The Costs of “Doing Nothing” on Climate Change Sound Pretty Good

The regulatory costs of reaching the IPCC's goal of limiting global warming would be greater than the estimated cost of climate change damages.

On Twitter earlier this month, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tweeted:

I commented:

After a couple of other supposed facts, he argued:

I replied by pointing out his fallacy (adopting his euphemistic definition of “do nothing”, meaning to allow there to be a free market):

To expand on my point: government bureaucrats making decisions at best arbitrarily do not know better than the free market with its pricing system how to efficiently direct scarce resources toward productive ends as determined by the will of consumers (that is, by all of us).

That was on May 2. I later came across an article by economist Robert P. Murphy (@BobMurphyEcon), which also happened to have been published on May 2. It’s titled “Earth Day Marchers Ignore the Economic Science of Climate Change“.

In it, Bob Murphy observes that

the IPCC’s own estimate of the economic cost of compliance with the policy goal [of limiting warming to 2°C] was greater than the estimate of the climate change damages from “doing nothing.”

He points out that William Nordhaus, who “is literally one of the pioneers in the field of the economics of climate change” and “one of the most respected authorities on the planet” has said that

The scientific rationale for the 2°C target is not really very scientific.

The full article is worth a read. Especially because, relevantly, Paul Krugman makes an appearance (Krugman dismisses this acknowledgment from Nordhaus, and Bob takes him down).

Click here to read it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This