JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Three out of four Americans believe that Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it, according to a Stanford Poll released in June of this year.  Unless you can find fault with this poll, the debate about the science of climate change is over.  We won. Unfortunately, winning the science debate did not propel us toward legislation preventing further anthropogenic effects on climate change.  So, now, it is time to address the real reason climate legislation has failed and will continue to fail until we change the debate. 

The reason climate legislation failed has little to do with the science.  “Climategate” did not undermine the science.  Only 9 percent of respondents to the poll said they even knew about the East Anglia email messages and believed they indicate that climate scientists should not be trusted.  Mistakes published in the IPCC report did not discredit the conclusions of the document.  Only 13 percent of those polled said they were aware of the errors.  We have not lost our mojo.  According to the pollsters, 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely.  Fortunately, as the data indicates, the people still trust scientists.  To take it one step further, I believe the innovative communication methods and the public outreach efforts that have sprung up to help deal with climate change deniers are unnecessary and as long as scientists focus on the denialists, we are wasting our resources. 

To date, the focus of the climate debate has been misdirected and it’s time to change course.  The real issue is an economics issue.  To remedy the problem, the debate should be about the efficacy of the current economic models that are used to perform the cost/benefit analyses rather than whether climate change is occurring.  After all, it is these economic models that form the basis for actual legislation efforts, like cap-and-trade.

I believe we will be more effective at achieving a palatable response to climate change if we focus on the economic philosophy behind the gridlock.  This gridlock arises because policy makers either do not understand the basis for the economics arguments of climate change or they purposely choose arguments that fit their value systems rather than the most effective solutions.  These problems occur on both sides of the aisle.  Those who do not take the time to understand the economics represent a soluble problem.  However, those who apply their value systems to the economics should be the target of our negotiating efforts.  We must find a way to merge our value systems in a way that produces an acceptable economic and climate outcome (that does not involve building an ark). 

A recent report released by the Pew Benefits Workshop written by lead economists explains in excruciating detail how environmental policy decisions are informed by economics.  The insights provided by this report should give you pause in how you approach the climate debate.  The report explains that it is the economists who provide the arguments for climate change mitigation and who ultimately hold the power to achieve effective climate legislation.

In this two part article, I will summarize the Pew report and try to explain why the issues covered within it override the actual science of climate change in the legislative process.  I will also make suggestions on what I believe scientists can do to assist in the debate.

Fortunately, the authors of the report understand the facts of climate change.  The report includes statements such as

“The scientific consensus on climate change is clear and unambiguous; climate change is an observable phenomenon with the potential for catastrophic impacts.” 

So, in other words, they get it.  For me, this makes it all more credible that their insider perspectives on the economics of climate policy are reliable.  The authors explain that economists, much like climate scientists, use complex computer models to assess the economic benefits and costs of various climate policy options.  In fact, the economists use the data generated by climate scientists to create their economic models.  This tells us that the economists are aware of the effects climate change will have on the planet and they are also aware of the effects climate change will have on the global economy.  Where things get unsavory is in the decision-making process on how to respond to the predictions produced by their algorithms.  To make these decisions, we and the economists will be forced to make some critical value judgments that will force you to search your soul for answers.

In response to scientists’ predictions in recent years, economists have been largely supportive of efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change.  The debate arises over whether we should act aggressively to quickly stem the tide or more modestly to ease our transition into an altered climate situation.  Modest action would obviously have fewer immediate economic implications, thus this is the course favored by many economists.  By recommending a less aggressive approach to dealing with the problem, economists are essentially ignoring the warnings from scientists.  However, this is consistent with their models because scientists are unable to offer sufficient certainty in their predictions to alter the outcomes from the economic models.  As long as scientists are ambiguous about the effects of climate change, the economic modelers are free to assume that the least impact is the most likely, and therefore the least economically rigorous action is required. 

For anyone who follows the politics of climate change, this argument sounds familiar as it essentially echoes the Republican Party’s desired approach to climate change legislation.  The Republican approach is to either reject climate change based on the uncertainty of the science or take modest steps that will have minimal impact on corporate America.  So, now we can see from where the Republican Party gets its message.  Further, Republicans feel they are justified in their position because they can claim that they are making highly-informed decisions based on the economic models.

However, as the authors make clear, there are numerous problems with the assumptions made by and the acceptable outcomes recommended by the current economic models based on climate change.  Since the models are designed to take advantage of scientific uncertainty they often recommend the most modest action.  For example, one model makes the recommendation that the optimal emissions reduction rate should only be 14% below current rates by the year 2015 and only less by 43% in 2100.  At this rate, the models are allowing global temperatures to exceed 3 degrees Celsius, which scientists have argued increases the risk of catastrophic climate changes.  Why is this an acceptable outcome according to the model?  Because scientists cannot speak in more certain terms than to say that “the risk of climate catastrophe increases dramatically as greenhouse warming exceeds roughly 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial global average temperature.”  If scientists cannot speak more clearly to the effects of increased temperatures, the economic models will continue to take them at their mildest precautionary conclusions.  Therefore, the economists are willing to accept potentially unfavorable outcomes in the long run in order to take modest action today.  In some cases, the models make economic recommendations that will disparately affect different parts of the globe.  For example, the models may recommend minimal action in Europe despite predicting significant net losses for certain poor countries in other regions of the world.  At this point, researchers conclude that “climate change and greenhouse abatement policy is essentially a problem of justice.” 

Here we are faced with value judgments that are incorporated into current economic models.  The existing problem is that the current economic models employ traditional assumptions based on well-known conceptual and empirical problems.  The authors argue that applying traditional approaches to the highly unpredictable effects of climate change leads to deficiencies in the economic recommendations produced by the existing economic models.  Beyond that, the current models fail to incorporate more predictable “tipping elements” that could lead to large-scale climate shifts that have been recently identified.  The real meat of the report comes when the authors break down the deficiencies within the current economic models.

Part 2 coming soon…