3 ms·

Any policy should be evaluated on the basis of costs and benefits. Too much of the conversation on global warming is either broadly dismissive or exasperatingly

Any policy should be evaluated on the basis of costs and benefits. Too much of the conversation on global warming is either broadly dismissive or exasperatingly alarmist. Fundamentally policy changes to curb global warming will have economic consequence, those of which will be borne disproportionately by the poor. E.g. efforts to curb oil and coal extraction will naturally result in the price of energy going up. I can tell you it makes no difference to me if gas is 3 or 4 dollars a gallon, but it matters a lot to those who live paycheck to paycheck. And especially to those impoverished and living in emerging markets. Im not suggesting a specific policy course of action (at least in this comment), but we'd be a lot better off if there was more of an effort to quantify impact of action/inaction using real numbers. Temperature is projected to be X by year Y (we have varying projections of this), and the cost to humanity is Z. What level of economic sacrifice is justified to address this and how much should we frontload that effort? Should the poor bear the largest burden, or should we normalize the cost somehow? (Energy subsidy, remittances to emerging economies to use cleaner energy) I have no doubt people have run these numbers, but I don't see the connection being made to specific policy proposals.

jdavis703 5y ago
This is a fairly western centric view of “the poor.” The poor in the global south are absolutely going to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. If anything it’s the rich who are least impacted by global warming. The rich can afford to buy AC, move to areas that aren’t at risk of fires and floods and famines won’t cause us to go hungry.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  You say disproportionately impacted. Can you quantify that? That's exactly the hand-wavey language we should avoid. Water level rises by how many feet, displaces how many people? What is the cost of the coastal real estate lost? It can all be quantified (within range). You'd probably find that for poor areas it's quite cost effective for people to relocate. New York City going underwater is much harder to replace. Obviously due to the level of cost to replicate the construction. You say famine... Why would climate change bring famine? Farming and arable land would just shift to more cost effective areas. Some arable land is lost, others is gained (cold areas becoming warm). Building logistics to transport food to localities that can't support it locally is a good idea, and easy to achieve. That's the power of trade. I don't dismiss the reality or impact of climate change at all, but look at the responses I get. Just people taking hyperbolically without really getting into the details that matter. Or lacking convincing and detailed statements. It's all hand-wavey and vague generalities about flooding or fires.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
Like many pigouvian taxes, most carbon tax proposals make an attempt to offset its regressiveness by distributing some sort of dividend or rebate. The idea isn't to punish the poor for driving to work. Rather, it's an attempt to charge the major carbon-emitters for their pollution of the commons (the atmosphere), then compensate the public with that money.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  If there's a direct redistribution of sorts, then the poor can be protected from costs. But any policy without an explicit redistribution scheme will raise the cost of business, and thus, raise the cost to consumers (as businesses pass these on). e.g. for demonstration, imagine you sell apples for a 10 cent profit. Government enacts a 10 cent tax on apples. Now you must raise your price to consumers by at least 10 cents to stay in business. Consumer feels the effect of the tax Market based solutions are still best, though.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    To (over)extend the analogy: growing apples specifically increases people's chances of dying each year by X%. (Akin to dying from cancer caused from smoke from wildfires caused by global warming, or hurricanes, or droughts in the 3rd world, etc). By raising the price of apples, some people might just choose to eat pears instead, and still collect their rebate from the apple tax. (People can buy electric cars, hybrid cars, take public transit, ride their bike, etc)
Ma8ee 5y ago
I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are requesting coming out regularly. Unfortunately, they can’t tell you exactly how many dollars different policies will cost, but that is due to the nature of the subject, not because of any faults of the studies. But the conclusions are unanimous: it’s going to cost much more to do something today than it would have cost yesterday, and it’s going to be much more expensive tomorrow. The poor are the ones that will be hardest hit, not because they can’t afford AC, but because its their food that won’t grow when there’s no rain or too much rain, and they can’t move. Science is currently speaking loud and clear: do much more than is currently planned, or we are facing centuries of wildfires, floods, storms, food and water shortages and hundreds of millions of refugees trying to find new futures. And this is not alarmist. This is what climate scientists, like Cassandras, have been shouting about for decades. I’ve met a few like you, who think they represent the voice of balance and reason. But you are the ones that still are haggling over the price of buckets while the fire breaks through the roof of the orphanage.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hysterics. There's an endless list of bad things in the world, and logically we should address them from most impactful to least impactful. So where is the math justifying policy X with economic cost Y? And as I said in my comment, yes studies have been done. Where is that in political discourse? To the average American, addressing climate change will have effectively no impact on their livelihood within their lifetime. Economic consequences will have an immediate impact. That's simply a fact. Will it get hotter by a few degrees with some knock on effects? Yes. But very little actual impact on day to day life. It becomes obvious to see why many people will vote against these policies. If you can describe to somebody how it will meaningfully adversely affect their life, you will get more support. Hence why I suggest using numbers rather than "scare language" when discussing.

jdavis703 5y ago

This is a fairly western centric view of “the poor.” The poor in the global south are absolutely going to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. If anything it’s the rich who are least impacted by global warming. The rich can afford to buy AC, move to areas that aren’t at risk of fires and floods and famines won’t cause us to go hungry.

adam_arthur 5y ago
You say disproportionately impacted. Can you quantify that? That's exactly the hand-wavey language we should avoid. Water level rises by how many feet, displaces how many people? What is the cost of the coastal real estate lost? It can all be quantified (within range). You'd probably find that for poor areas it's quite cost effective for people to relocate. New York City going underwater is much harder to replace. Obviously due to the level of cost to replicate the construction. You say famine... Why would climate change bring famine? Farming and arable land would just shift to more cost effective areas. Some arable land is lost, others is gained (cold areas becoming warm). Building logistics to transport food to localities that can't support it locally is a good idea, and easy to achieve. That's the power of trade. I don't dismiss the reality or impact of climate change at all, but look at the responses I get. Just people taking hyperbolically without really getting into the details that matter. Or lacking convincing and detailed statements. It's all hand-wavey and vague generalities about flooding or fires.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

Like many pigouvian taxes, most carbon tax proposals make an attempt to offset its regressiveness by distributing some sort of dividend or rebate. The idea isn't to punish the poor for driving to work. Rather, it's an attempt to charge the major carbon-emitters for their pollution of the commons (the atmosphere), then compensate the public with that money.

adam_arthur 5y ago
If there's a direct redistribution of sorts, then the poor can be protected from costs. But any policy without an explicit redistribution scheme will raise the cost of business, and thus, raise the cost to consumers (as businesses pass these on). e.g. for demonstration, imagine you sell apples for a 10 cent profit. Government enacts a 10 cent tax on apples. Now you must raise your price to consumers by at least 10 cents to stay in business. Consumer feels the effect of the tax Market based solutions are still best, though.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  To (over)extend the analogy: growing apples specifically increases people's chances of dying each year by X%. (Akin to dying from cancer caused from smoke from wildfires caused by global warming, or hurricanes, or droughts in the 3rd world, etc). By raising the price of apples, some people might just choose to eat pears instead, and still collect their rebate from the apple tax. (People can buy electric cars, hybrid cars, take public transit, ride their bike, etc)

Ma8ee 5y ago

I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are requesting coming out regularly. Unfortunately, they can’t tell you exactly how many dollars different policies will cost, but that is due to the nature of the subject, not because of any faults of the studies. But the conclusions are unanimous: it’s going to cost much more to do something today than it would have cost yesterday, and it’s going to be much more expensive tomorrow. The poor are the ones that will be hardest hit, not because they can’t afford AC, but because its their food that won’t grow when there’s no rain or too much rain, and they can’t move. Science is currently speaking loud and clear: do much more than is currently planned, or we are facing centuries of wildfires, floods, storms, food and water shortages and hundreds of millions of refugees trying to find new futures. And this is not alarmist. This is what climate scientists, like Cassandras, have been shouting about for decades. I’ve met a few like you, who think they represent the voice of balance and reason. But you are the ones that still are haggling over the price of buckets while the fire breaks through the roof of the orphanage.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hysterics. There's an endless list of bad things in the world, and logically we should address them from most impactful to least impactful. So where is the math justifying policy X with economic cost Y? And as I said in my comment, yes studies have been done. Where is that in political discourse? To the average American, addressing climate change will have effectively no impact on their livelihood within their lifetime. Economic consequences will have an immediate impact. That's simply a fact. Will it get hotter by a few degrees with some knock on effects? Yes. But very little actual impact on day to day life. It becomes obvious to see why many people will vote against these policies. If you can describe to somebody how it will meaningfully adversely affect their life, you will get more support. Hence why I suggest using numbers rather than "scare language" when discussing.