• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Is Equinor’s Bay du Nord ‘Delay’ a Cancellation in Slow Motion? June 1, 2023
Analyst Sees Oil and Gas Running Short of Cash as IEA Releases Energy Investment Update May 30, 2023
House of Commons Motion, Senate Bill Urge New Climate Rules for Financial Institutions May 30, 2023
13 Canadian Fossils Linked to Massive Losses in Western Wildfires May 30, 2023
Hamilton Plans Heat Bylaw for Rental Housing May 30, 2023
Next
Prev

Climate Response Must Trust Physics, Ignore ‘Obviously Bananapants’ Economic Models: Bhalla

November 16, 2021
Reading time: 6 minutes
Full Story: Undark @undarkmag
Primary Author: Jag Bhalla

Piqsels

Piqsels

1
SHARES
 

A tricky truth of the climate crisis is that it calls for humanity to act today on what we believe will happen in the future, which requires us to put our faith in the predictions of mathematical models. A trickier truth—one that has helped sow seemingly endless political division and inertia—is that not all of those models are created equal.

Take, for instance, the work of 2021 Nobel laureates Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann, whose models accurately predicted the global warming and climate change we’ve experienced in recent decades. Their work inspired sophisticated ocean-atmosphere models that can take months to process on the world’s fastest supercomputers. Climate physics foresees an Earth undergoing essentially irreversible shifts, or tipping points, into a much-altered biosphere if global temperatures rise more than 2.7°F/1.5°C above preindustrial levels—a threshold we could reach within the next decade.

  • The climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
Subscribe

Contrast that grim forecast with the predictions of the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, for which Yale University’s William Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel prize in economics. DICE is simple enough that a version of it can run in Excel, and Nordhaus has suggested society’s optimal climate trajectory—the one that best balances the economic harms of global warming with the costs of climate action—would correspond to a global temperature rise of 6.3°F/3.5°C by 2100. (Note that DICE models can generate a range of results. One 2020 paper used the model to support the UN’s climate targets as the optimal trajectory. Here, let’s focus on Nordhaus’s influential prize-winning work.)

Arguably, DICE and the economic models it inspired have influenced climate policy far more than their counterparts from physics. The Nordhaus-style models undergird the ubiquitous concept of a social cost of carbon—which attempts to quantify the dollar amount of economic harm caused per tonne of carbon emissions—and they have contributed to decades of policy inaction. Sure, we could act now on climate, these models suggest, but if we act too quickly or too forcefully, we’ll harm the economy.

Even key economists resist such conclusions. “It is irresponsible to act as if the economic models currently dominating policy analysis represent a sensible central case,” wrote Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and Political Science, in a 2013 paper arguing that economic models dangerously downplay the risks and urgency of the climate crisis.

I would take that a large step further: These economic models are so fundamentally flawed that the climate discourse would be better off without them.

That’s because, at their core, models like DICE attempt to do something that economics is simply unequipped to do: They try to quantify, with seemingly actionable precision, the impact of conditions unlike any humankind has ever witnessed on an economy that does not yet exist. They attempt to project the distant-future economic impacts of global warming from present-day correlations between temperature variations and economic activity.

This dicey approach has numerous flaws.

As economist Steve Keen has noted, the models can exclude large parts of the economy. A 1991 model by Nordhaus assumed that trade, manufacturing, finance, and other sectors—collectively responsible for 87% of total economic output at the time—were insulated from climate change impacts because they occurred indoors or were otherwise “negligibly affected.” But climate change produces more than just higher temperatures, and its impacts absolutely reach indoors. Sea level rise and flooding could disrupt every sector in coastal regions; increasingly intense storms would threaten supply chains; wildfires or cold snaps can crash power grids. That economic models ever ignored such obvious interdependences is troubling.

Another deficiency of DICE models is that they assume, based on little physical evidence, a smooth relationship between temperature rise and the economic impact of climate change. In mathematical parlance, the “damage function” that plots the presumed relationship between economic loss and temperature takes the shape of a quadratic curve. But we know from physics models that climate change won’t be gradual and continuous; it will be marked by vicious cycles and tipping points that abruptly shift our biosphere into a deeply different regime, potentially beyond what Nordhaus’s model assumes. Keen has cited this shortcoming as one among a host of flaws that “may be so great as to threaten the survival of human civilization.”

The mere idea that a model using today’s economic data can meaningfully tell us about economic output in the distant future, under climate-crashed conditions, strains credulity. A century ago, computers like the one I’m writing this on weren’t even widely imaginable. The global economy 100 years hence is similarly unimaginable. It’s unlikely that the myriad factors beyond temperature that affect today’s economy will have the same effects in a post-tipping-point world as they do now.

This general shortsightedness is one reason that economics writer Noah Smith says climate economics has “failed us” and that DICE’s recommendations are “obviously bananapants.” Many others agree. For instance, the European Climate Foundation’s Tom Brookes and New York University economist Gernot Wagner argue that “economics needs a climate revolution.”

To be fair, Nordhaus hasn’t hidden DICE’s key limitations. In the model’s 2013 user manual, he describes his optimal climate trajectory as an unrealistic scenario, but one that remains useful as “an efficiency benchmark against which other policies can be measured.” He notes that many economic models don’t include hard-to-model costs like biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and ocean circulation shifts, and so instead guesstimates them by tacking on an “adjustment,” set at 25% of the total damages—a figure which appears to be arbitrary.

Yet these models’ projections—particularly estimates of a social cost of carbon—are treated in media and policy circles as having an air of rigour on par with physics. A “science” this riddled with flaws and fudge factors isn’t one we should bet our kids’ life prospects on.

Our most egregious mistake may be letting economic thinking take the steering wheel. In abstractly pondering cost-benefit trade-offs, it’s too easy to ignore our moral compass and lose track of who is harmed. Physics tells us that carbon we emit today will cause suffering for centuries—and disproportionately, the pain will be felt by poorer countries. By using cash as a universal yardstick, economists intrinsically underrepresent the needs, and even the rights, of the poor, who have contributed negligibly to the climate crisis.

As legal scholar Lisa Heinzerling writes, an “underlying premise of cost-benefit analysis is that there are no rights, only preferences.” Until the hidden preferences and biases baked into economic methods are changed to reflect more equitable and just values, they shouldn’t be our main guide on morally complex matters.

The justification for strong action on climate change should be on moral grounds, not economic ones. Should we have calculated an optimal social cost of slavery? Cheap sugar did not justify slavery, scientist and abolitionist Joseph Priestley rightfully observed in an 18th century sermon on the slave trade. Neither should cheap energy serve as an excuse for knowingly harming billions of the planet’s poorest people, generations yet unborn, and—in the nearer term—countless others we hold near and dear. As David Wallace-Wells noted in his book “The Uninhabitable Earth,” this is “an enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life undeformed.”

A skilled user of any tool must know its limits. Whatever economists are up to, it isn’t like physics modeling. But policy-makers and pundits seem intent on treating it as if it is. And that is a grave empirical, logical, and moral error.

Jag Bhalla is a writer and entrepreneur.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.



in Climate & Society, Climate Impacts & Adaptation, Culture, Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics, Energy Politics, Environmental Justice, Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Equinor
Oil & Gas

Is Equinor’s Bay du Nord ‘Delay’ a Cancellation in Slow Motion?

June 1, 2023
659
Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-op/Facebook
Climate Action / "Blockadia"

‘Hinge Moment’ for Humanity Demands ‘YIMBY’ Mentality: McKibben

June 1, 2023
51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Notley
Energy Politics

Notley Would Have Backed Carbon Capture Subsidies, Smith Less Certain: Ex-Pipeline Exec

June 1, 2023
77

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Equinor

Is Equinor’s Bay du Nord ‘Delay’ a Cancellation in Slow Motion?

June 1, 2023
659
Neal Alderson/Twitter

Out-of-Control Wildfire Burns Homes, Forces Evacuations Outside Halifax

May 29, 2023
2.6k
/Piqusels

Analyst Sees Oil and Gas Running Short of Cash as IEA Releases Energy Investment Update

May 31, 2023
617
Ryan Turnbull/Facebook

House of Commons Motion, Senate Bill Urge New Climate Rules for Financial Institutions

May 30, 2023
239
York Region/flickr

Hamilton Plans Heat Bylaw for Rental Housing

May 31, 2023
490
Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-op/Facebook

‘Hinge Moment’ for Humanity Demands ‘YIMBY’ Mentality: McKibben

June 1, 2023
51

Recent Posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Notley

Notley Would Have Backed Carbon Capture Subsidies, Smith Less Certain: Ex-Pipeline Exec

June 1, 2023
77
Equinor

Equinor Delays Bay du Nord Offshore Oil Project, Blames ‘Volatile’ Markets

May 31, 2023
110
David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr

Clean Energy to Add 700,000 New Jobs by 2050, with Alberta in the Lead

May 30, 2023
207
Martin Davis/Facebook

13 Canadian Fossils Linked to Massive Losses in Western Wildfires

May 30, 2023
604
David/flickr

Supreme Court Decision Undercuts U.S. Clean Water Act

May 30, 2023
79
Nicolas Rénac/Flickr

Climate Change to Cut Coffee Growing Lands by Over 50%

May 30, 2023
83
Next Post
Heaps of wealth: a dredge machine piles up coal in Australia.

Coal Regains Ground after Investors Pushed Mining Giants to Quit

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}