John Baden of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has an excellent column out reflecting on his experiences at a climate change conference. An illuminating (if all too familiar to me) example:
Vince noted general scientific agreement that global warming is occurring, in part due to human causes, and that there are uncertainties about the speed and degree of change. He explained that warmer and wetter has different implications for crops and forests than would warmer and dryer — and climate models differ as to which is more likely. He then explained that humans adjust much easier to slow than to rapid change.
Most climate models look out 100 years, but consider the USA in 1906: average income a mere $4000 in today’s dollars, no paved roads, few cars, no modern medicine, short lives. We can’t predict life two or three generations hence. After listing the risks that may accompany global warming he gave this guidance: “There is considerable evidence that a mixture of policy innovations…and markets can address all of these challenges at a relatively low cost compared to the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.”
Did this make folks happy? No, for this was largely a tribal gathering where most folks already knew the right answers and these weren’t among them. Here are a few of the responses I heard. “He shouldn’t be on the program.” “I’d like to hit him.” (That from a sponsor.) “What do economists know about climate?” Mature and constructive dialogue indeed.
John concludes that “economists are to progressives as bankers are to cowboys.” The only diffference being that cowboys haven’t attempted to deny bankers their role recently.