Skepticism on the need for urgent action on climate change has moved from the science to the economy. The line of argument being that money could be better spent elsewhere such as poverty reduction, fighting malaria, malnutrition etc. Its an argument which is compelling for many in my home, India. This argument is built on two claims.
- 1. There are many global concerns of greater significance
- 2. Solving Climate Change is going to cost a lot of money
Both claims employ a sleight of hand that tries to hide illogical leaps in reasoning. But before I present my arguments on these, let me just say that there is a healthy line of skepticism that is useful for our global effort. We should maintain an ongoing reassessment on what is the most efficient means to solving Climate Change.
Challenging existing views on the right mechanisms, technologies and treaties can be positive contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, skeptics often venture beyond the healthy territory. Let’s turn to the oft cited argument that Climate Change is not the number 1 global concern. The Copenhagen Consensus, a body of independent academics (some with impressive pedigree) has drawn up a list of Global issues on which Climate Change ranks 14th. They argue that we should not spend so much money on Climate Change when there are 13 more important issues to be resolved. Whether you accept their list or its order is another matter, but I find the argument confusing in itself.
Firstly, they imply that money for solving climate change comes from the same bucket as money for malaria or other global issues. Odd, why don’t they claim it comes from the same bucket as our spending on movies? Maybe if we all saw one movie less each year and donated the savings to solving Malaria, we could eradicate it? There are millions of things we choose to spend on so it makes no sense to single out a tax on carbon as something that robs from other very legitimate concerns. Interestingly, education on Climate Change, raise social consciousness on the interconnectedness of all living things on this planet. If anything, Climate Change activism brings attention to global problems. No wonder then that countries such as the Scandinavian nations and Britain have shown the biggest growth in deployment of foreign aid targeting health and poverty. Guess what? These are the same countries that are the biggest investors in addressing climate change. The US, which at the Federal level is a climate change laggard, has reduced its % contribution to addressing global development issues.
The second problem with the argument is the inter-connectedness between global concerns. Although a debate rages as to the size of impact, it is clear that the effects of climate change on water management issues, spread of diseases, food production and shelter is starkly negative. Certainly, Climate Change is not the primary cause but it is something that will make many of these concerns increasingly harder to solve. The business of development aid is complex due to the multitude of factors. Adding human caused Climate Change, which requires a rate of change in adaptation hitherto unseen, stands as a major obstacle to global development and poverty alleviation. But perhaps the biggest fallacy offered by the skeptics is their second claim that solving climate change is going to cost a lot of money. Estimates have ranged from hundreds of billions into the trillions. Sounds like a lot. Well let us be clear, whatever money gets spent doesn’t just simply disappear from the planet (although skeptics like to make it sound like that). So where would all that money spent on climate change go? It is worth thinking about this as being similar to landing man on the moon. A prolific amount of money was spent on getting us to the moon. That money went to individual scientists to pay their salaries and to shareholders of corporations to pay for their construction and material costs. These people of course subsequently spent their money in other parts of the economy. In other words, the money stayed on planet earth and did not disappear to the moon. Similarly, while we may be against the war in Iraq, claims that it is costing America billions of dollars a day is exaggerated because the vast majority of that money ends back in the American domestic economy. Rather, it is a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to some dubious American corporations and to the salaries of soldiers. The issue therefore isn’t really the amount of money, it is more about the relative efficiency with which it is used. In the case of landing a person on the moon, there was a great amount of technological progress and IP developed from the process that has benefited all mankind. From the Iraq war well…to put it kindly, the jury is still out.
Investment in climate change promises to herald technological innovations that will not only be a solution for Global Warming but many of the other global concerns. Consider that bringing electricity to off-grid villages in India is best achieved through solar power, prices for which are dropping thanks to global climate change efforts. Solar cookers are being developed to solve the health crises that grips poor villagers who use soot releasing bio-fuels indoors. These cookers can be subsidized for their positive impact on climate change (airborne soot has been identified as a major Indian contribution to climate change because the particles trap heat).
Ultimately, its not the artificial value of money that matters, rather it is the relative pleasure we derive from an activity. With increasing education on Climate Change, people are beginning to factor in sustainability into the utility they derive from a product or activity. So claiming that climate change spending is just a cost, fails to acknowledge the savings made in adaptation, the utility individuals derive from living more sustainably and the positive impact on technological innovation which promises to help address broader issues than just climate change.