There's a smart op-ed in today's WaPo by University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein (via Dessler).
The basic point is simple: The two countries that are contributing most to global warming (the U.S. and China) will be among the least harmed by it, according to most projections, and thus have the least incentive to do something about it.
(In case you're wondering, India and Africa are going to take the brunt of it, via damage to agriculture and especially vulnerability to disease.)
The dynamic more or less insures inaction, unless one of three things happens.
First, we could decide that even though we will be better off relative to other countries, the absolute losses will be too much to risk. Sunstein alludes to that here:
Of course, any such projections involve a lot of guesswork, and reasonable people can differ. If global warming turns out to be either abrupt or greater than anticipated, it might well inflict catastrophic losses, leading to extremely serious problems for the United States and China alike. And even under current projections, the risks faced by the world's leading emitters can hardly be dismissed as trivial. National economies are interdependent, and if the world as a whole suffers from climate change, the United States and China will pay a large price.
My gut tells me that we've spent too much time concentrating on the scientific and technical dangers in isolation, without fully grasping the political and economic dangers. What would happen to the world economy if India and Africa completely collapsed in a humanitarian nightmare that produced millions of refugees and widespread resource wars? Is that really something the U.S. and China shouldn't bother trying to avoid?
Second, we could be struck with a sudden world-historical wave of moral sentiment and decide that since we created this mess while exploiting the world's finite resources, we have an obligation to clean it up. Ha ha.
Third, we could decide -- or be convinced -- that measures to limit or reduce GHG emissions will be less expensive than projected, or even a net economic positive. This argument has been made by many folks, most recently Gregg Easterbrook in Atlantic Monthly.
IMO, the third possibility is the only real hope, and the place we should be placing most of our energies. Tackling things like this is never as hard as the hysterical pro-business lobby says they're going to be; generally, it's not less money being made, it's just different people making money. Nothing wrong with that.
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 5:00 pm
20 Aug 2006
Cass Sunstein has no idea what he is talking about. Really, what a load of c**p.
First of all, who says that China and the US won't be affected very much by global warming? This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard!
The US will lose Florida, and much of it's coast line (including a fairly good number of cities), crops will suffer, refugees will pour in from South America by the 10's of millions.
China will face severe agricultural, industrial and water problems.
This is a stupid article.
Frankly, China is aware of the problems and is trying to fight global warming as best it can. Which is tough to do when you are a developing country.
The US is doing nothing. THAT is the problem.
Of course this is an op-ed piece (op-ed means no obligation to be factual at all). But really, if people take this seriously, they have been watching too much MSM and tv.
Sheesh.
patrick
Permalink
DianaJardine Posted 5:16 am
21 Aug 2006
What makes us such an economic might is our economic diversity. While losses to one or even various agricultural sectors would certainly hurt, it might not be devastating, whereas a similar loss to India or an African country would ruin the economy.
Furthermore, I can't really see New York or Miami being completely flooded. Sure, violent storms could cause serious flooding, but you have to assume that complex systems of dykes and sea walls will be erected before Wall St. is underwater.
I don't mean to downplay global warming's threats, but I think Sunstein may have a point saying we won't be the ones worst hurt, and that this may lead the US to put off action.
Diana
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:48 pm
21 Aug 2006
Hi Diana,
Most of the global warming and it's affects map show Florida will be gone. That is gone. Under water. Maybe not quite all of it (parts of the extreme North may survive), but gone.
And many of our other coastal cities will face the same problems. Unless they are well above sea level.
How about 150 million refugees? No problem? Good!! I'll spread the word! (smile)
Is it really gonna be that bad? Yep, unless we do something about it. I don't see any signs of serious movement (though I would love to be wrong).
patrick
Permalink
DianaJardine Posted 5:24 am
22 Aug 2006
I don't think you can compare the suffering likely to befall parts of Asia and Africa with what will happen here.
Diana
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:17 am
22 Aug 2006
Diana, you are correct that sub tropical areas, which include parts of Asia and Africa (and South America) will be hit the hardest. India has already had some incredible heat waves.
It is reasonable to expect that people in those areas will not only suffer, but will re-locate. Africans to Europe (and some southward to Southern Africa), South Americans to North America (US and Canada, the Southern parts of the contintent are geographically unsuitable to accept large numbers of people) and Southern Asians will move both northward (where it makes sense) and southward towards, say Australia.
It is never my intent to denigrate the suffering of those folks, but alas, I don't think that Americans really care.
I do worry that if Americans think that Global Warming won't really affect them, they will be even less inclined to do something about it. Given how un-inclined we already are, that is a frightening thought for me!
patrick
Permalink