take place in the year 2200?), some of the scenarios he
    sketches may play out. He makes some reasonable points about
    tightening some of the raw calculations but he ignores two key facts
    about my book. In the next edition of the book, I will address his
    points but in no way do his points detract from the book's core
    thesis. Capitalism will help us to adapt to climate change. Out of
    self interest, we will rebuild our future cities in places that are
    less at risk from climate change and*we will be pro-active in
    embracing strategies to protect ourselves from different dimensions
    of climate change *. (Bold emphasis is mine.)



In particular, Greens need to sort this out clearly and to put forward 
candidates who understand not only the science that is telling us why 
our climate is changing, but also the long range economic issues at 
play. I am not convinced that we have found or developed more than a 
couple of candidates who might qualify on both counts. That will have to 
be the subject of later posts.

I will admit that I too have not read /Climatopolis/. I do follow both 
Romm and Kahn's blogs on a regular basis, especially since Kahn did some 
of the best initial economic analysis 
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/economics-sp/peer-review/peer_review_comments_arb_responses.pdf> 
of the effect of California's AB 32 (p.55 of the PDF linked.)

    While I support the Governor's broad AB32 goals, I am troubled by
    the economic modeling analysis that I have been asked to read. AB32
    is presented as a riskless "free lunch" for Californians. These
    economic models predict that this regulation will offer us a
    "win-win" of much lower greenhouse gas emissions and increased
    economic growth.


Kahn describes himself as a rational expectations economist 
<http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2010/12/reply-to-smart-email-about-rational.html>. 
That is where my gut tells me that he is wrong. His expectations are 
that people and companies will have the economic ability to adapt, 
making rational choices for long range gains rather than taking. The 
trouble with climate change is that it does not respond to quarterly 
report. If capitalism and it's response to market signals is going to 
determine how we adapt, we had better have a longer range view than that 
of a hedge fund supercomputer tweaking seeking advantage in a fraction 
of a point.

Kahn talks about how we make decisions when "we know that we do not 
know." It is my experience that most of us do not do that very well, 
especially when the goal is for some general greater good rather than 
being specific as to our selves, our families, our work. People tend to 
delay those decisions until the threat is imminent. By the, with climate 
change, it may be too late.

I don't have statistics to back up my conclusions, only some observation 
of human behavior through much of my 70 years. If we can not count on 
governments having the financial ability to provide for adaptation, and 
we also can not count on corporate long term decision making, we had 
better be building resilient local communities that can whether the 
storms to come.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20101220/96016308/attachment.html>