Climate change will pose major challenges for nations around the world. The risks to the agriculture sector from heat waves and drought have been well studied by economists. My new book titled Climatopolis (Basic Books 2010) focuses on how cities around the world will cope with climate change.
I am not a climate scientist. Instead, I am an environmental and urban economist. This book uses basic microeconomics to think about how self interested households and firms respond to the anticipated but uncertain threat of climate change. We know that “we do not know” what climate change will mean for our cities and our nation. Since climate change threatens to disrupt our day to day lives, it creates incentives for households to seek out adaptation strategies and this creates new market opportunities for forward looking entrepreneurs.
Climate change bundles several challenges ranging from the increased probability of severe heat waves, to increased likelihood of drought. Coastal areas are likely to experience more and more severe natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. The consequences of such events will hinge on a city’s geography, income, and institutions. In my 2005 paper titled “The Death Toll from Natural Disasters”, I documented using data from 73 nations over the years 1980 to 2002 that richer nations suffer much less death when natural disasters take place. The recent earthquakes in Chile and Haiti offer a salient contrast. Measured on the Richter scale, Chile suffered from a much worse earthquake than Haiti but the earthquake caused much more death in Haiti than in Chile. Income and education enable individuals to access a variety of coping strategies when “worst case” scenarios arise.
Throughout this week, I will return to the theme that economic development will help poor countries to adapt to climate change. My book stresses this irony. Free market urban growth has caused climate change (by allowing billions of people to achieve the American Dream, see Jared Diamond’s book Collapse) but capitalism will help us to adapt to climate change’s blows. Why? As I will discuss later this week, it will foster directed innovation and the diffusion of new products ranging from floatable homes to renewable power that will help billions of people to cope in the face of climate change. Global free trade in ideas, goods and labor flows will help adaptation efforts.
Climate change will pose new risks for cities. Recently, The Economist published a generally favorable review of Climatopolis but pointed out that I had ranked Moscow as likely to be a climate change resilient city. In my short list of “resilient cities”, I had focused on cities unlikely to suffer from major sea level rise that are located at northern latitudes. Martin Weitzman’s work on climate change catastrophe has influenced my thinking and thus my rankings. The Economist was quick to point out that even “safe cities” can and will suffer due to climate shocks caused by climate change.
Climate scientists will continue to make progress researching how climate change will affect different geographical areas around the world. While climate science is still a new research field featuring much uncertainty, I am confident that a consensus will form and the predictions based on modeling in this field will be common knowledge due to the Internet and the diffusion of information. If a consensus does not emerge, then a key issue will be whether households and governments know that “they do not know” what risks climate change implies for their city. Risk averse decision makers will plan for worst case scenarios and this will protect them.
Citizens and politicians in cities such as Moscow have a strong incentive to know how the probability of hot summer days has changed over time due to climate change. Self interested households have the right incentives to learn about how changing climate conditions will affect their quality of life.
As we individually learn about the day-to-day challenges climate change poses for different cities, city residents will take pro-active steps to adapt to changing circumstances. Yes, the Moscow heat wave was deadly but the “silver lining” of this shock is that the city’s residents learned that it is at risk and I predict that it will make costly investments now to lower the impact of the next heat wave. This basic logic is why I am optimistic about our urban future. We have the right incentives to learn and to adapt to our changing environmental conditions.
A maintained assumption in my book is that climate change’s impact on our cities will take place gradually. If New York City residents wake up in January 2011 and there has been significant sea level rise causing mass flooding of Manhattan, then there is little that the residents of Southern Manhattan can do to adapt. The basic premise of Climatopolis is that we are forward looking, self interested individuals. We foresee the challenges that climate change will pose for our cities and we have the right incentives to make investments now to protect ourselves from its most severe impacts. These investments will help us to adapt to living in the hotter world. In tomorrow’s post, I will focus on migration both within cities and across cities and even across national borders as a key investment strategy for adapting.
ChrisGreen says:
If climate change is severe, some regions will benefit, in the long run, while some regions will suffer. There will obviously be migrations from those areas that suffer to those areas that benefit. Historically speaking, warmer weather has meant more global precipitation, not less, so perhaps the dangers will be due to greater flooding and hurricanes, and not so much due to drought, except in .
In the long run, warmer weather is generally good for the environment, if ‘good for the environment’ means more moisture (which lead to greater species diversification), more plants and longer growing seasons. The habitat of some species will shrink (polar bears) but I imagine that animals that can’t adapt to average global temperature fluctuations of 2C probably aren’t around anymore unless they evolved in the last 6000 years. In other words, the fight against global warming isn’t a fight to save the environment. It is a fight to prevent major disruptions in the human food supply. Such disruptions, if they occur, will mean famine and war, unless, as the author of the post points out, we can adapt. I have a lot of faith that we will, mostly, but I think there will still be problems.
September 20, 2010, 1:10 amStacy D says:
You must have been on vacation last week, because you obviously didn’t get the memo. It’s not Climate Change anymore. It’s Global Climate Disruption.
September 20, 2010, 1:10 amStacy D says:
You must have been on vacation last week, because you obviously didn’t get the memo. It’s not Climate Change anymore. It’s Global Climate Disruption.
September 20, 2010, 1:10 amKen Mitchell says:
My question would be, why are you so convinced that the world is warming? We’ve seen warmer, and we’ve seen cooler, and we’ve seen LOTS colder. Personally, I like the warm, even though I greatly fear that it is another 1300′s-style mini-ice-age that’s coming.
We know that during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums of the solar sunspot cycle, the world was a few critical degrees colder than before, or since. And NASA tells us that they’ve analyzed the magnetic currents in the Sun and predict that sunspots will be fading into another extended minimum. In other words, I believe that colder is more likely that warmer.
We’ll look pretty darned silly preparing for a world-inundating heat wave as the ice starts to come back!
Want to hedge your bets? Reduce the carbon in the atmosphere (which will probably do no good at all) by building a thousand NUCLEAR power plants – so that there will be electricity to heat our homes when the Green Police start trying to remote-control our thermostats.
September 20, 2010, 1:26 amNeo says:
Hey, when things get really hot, we’re headed for Global Climax
September 20, 2010, 1:31 amWe need a climate prophylactic
The Liberal says:
Mr. Kahn,
I am glad that you are optimistic. I hope you are right. But I think you are wrong.
A couple of critiques.
First:
Your attribution of “innovation” to “capitalism” is simplistic. Innovation is fostered by intellectual property, which is based on the coercion. If I use an idea that I got from someone else, the natural state of things is that I can use this idea. Why should my use of an idea be restricted if it doesn’t directly hurt anyone else?
There are of course good arguments for using coercion against people who use the ideas that are attributed to others. In that this fosters innovation by providing a reward of monopoly profits for those with good ideas. But THAT isn’t exactly pure “capitalism” or “trade” but instead also involves a large dose of coercion (if you try to use that idea that is attributed to someone else, you can and will be stopped coercion – even though your own use of that idea in no way physically prevents anyone else from using the idea).
Think further, and you will note that many important inventions have actually been derived in part from public funding and from subsidies for basic research. The Internet, it is often noted, started due to funding associated with the military.
So, I think this attribution of innovation to “capitalism” per se (which I take to mean market forces without direction) is deeply problematic. A lot of important innovation does not come from capitalism or only partially comes from capitalism. For example, when Apple invents the iPad, that is private innovation. At the same time, the patents that are filed on Apple’s behalf and the government shutting down competitors on Apple’s behalf when those patents are said to be infringed. Also, when government funds basic research that pays off but would unlikely to be funded by the private sector that turns out to later be incredibly useful (i.e. the Internet).
Anyway, your attribution of innovation as a product of capitalism alone (without recognizing the critical role of government) it seems to me is majorly off.
Second:
Your understanding of the incentives of politicians seems not merely optimistic, but naive. Think about the economy for a second. Imagine a story where short-term thinking causes excessive deficit spending and also that there is little incentive for appropriate regulation when everyone is making money. (It seems that people only really get upset and start pointing fingers when things start going badly. Regulators and politicians do not have a lot of incentive to control bubbles; it isn’t likely to be very popular.)
Well, here is the problem. Failure to regulate today causes problems tomorrow. There is a disconnect between the cause of the problem and accountability for the problem. If X political party’s policies cause problems in the future when Y political party is in charge, it will probably be Y not X that is blamed. Likewise, if failure of political party X to act on climate change or other disaster preparedness causes a disaster to occur when Y is in charge, paradoxically X will not only not be held accountable, but will likely politically benefit from the disaster.
Basically, the problem is that politicians focus too much on their personal incentives. They think too much about what is good for themselves and not enough about what is good for the country. Clearly, the least costly way to prevent at least some natural disasters is to prevent them, not to fight them after they have occurred. But the people held accountable are those who end up fighting them, not those who fail to prevent them.
Basically, how politics works is that the mechanic who fixes the car gets the blame, while the owner who failed to do regular oil changes and caused the problem in the first place gets off the hook. This is less of a problem with real world oil changes, because the owner who fails to get oil changes also suffers the loss; they have an adequate incentive to get oil changes. Now imagine that the person who is in charge of getting oil changes is not the owner and has really limited accountability to the owner. Imagine that, and you will have a fairly good image of our politics and why it is so dysfunctional.
A final point. Accountability is especially weak when causation issues are non-obvious, as is the case with climate change. Was Katrina made more likely due to climate change? What about the fires in Moscow? There may be answers to these questions, but they are non-obvious to voters who are charged with keeping politicians accountable.
It seems to me that what you are really “optimistic” about is our capacity to respond to disasters, rather than our capacity to prevent them. But responding is not always really a good substitute for prevention. While it is true that we have more reason for optimism in our development of better disaster responses, we have much less optimism about our capacity to prevent them in the first place. Your suggestion, I know, is that with a greater disaster response, then maybe preventing the disaster in the first place is less important. But, that is making really big assumptions about the magnitude of the disaster and whether or not it is precedented. Looking at the flawed disaster response to Hurricane Katrina, I for one am not really optimistic about our capacity to respond to a disaster that was even bigger.
A final point. As you note, our ability to respond to disasters is likely to be very much tied to our economic health. Responding to disasters is expensive and requires appropriate human capital. But, it seems to me, that our politicians have been under-investing in reviving our economy, addressing deep problems of inequality, and under-investing in infrastructure and education. The incentives for these long-term investments are apparently not adequate. It is politically easier to give everyone tax cuts and run up ultimately unsustainable deficits. Right now, we have a bubble in the sense of deep fundamental problems being unaddressed. We are rotting from within. And the political incentives are not there to fix these problems. A politician who makes hard decisions today will be imposing costs on taxpayers and voters today, but the return will only come tomorrow. And tomorrow, the other party may be the one that is in power and who will get the credit. Conversely, avoiding the imposition of costs on taxpayers and voters today, to our long-term detriment, will tend to be rewarded immediately and when these long-term costs become evident, the other party is just as likely to be in power.
Basically, there is inadequate accountability amongst our politicians. Short-term incentives are misaligned with long-term incentives. And when the consequences of this misalignment come about in the long run, economic decline will have already impaired our capacity to deal with natural disasters.
Look, I am not naturally a pessimist. In fact, I am an optimist by disposition and inclination. In fact, my personal philosophy is that you may not be able to control many things around you, but you can control your attitude and how you respond to them. But when I look around at our deeply dysfunctional politics, I am not at all optimistic.
Basically, I hope you are right in your optimistic view. But I doubt it. You probably are simply naive.
September 20, 2010, 1:58 amRicardo says:
If true, the problem is that this affects some of the poorest people in the world like Bangladeshi rice subsistence farmers who depend on the annual monsoon for their harvest. Migration would presumably involve leaving Bangladesh for greener pastures. What country is prepared to offer refuge for hundreds of thousands or millions of Bangladeshi farmers who have limited education and job skills?
That’s a non sequitur. If the earth is warming — and the temperature data suggests it is — whether the earth was warmer at some point in the past doesn’t change the reality of current warming.
It seems to me it would be more productive to focus on the question of how to cope with warming and the inevitable disruption this implies for millions of people rather than recite the standard set of arguments: “The earth isn’t warming but even if it is, humans are not causing it. And even if humans are causing it, warming is good.” Etc.
September 20, 2010, 2:39 amD.O. says:
Prof Khan,
September 20, 2010, 2:42 amGlad you came here with an interesting topic. There is little doubt that humankind will adapt to climate change, it is unlikely we will just die. The question is how much it is going to cost. And how costly are the alternatives. As for private incentives, it is true that each actor has the incentive to shield their life from unpleasant changes, but in the process can make life of others more miserable. If my adaption leads to increased emissions etc. (this is assuming that human activity substantially contributes to climate change). Hope you will answer these questions.
Engineer says:
If the planet drastically cuts emissions, but temperatures continue to rise .. well then obviously we didn’t cut emissions enough or we cut them too late.
If we don’t cut emissions, but temperatures fall anyway then the scientists will just need to revise the models.
And of course, if we cut emissions and temperatures fall, we won’t know whether they would have fallen anyway. But the warmists will claim vindication nonetheless.
From a statist perspective, the beautiful thing about the “climate disruption” hypothesis is that it is unfalsifiable – since the political class is unaware of the distinction between correlation and causality.
September 20, 2010, 3:00 amThe Liberal says:
You are confused. Mixing the problem of falsifiability with the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the political class is simply confused. No scientist that DOES understand the distinction between causation and correlation has disproved the theory of global warming. Thus, even if the political class had perfect knowledge of the distinction between causation and correlation, the theory of global warming would not be easily disproved.
While you assume that knowledge of the distinction between correlation and causation by non-scientists (which every serious scientist dealing with climate change is aware of) would somehow help contribute to the empirical testing of the theory of global warming, that is clearly incorrect. The political class is not typically involved in testing scientific theories (though there are probably a few scientists who might be members of the political class); instead the results are reported to them by the scientists who do the actual work.
September 20, 2010, 3:23 amD.O. says:
Pretty much falsifiable.
September 20, 2010, 3:52 amMadge says:
It would be easier to analyze how wunnerful the future will be if we could get a better handle on “thrive”. Are there cities today which are “thriving” in the way meant by the thread title? Which are they?
September 20, 2010, 3:53 amStephen Lathrop says:
Sure, like they did in New Orleans. Or in every flood-plain subdivision in the U.S.
Change is a tax, discounting, sometimes to zero, the value of capital and systems previously purchased. That’s why decision makers, risk averse or not, prefer not to plan for scenarios, worst case or not, that don’t suppose continuation of the status quo.
September 20, 2010, 4:17 amSancho Panza says:
One. Warmer weather means more food. (More warmth, more carbon, more plants. In that order.)
But warmer weather has not meant more hurricanes. (Warm water and cold air produce hurricanes. Together.) (And, interestingly, tropical cyclone energy is at 30 year lows. This despite the global cooling of the last 10 years.)
So. Major reservations aside.
It’s great that wily entrepreneurs can make money from the otherwise disgusting carbon fear-mongering. It’s so much better than having governments raise taxes and then transfer that cash to Vladimir Putin. (This is how the Kyoto Protocol works in those countries that ratified it and then, sadly, weren’t able to shut down a million inefficient smoke-belching Soviet-era weapons factories in 1990).
Since the most popular idea is to make the great mass of mankind poorer (with a few exceptions, like the crime syndicates that profit from Spanish wind-farm subsidies), this alternative idea is much less disastrous.
The question is, how will we convince the government in Bangladesh to stop filling in the canals the British built 100 years ago, and quit building roads on them?
September 20, 2010, 5:11 amRicardo says:
False. The Southwest U.S. was much greener when the planet was cooler. In any case, more plants don’t automatically mean more food unless you are planning on eating tree bark and weeds. Most of the food we eat requires certain weather patterns to grow — if those patterns change, you have potentially large disruption.
September 20, 2010, 5:54 amJ.T. Wenting says:
Well proven in fact, as they’ve been doing just that for the last decade or more.
September 20, 2010, 6:57 amOf course they’re scientists only in name, in reality they’re priests for the religion of AGW, acolytes to High Priest Al Gore the First.
Stephen Lathrop says:
We are indeed lucky to have Sancho Panza to explain to us why the consensus of global climate scientists got it so wrong. But Sancho, I think you’d better check your cyclone science. I don’t think hurricanes work like tornados.
September 20, 2010, 7:07 amFormer Army MP says:
The Consensus has Spoken, the evil American middle class is causing Earth’s very warmth to increase.
Only by sending massive amounts of jobs and aid to the third world may our Mistress Gaia, if we pray to her and give money to the climate exchange, save us all.
Of course, anyone in the history department is ordered to keep their mouths tightly shut. Any faculty member in geology who even thinks of speaking a word about anything ever is gone, tenure or not.
Only man can change the climate, only man is doing this.
September 20, 2010, 8:29 amDr. K says:
I would submit the concensus is that in approximately 10,000 years or so, NYC will be under a sheet of ice almost a mile thick. I think that any actions to farestall such an occurrance should be embraced immediately and with prejudice. Let the burning commence!
September 20, 2010, 8:30 amkarrde says:
I do note that the question of how various cities and nations weather any signifiant change in climate is separate from the question of whether climate change can be predicted to any significant level of accuracy.
Further, both questions are separate from the question of whether human action (in aggregate) is driving climate change.
September 20, 2010, 9:12 amTamerlane says:
If we are to deal with climate change shouldn’t we avoid investing large amounts of resources in infra-structure that may be made obsolescent by climate change before such investment has paid for itself? As one homely example, if coastal cities rationally deal with the possibility of eventual innundation by rising sea levels shouldn’t they more carefully consider investing in immovable, easily inundated projects like subways?
The evidence suggests that even in historic times climate change, e.g., the Medieval Climatic Optimum the following the Little Ice Age, and the warming trend since the early 19th century, has been a constant part of the human experience. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that human activity has no effect on the major factors driving such changes, eg., the Malencovic cycles and changes in solar radiation flux, and only second order impacts on second order factors. I’ve seen no convincing evidence that we can predict the direction, let alone the magnitude of the climate changes that are inevitably to come. Yet there is no reason why we cannot design flexible infra-structures that can be readily adapted to any climate changes that do occur.
It has always seemed to me that one of the greatest ironies surrounding this issue is that those who purport to be most concerned about climate change support policies like the building of immovable transportation systems and power generating systems that are least adapted to supporting flexible responses to whatever climate changes may occur
September 20, 2010, 9:14 amrtha says:
That is awfully optimistic. Californians, with there experiences of earthquakes and wildfires, should all have made the investments necessary to protect their property against being destroyed (as much as possible, at least), yes?
And yet, millions of Californians don’t have earthquake emergency kits in their homes or cars. Tons don’t clear brush from around their homes. These are basic, relatively inexpensive steps that people can take, and yet they don’t.
September 20, 2010, 9:39 amMark Field says:
You’re confusing short-term and long-term strategies. It makes sense to build subways as a method of reducing CO2, but there could be a long-term risk to that if the concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise from other sources.
September 20, 2010, 10:17 amgeokstr says:
Perhaps we could just offer them Arizona and several other Southwest border states. No, wait, we’ve already given them to millions of Mexican peasants “who have limited education and job skills” and with your hearty approval too (as long as they agree to vote D forever). If national borders mean nothing anyway, all the nations surrounding Bangladesh should be clamoring to take in a few tens of millions of refugees “just looking for a better life for their families”, right?
Well, well, thank you for the frank admission – finally – that the data only “suggests” the earth is warming. We’ve had it beaten into us here and everywhere else for a decade that not only is the science in and the debate over, but that this warming “suggestion” is definitely caused by homo sapiens sapiens, and there is no doubt it will lead to the potential extinguishing of all life on earth. Venus here we come.
Not sure where you’ve been, but that is exactly what a lot of us have been arguing all along. But unfortunately, all the proponents of
global warmingclimate changeglobal climate disruption are allowing us to consider is (almost certainly coincidentally (perhaps)) totally consistent with Marxist goals of one world government and massive central control of human activity, with a total disruption of all the (relatively free) economies, topped with a generous dollop of Malthusian population decimation.There is never any response to the geological record that there were times in the past when the world was flooded with biological diversity on a scale unseen since at the same time as the temperature was much higher and the CO2 concentration was literally hundreds of time higher than it is projected to get now in even the most calamitous computer models, yet otherwise still very comfortable for human life. One such period lasted for a couple hundred million years, with nary an SUV in sight.
September 20, 2010, 10:41 amrtha says:
Their. Their experiences. Need more coffee.
September 20, 2010, 11:13 amMnZ says:
Siberia > Southwest U.S.
Canada > Southwest U.S.
Alaska ~= Southwest U.S.
It is a question of size. There are large swaths of land in the Northern Hemisphere that currently too cold to grow anything.
September 20, 2010, 11:26 amA. Criminal says:
Climate change will pose new risks for cities. Recently, The Economist published a generally favorable review of Climatopolis but pointed out that I had ranked Moscow as likely to be a climate change resilient city.
Moscow is likely to be resilient to another ice age?
In my short list of “resilient cities”, I had focused on cities unlikely to suffer from major sea level rise that are located at northern latitudes. Martin Weitzman’s work on climate change catastrophe has influenced my thinking and thus my rankings.
Oh, now I remember. “Climate change” really means “anthropogenic global warming”. I don’t think it means “climate disruption” because that phrase barely makes any sense.
The Economist was quick to point out that even “safe cities” can and will suffer due to climate shocks caused by climate change.
It’s well known that The Economist has a “100% correct” record for predicting the future; they’re even better when predicting events that have nothing to do with economics. And I predict that, no matter what happens, Canada will be fine because they already have plenty of hockey sticks.
September 20, 2010, 11:41 amkarrde says:
Does the assertion that richer cultures better survive climate/geological shocks mean
(a) It is imperative to increase global economy, so that all nations are richer (and better prepared for such shocks),
or
(b) All rich countries should donate to poor countries in preparation for such shocks.
Which is it?
Furthermore, is it the wealth that helps cultures survive, or is it the culture that built the wealth that survives better?
We need a clearer understanding of the correlation and causation involved.
September 20, 2010, 12:01 pmByomtov says:
Matthew,
Perhaps a review of the comments this far will dampen your optimisim that:
We foresee the challenges that climate change will pose for our cities and we have the right incentives to make investments now to protect ourselves from its most severe impacts.
In fact we have a large segment of the population that does not even agree that climate change is occurring. The GOP is being taken over by denialists.. So why exactly will we “foresee the challenges?”
September 20, 2010, 12:07 pmTamerlane says:
You’d better define short-term and long-term here. Speaking in terms of orders of magnitude, the capitalized lifetime of a subway system or wind turbine farm is closer to 100 years than 10 years. And the former figure is very much within the limit of doom that’s been projected by, e.g., the IPCC and other “responsible” doomsayers. To be consistent, such entities should oppose any large, fixed projects whose amortization exceeds twenty-five years or so.
September 20, 2010, 12:07 pmlgm says:
This is a form of climate change denial I have not seen before. First (like Adler) he stipulates that climate change will happen. Then he goes further to stipulate that it may be disruptive and expensive. But he does not stipulate that climate change is man made or that we should try to stop it.
Instead, he says that the victims of climate change disruptions should pay. Yet another creative way to spare Exxon.
September 20, 2010, 12:09 pmgasman says:
Bangledesh has a population of >160 million, and steadily is growing. Migration should not be their sole plan for the future.
Regardless of the reason for climatology, if the world is warming then Bangledesh will loose a bunch of land to the sea. Further, greater rainfall would mean more flooding in the annual monsoon season.
September 20, 2010, 12:31 pmBut the difference with this ‘disaster’ is that it is the slowest evolving disaster to be predicted in the history of mankind (short of the impending red giant stage of the sun in some 8 billion years). Bangledesh should be creating some sort of trans-generational planning that begins now with very simple steps. Firstly, do they have enough people as it is to sustain their economy, or should they start trimming population growth. As land area declines they will want to have population declines in place to match expected loss of land.
Mark Field says:
The IPCC estimates of sea level rise over the next 100 years don’t show a threat which would affect any modern subway projects of which I’m aware.
September 20, 2010, 12:33 pmjmaie says:
Damn that Exxon for forcing me to drive a car and eat beef.
September 20, 2010, 12:39 pmFrank Drackman says:
I’d have an easier time believing in Global Warming if AlGore and the President didn’t fly everywhere in Kerosene Burning Jets. Yeah, Kerosene, which is all Jet Fuel really is. And remember the Global Warming Summitt Obama(Peace be upon Him) went to last Winter, the one he had to leave early cause a blizzard was about to hit DC and he wanted to get home before the Airport closed..
And its a whole 4 months away, but I predict in Buffalo New York, in January, its gonna snow.
Frank
September 20, 2010, 1:25 pmDavid Drake says:
lgm: I don’t think you read the same OP that I did. Try reading it again.
September 20, 2010, 1:57 pmTamerlane says:
See here for a contrary opinion. These scenarioos, created by a fairly conservative commentator who is sympathetic to the concept of AGCC, suggest that the NYC subway system would be regularly crippled by flooding due to projected rises in sea-level. Less severe, historic flooding in Boston completely shut portions of the MBTA’s Green Line for many months.
September 20, 2010, 2:26 pmAnon says:
There are NO contrary opinions. There is only consensus.
September 20, 2010, 3:36 pmMark Field says:
I agree that NY is at some risk, but its subway line has been in place for over 100 years. I suspect Boston has some cheap fixes.
Frankly, this strikes me as a relatively minor concern. If the sea level rises exceed IPCC estimates, we’ll have a lot more things to worry about than some subway lines.
September 20, 2010, 3:37 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I’m very interested in reading how you determine “the right incentives to make investments now to protect ourselves from its most severe impacts.” I imagine those impacts are highly speculative (I’m not arguing the overall GCC).
Tracing overall climate to individual impact, with due weight and thought to human and natural response, and allowing for unrelated events (depopulation by economy, disaster, terrorists attack) seems difficult. What if your incentives incent activity that is, in the end, not suitable for what actually transpires? How costly might that be?
Its a difficult task and I look forward to reading your efforts.
September 20, 2010, 8:32 pmRicardo says:
So then I take it you are 100% on board with opening the U.S. up to poor immigrants from Bangladesh? If so, I’ll make sure to hold you to that opinion in the future. If not, I don’t see how your snarky response fits in with the notion that people like you have been offering intelligent, substantive ideas for how to adapt to climate change.
The point is population growth could go to zero tomorrow and Bangladesh would still have a potential crisis on its hands. Given that you seem to agree that it is important for Bangladesh to reduce its population and given that this might be very difficult to do in the medium-run (without committing genocide, that is), I take it you support the idea of countries taking in large numbers of Bangladeshi immigrants. So which countries should do so?
September 20, 2010, 10:25 pmRicardo says:
I simply offered a counterexample. Warming does not automatically mean either more plants or more food. Some parts of the globe will benefit while others will suffer and the relationship between temperature and land fertility is much more complex than what was offered — you need one of those dreaded climate models to get at the precise relationship.
And that’s exactly the point. Even if the world overall benefits from warming, what system is in place to compensate the losers? Any such global redistribution system would be dismissed as socialist and the product of One World Government thinking.
September 20, 2010, 10:33 pmKirk Lazarus says:
I think the United Nations acts to channel the charity of the richer nations when disasters strike.
September 20, 2010, 11:57 pmDr. T says:
“… I am not a climate scientist….” — As if we couldn’t tell. Then again, most climatologists aren’t truly scientists, since they don’t understand the scientific method, don’t perform experiments, and don’t know how to correctly design and use computer models. Thus, we have the 2004 IPCC report that falsely claimed the planet is subject to a carbon dioxide-caused greenhouse effect (a theory that has never been adequately tested and has no scientific evidence to support it) and produced a blatantly biased climate computer model that was known to overestimate temperatures in the polar regions by six degrees centigrade. This flawed model then was used to predict decades of global warming, polar ice cap melting, sea level increases, and worldwide coastal flooding.
The false claims and false models helped climatologists to get government funding, environmental groups to get publicity and donations, and people like Matthew Kahn to make money writing and talking about how we can cope with nonexistant global warming (now called climate change, because annual mean global temperatures haven’t gone up since 1998, and calling this a period of global warming will no longer cut it). Of course, the biggest beneficiaries of false claims of anthropogenic climate disasters are national governments that demand more power and more control over people and businesses. That’s another reason why they throw money at anyone who squawks, “the sky is warming, the sky is warming.”
September 21, 2010, 6:09 pm