First, I apologize for any grammar or
spelling mistakes. My main computer is still broken so I have to type
this up while using a projector on a white wall. Which mans
proofreading basically consists of the auto-proofreader because it's
near impossible to see text.
So I recently had – got – to read
the book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global
Warming. The book is essentially
this:
- Climate change is man-made (anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. Literally every time from my first misuse of the phrase in an Environmental Ethics course I consistently confuse the 2).
- Climate change has mostly negative effects (but they aren't as bad as most people believe)
- The most effective solution is a slight carbon tax along with extremely heavy investment into R&D for new low-carbon sources of energy.
The
book has a lot of great points and it is interesting. It's more or
less what I read one reviewer said: if you're going to read one book
about climate change, don't make it be this one; if you're going to
read 10 books about climate change then you should include this one.
The
book has a lot of good points although I don't completely agree with
it. For example, because the average income of a person is projected
to rise, the author concludes that the income in all countries will
rise. I don't think that's a safe assumption but that assumption is
what goes into some of his arguments.
For
example, malaria infection rates increase when the temperature
increases. Hence, global warming means more areas are susceptible to
malaria infections. But the author concludes that because average
income will go up that that people everywhere will get the ability to
prevent and treat malaria infections.
It's a
similar thing with the idea behind coping with rising sea levels. He
argues that 1`) sea levels have risen a foot – the expected rise
over the next century or so – and that there were no calamities as
a result. Rising income means rising technological progress and
capacity to build things like coastal defenses. So he argues that
rising sea levels will be mitigated through increased income. But,
again, the problem is that increased average income doesn't mean
everyone experiences a rise in outcome.
He
also tends to downplay the fact that these changes are permanent.
That a rise in, for example, ocean levels means there will always be
people having to deal with higher levels.
Another
one of his arguments is that it's more effective to use social policy
in a lot instances. So, in what I'm learning is apparently the go-to
example for a lot of environment economists, he argues that we should
stop subsidizing coastal flood insurance. He has a point of course:
tax subsidies encourage people to do more of an activity, if the
activity is living somewhere you'll get flooded then we would expect
more people to do that.
But
approaching that issue from the macro standpoint isn't enough.
Because some people will be unable, financially, to leave their homes
and move inland. So if we remove those subsidies then we get a good
macro response but only at the expensive of the lives of the people
who stay behind and can't afford flood insurance.
That
seems to be what rubs me the wrong way about a lot of the book. Or to
put another way: in the trade off between equity and fairness he
falls more into the equity side while I fall farther in the fairness
side. It's still an interesting book that's informative. But I tend
to disagree a bit with the conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment