Policy Wise

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

An interesting new article in Foreign Policy argues that it might be too late to stop global warming and the world should be prepared to live with its effects,

A realistic look at climate change suggests that it is time to change the debate. In 2005, a paper published by the U.N. Environment Program put average global economic losses due to “great weather disasters” at $100 billion per year, and projected that it was increasing at about 6 percent per year—enough to double every twelve years, and to total $2 trillion for the period from 2007 to 2020. Policy makers in the United States and elsewhere must start hedging their bets and prepare us to live in this new world. This emphatically does not mean giving up on efforts to slow climate change, which could still measurably reduce the costs of protecting the people and infrastructure most vulnerable to higher temperatures and new weather patterns. Nor should it suggest that the task of adaptation will be easy or cheap. World leaders will face many of the same dilemmas that complicate the current debate: Developed countries, which have produced most of the human-origin carbon dioxide in the air, will be in the best position to cope with climate change and developing countries will want them to bear a disproportionate financial burden for its consequences.[link]

According to the article, the real key is that China (and perhaps India) have become such major polluters that even strictier emission laws in United States will not have much effect. But as Thomas Friedman argues, shouldn’t USA show the way?

Leadership is about “follow me” not “after you.” Getting our national climate regulations in order is necessary, but it will not be sufficient to move China. We have to show them what Wal-Mart is showing its competitors - that green is not just right for the world, it is better, more profitable, more healthy, more innovative, more efficient, more successful. If Wal-Mart can lead, and California can lead, why can’t America?[link]

But as Megan Mcardle argues, United States would find it much harder to cut emissions than Europe,

Environmentalism isn’t as powerful a movement in America as it is in Europe. Moreover, greenhouse reduction is costlier here than it is in Europe. And this is not because Europe is more virtuous. It is because Europe is denser. Which is not because Europe is more virtuous. Europe is denser because it has been agriculturally settled much longer than North America, where agriculture only really got going with the advent of corn ca 1000 AD. And of course, European epidemics killed off many of the local residents, allowing European immigrants to settle their sparsely populated lands.[link]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!