Making Sense Of The Global Warming Debate

(Originally Posted here)

Global warming is most certainly the hot button issue of the day. Recently, a U.N panel held that global warming is ‘most likely’ caused by human activities and concluded that it has become ”a runaway train that cannot be stopped.” Unfortunately, as it usually happens in such cases, the debate has become completely politicized and ideological. Liberals pretend as if global warming is going to wipe out the planet tomorrow while libertarians remain sceptical of the science itself. I think there are two important and separate issues to be considered here.

First, the debate over global warning, it’s extent and ramifications should be settled by climate scientists. This is a highly complex science (try reading the technical part of the U.N report) and either you know the it or you don’t. Granted, predicting the future on the basis of models is tricky and there are many eminent climatologists who remain sceptical of global warming claims. Either ways, this is an academic debate, non-specialists should ideally stay out if it.

Second, it’s not my case that economists and policy makers have no role to play in this entire debate, rather their role is extremely important in evaluating the choices which are available to us. It’s hardly enough to prove that global warming will eventually happen , it’s essential to go beyond it and examine it’s effects, policy interventions and their economic and social impact. By current consensus, it would require a huge change in our development model, whether it is controlling the production of greenhouse gases or finding alternate sources of energy. Is that worth it? I don’t know, we need more information to be able to come to a definitive conclusion. However, it be prudent to remember that even if one million people are displaced by global warming (the current consensus) they would only constitute .02% of the current world population. To exclude economic costs of preventing global warming from any debate hardly makes sense. Much of the resistance is happening because environmentalists are using scare-mongering tactics, it would only damage their own cause. To expect people to give up the fruits of modern civilization entirely and expect them to make wholesome changes to their current lifestyle is foolish. The solution has to be found within the system and not beyond it.

Finally, India and China’s development worries a lot of people who are concerned about global warming. No doubt, in their rush to develop, environment would be a casualty and it’s important that they don’t commit the same mistakes which the West has. However, the poor of the world shouldn’t be asked to choose between environment and economic development. It is easy to talk about making sacrifices when the choice is between driving a Humvee and an electric car, it is an entirely different matter when you choice will decide your ability to meet the very basic needs of human survival and dignity.