PEOPLE will be five times as rich in a hundred years鈥� time. And if we are willing to postpone that prosperity by just two years, we could fix global warming into the bargain.
That鈥檚 the startling conclusion of leading US climate scientist Stephen Schneider and Swedish energy economist Christian Azar, who are about to publish a bruising assault on the Bush administration鈥檚 claims that international plans to curb climate change would cripple the US and world economies.
鈥淭he wild rhetoric about enslaving the poor and bankrupting the economy to do climate policy is fallacious, even if one accepts the conventional economic models,鈥� Schneider told New 杏吧原创. He says the economic arguments need to be put in context, and called on climate scientists to take a tougher stand against the doom-mongers who say action would be too costly.
Advertisement
Schneider鈥檚 assault comes a week after a further blow was dealt to the prospects that the Kyoto Protocol will come into force. Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced that his government would not ratify the protocol, claiming it would 鈥渃ost jobs and damage our industry鈥�.
The Bush administration, and now apparently Howard, have taken their tone from leading environmental economists such as Yale鈥檚 William Nordhaus, who has argued that 鈥渁 vague premonition of some potential disaster is insufficient grounds to plunge the world into depression鈥�. But, says Schneider, over a century even the trillions of dollars thought necessary to halt global warming would be a blip compared with the economic advances predicted by the same experts.
Many climate scientists have become frustrated by what they regard as the dead hand of economic orthodoxy in academic analyses of the costs and benefits of action to halt global warming. But in a forthcoming issue of the journal Ecological Economics, Schneider and Azar tackle the economists head-on, taking their own numbers and putting a dramatic new spin on them.
Last year鈥檚 report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the economists鈥� assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between $1 trillion and $8 trillion. It sounds a lot, says Schneider, but the money would be all but invisible against the 2 per cent a year economic growth predicted by the same economists.
Without action to halt global warming, economists predict that the world as a whole will be 10 times as rich by 2100, and people on average will be five times as well off. Adding on the costs of tackling warming, says Schneider, would postpone this target by a mere two years. 鈥淭o be 10 times richer in 2100 versus 2102 would hardly be noticed.鈥� Similarly, meeting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries 鈥済et 20 per cent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010鈥�.
Put that way, he believes, the American public and politicians could be convinced that curbing greenhouse emissions is a necessary insurance policy against the potential dangers of climate change.