<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<h3 class="post-title"> Environment and Economics: a hot topic. </h3>
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 <a
href="http://climateprogress.org/">Climate Progress</a> blog) and
Dr. Matthew E. Kahn (Economics, Professor at UCLA and owner of the <a
href="http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/">Environmental and Urban
Economics</a> blog.<br>
<br>
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: <a
href="http://climatopolis.com/">Climatopolis</a>.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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 <a
href="http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2010/12/environment-and-economics-hot-topic.html">here</a>:<br>
<br>
<span class="fullpost"><br>
<br>
Romm has reviewed Kahn's book twice. After the first scathingly
negative review<br>
(<a
href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/20/climatopolis-how-our-cities-will-thrive-in-the-hotter-future-revie/">Climatopolis:
How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future [Not!</a>], (
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.(<a
href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/16/review-climatopolis-cities-thrive-matthew-kahn-not-a-good-book/">Review:
Climatopolis: How our cities will thrive in the hotter future by
Matthew Kahn is not a good book</a>)<br>
<br>
Kahn could hardly be expected to refrain from a <a
href="http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2010/12/joe-romm-punches-climatopolis-again.html">reply</a>.
<blockquote>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<b> we will be pro-active in embracing
strategies to protect ourselves from different dimensions of
climate change </b>. (Bold emphasis is mine.)</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I will admit that I too have not read <i>Climatopolis</i>. I do
follow both Romm and Kahn's blogs on a regular basis, especially
since Kahn did some of the best <a
href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/economics-sp/peer-review/peer_review_comments_arb_responses.pdf">initial
economic analysis</a> of the effect of California's AB 32 (p.55
of the PDF linked.)
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<br>
Kahn describes himself as a <a
href="http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2010/12/reply-to-smart-email-about-rational.html">rational
expectations economist</a>. 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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. </span>
</body>
</html>