Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Damian Carrington’s Environment Blog at the Guardian proclaims: Climate deal: A guarantee our children will be worse off than us. This myth —perhaps myth-take would be a better word—has been addressed previously at WUWT.
In the post—Are today’s poorer generations morally obliged to solve problems that may or may not confront tomorrow’s much wealthier generations?—it was shown that even after accounting for the worst case estimates of damages due to climate change under the warmest IPCC scenario, the average inhabitant of today’s developing countries will be at least twice as wealthy in 2100 as the average American today. By 2200, the former will be almost three times wealthier than the latter.
See the following figure.
Figure: Net GDP per capita, 1990-2200, after accounting for the 95th percentile estimate of damages from global warming per the Stern Review for four major IPCC emission and climate scenarios. The Stern Review estimate accounts for damages from market impacts, non-market (i.e., environment and public health) impacts and the risk of catastrophe. For 2100 and 2200, the scenarios are arranged from the warmest (A1FI) on the left to the coolest (B1) on the right. The average global temperature increase from 1990 to 2085 for the scenarios are as follows: 4°C for AIFI, 3.3°C for A2, 2.4°C for B2, and 2.1°C for B1. For context, in 2006, GDP per capita for industrialized countries was $19,300; the United States, $30,100; and developing countries, $1,500. Source: Indur M. Goklany, “Discounting the Future.” Regulation, Spring 2009, Vol. 32, pp. 36–40
There is simply no basis for the Damian Carrington’s claim. In fact, this figure indicates that higher economic growth will more than offset any damages from climate change.
Indur, excellent work. You are one of the few economists globally (McKittrick of course among these) that didn’t go with the CAGW flow. May I suggest, if it isn’t already factored into your chart, that the industrial countries will number several more – India and China are pretty much part of the club and Brazil and others also, so that this is also another factor in the better future for the world.
Thanks Indur for the clear exposition. When detailing the policy costs, the issue of economic growth is rarely dealt with either. There are two significant elements. In the long term the biggest impact is reducing the growth rate. In the short term more visible is higher unemployment and a less vibrant job market.
A. C. Osborn says:
December 16, 2011 at 2:36 am
The sun will eventually become a red giant. What will they do about that?
Thank you all for the positive comments.
Gary Pearse — to set the record straight: I am not an economist. My degrees are all in Electrical Engg. [My thesis was more biophysics than EE. I also was a Biophysics post-doc, and instructed in the Physics Dept.] May be that’s my comparative advantage!
More to the point, projecting economic development over these timelines is pure fantasy. I wonder what a projection of countries’ economic development done in, say, 1950 would have looked like? Back then, Koreans were among the poorest people on Earth, the US seemed unstoppable, China and India were minnows, etc.
Economic forecasts are, if possible, even more unreliable than climate forecasts. And the further out in time you go, the less reliable they are. After about 10-20 years, they are pretty much worthless. Who knew that rare earths would be valuable now 50 years ago? It’s nonsense.
All the stuff about ‘our grandchildren’ is just emotional blackmail. All the evidence is that the best thing we can do for our grandchildren is to better the lot of ourselves and their parents – in concrete ways.
This link contains circulation numbers for British news papers
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/playing-it-as-farce.html
The table
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TxARfTbsgJw/TuxKabSynnI/AAAAAAAAUq8/JP8ju9GlTlU/s1600/newspapers.jpg
P. Solar says:
December 16, 2011 at 11:35 am
If the nations of the world accept that their energy policy and contributions to this fund be determined by an external , unelected and unaccountable body, they will not only loose money they will loose the right to self determination.
Oddly none of these softy-lefty eco warriors at the Guardian have stopped long enough to work that one out yet.
I’m sure they have worked it out. The fact is that it fits in perfectly with their world view.
RE: Main Article
“In the post—Are today’s poorer generations morally obliged to solve problems that may or may not confront tomorrow’s much wealthier generations?—it was shown that even after accounting for the worst case estimates of damages due to climate change under the warmest IPCC scenario, the average inhabitant of today’s developing countries will be at least twice as wealthy in 2100 as the average American today. By 2200, the former will be almost three times wealthier than the latter.”
That increased wealth must be contingent on a bountiful, low-cost replacement for carbon power, which may be in a state of steep decline by that time. So far, solar-renewable energy does not appear to offer that promise.
P.S., P.S.: yore spellun is kinda loose. Rhymes with “goose”. Use ‘lose’. Rhymes with “news”.
It’s not only who is forced to pay into the fund, it’s the recipients: shameless rent-seekers like the socialist loons in charge of the Maldives or Tuvalu, demanding billions even as their coral islands grow higher above the waves. Grrrr…