At its heart, much of the debate over climate change deals with just one divisive and vexing question: How big should cuts in carbon emissions be? But we should be open to other ways to stop global warming – such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now, or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.
COPENHAGEN – At its heart, much of the debate over climate change deals with just one divisive and vexing question: How big should cuts in carbon emissions be?
This narrow focus makes the debate unconstructive. Everybody wants to prevent global warming, and the real question is: How can we do that best? We should be open to other ways to stop warming – such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now, or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases. Global warming will create significant problems, so carbon reductions offer significant benefits. Cutting carbon emissions, however, requires a reduction in the basic energy use that underpins modern society, so it will also mean significant costs.
The prominent climate economist Professor Richard Tol of Hamburg University has analyzed the benefits and costs of cutting carbon now versus cutting it in the future. Cutting early will cost $17.8 trillion, whereas cutting later will cost just $2 trillion. Nonetheless, the reduction in CO2 concentration – and hence temperature – in 2100 will be greater from the future reductions. Cutting emissions now is much more expensive, because there are few, expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Our money simply doesn’t buy as much as it will when green energy sources are more cost-efficient.
Tol strikingly shows that grand promises of drastic, immediate carbon cuts – reminiscent of the call for 80% reductions by mid-century that some politicians and lobbyists make – are an incredibly expensive way of doing very little good. All the academic models show that, even if possible, limiting the increase in global temperature to 2oC, as promised by the European Union and the G-8, would cost a phenomenal 12.9% of GDP by the end of the century. This would be the equivalent of imposing a cost of more than $4,000 on each inhabitant every year, by the end of the century. Yet, the damage avoided would likely amount to only $700 per inhabitant.
The real cost of ambitious, early, and large carbon-cutting programs would be a reduction in growth – particularly damaging to the world’s poor – to the tune of around $40 trillion a year. The costs would also come much sooner than the benefits and persist much longer. For every dollar that the world spends on this grand plan, the avoided climate damage would only be worth two cents.
It would be smarter to act cautiously by implementing a low carbon tax of about $0.5 per ton – about 0.5 US cent per gallon of gas or 0.1 euro-cent per litre of petrol – and increase it gradually through the century. This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds. Each dollar would avoid $1.51 of global warming damages – a respectable outcome.
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Taxing fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions is a sensible part of the solution to climate change, but it is not the only or best way to prevent warming. There are other ways to cut carbon from the atmosphere. One of these is protecting forests, since deforestation accounts for 17% of emissions. If we are actually serious about grand promises to keep global temperature rises below 2ºC, we obviously need to find ways of making this cheaper. Professor Brent Sohngen of Ohio State University points out that forests could be important: including forestry in the control of greenhouse gases could somewhat reduce costs.
Moreover, although politicians focus nearly exclusively on cutting carbon emissions, CO2 is not the only gas causing warming. The second-biggest culprit is methane. Cutting methane is actually cheaper than cutting carbon. And because methane is a much shorter-lived gas than CO2, we can prevent some of the worst of short-term warming through its mitigation. Agricultural production accounts for half of anthropogenic methane, but wastewater systems, landfills, and coal mining also create the gas. Professor Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) argues that spending $14 billion to $30 billion to reduce methane would create benefits – from the reduction in warming – between 1.4 and three times higher.
We could also put a bigger focus on reducing black carbon, considered responsible for as much as 40% of current net warming and one-third of Arctic melting. Black carbon is essentially the soot produced by diesel emissions, and – in developing countries – by the burning of organic matter to cook food and stay warm. It can be eliminated with cleaner fuels and new cooking technologies.
Doing so would yield other benefits as well. Sooty pollution from indoor fires claims several million lives each year, so reducing black carbon would be a life-saver. A team of economists led by David Montgomery estimates that spending $359 million could realistically slash 19% of black carbon emissions. This would have a significant cooling impact on the planet, and would save 200,000 lives from pollution. The net annual benefits would run into several billion dollars, which equates to $3.60 worth of avoided climate damage for each dollar spent.
Costs and benefits matter. The best solution to climate change achieves the most good for the lowest cost. With this as our starting point, it is clear that a narrow focus on short-term carbon emission cuts is flawed. The most pertinent question of all is: Why don’t we choose a solution to global warming that will actually work?
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
In 2024, global geopolitics and national politics have undergone considerable upheaval, and the world economy has both significant weaknesses, including Europe and China, and notable bright spots, especially the US. In the coming year, the range of possible outcomes will broaden further.
offers his predictions for the new year while acknowledging that the range of possible outcomes is widening.
COPENHAGEN – At its heart, much of the debate over climate change deals with just one divisive and vexing question: How big should cuts in carbon emissions be?
This narrow focus makes the debate unconstructive. Everybody wants to prevent global warming, and the real question is: How can we do that best? We should be open to other ways to stop warming – such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now, or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases. Global warming will create significant problems, so carbon reductions offer significant benefits. Cutting carbon emissions, however, requires a reduction in the basic energy use that underpins modern society, so it will also mean significant costs.
The prominent climate economist Professor Richard Tol of Hamburg University has analyzed the benefits and costs of cutting carbon now versus cutting it in the future. Cutting early will cost $17.8 trillion, whereas cutting later will cost just $2 trillion. Nonetheless, the reduction in CO2 concentration – and hence temperature – in 2100 will be greater from the future reductions. Cutting emissions now is much more expensive, because there are few, expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Our money simply doesn’t buy as much as it will when green energy sources are more cost-efficient.
Tol strikingly shows that grand promises of drastic, immediate carbon cuts – reminiscent of the call for 80% reductions by mid-century that some politicians and lobbyists make – are an incredibly expensive way of doing very little good. All the academic models show that, even if possible, limiting the increase in global temperature to 2oC, as promised by the European Union and the G-8, would cost a phenomenal 12.9% of GDP by the end of the century. This would be the equivalent of imposing a cost of more than $4,000 on each inhabitant every year, by the end of the century. Yet, the damage avoided would likely amount to only $700 per inhabitant.
The real cost of ambitious, early, and large carbon-cutting programs would be a reduction in growth – particularly damaging to the world’s poor – to the tune of around $40 trillion a year. The costs would also come much sooner than the benefits and persist much longer. For every dollar that the world spends on this grand plan, the avoided climate damage would only be worth two cents.
It would be smarter to act cautiously by implementing a low carbon tax of about $0.5 per ton – about 0.5 US cent per gallon of gas or 0.1 euro-cent per litre of petrol – and increase it gradually through the century. This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds. Each dollar would avoid $1.51 of global warming damages – a respectable outcome.
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Taxing fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions is a sensible part of the solution to climate change, but it is not the only or best way to prevent warming. There are other ways to cut carbon from the atmosphere. One of these is protecting forests, since deforestation accounts for 17% of emissions. If we are actually serious about grand promises to keep global temperature rises below 2ºC, we obviously need to find ways of making this cheaper. Professor Brent Sohngen of Ohio State University points out that forests could be important: including forestry in the control of greenhouse gases could somewhat reduce costs.
Moreover, although politicians focus nearly exclusively on cutting carbon emissions, CO2 is not the only gas causing warming. The second-biggest culprit is methane. Cutting methane is actually cheaper than cutting carbon. And because methane is a much shorter-lived gas than CO2, we can prevent some of the worst of short-term warming through its mitigation. Agricultural production accounts for half of anthropogenic methane, but wastewater systems, landfills, and coal mining also create the gas. Professor Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) argues that spending $14 billion to $30 billion to reduce methane would create benefits – from the reduction in warming – between 1.4 and three times higher.
We could also put a bigger focus on reducing black carbon, considered responsible for as much as 40% of current net warming and one-third of Arctic melting. Black carbon is essentially the soot produced by diesel emissions, and – in developing countries – by the burning of organic matter to cook food and stay warm. It can be eliminated with cleaner fuels and new cooking technologies.
Doing so would yield other benefits as well. Sooty pollution from indoor fires claims several million lives each year, so reducing black carbon would be a life-saver. A team of economists led by David Montgomery estimates that spending $359 million could realistically slash 19% of black carbon emissions. This would have a significant cooling impact on the planet, and would save 200,000 lives from pollution. The net annual benefits would run into several billion dollars, which equates to $3.60 worth of avoided climate damage for each dollar spent.
Costs and benefits matter. The best solution to climate change achieves the most good for the lowest cost. With this as our starting point, it is clear that a narrow focus on short-term carbon emission cuts is flawed. The most pertinent question of all is: Why don’t we choose a solution to global warming that will actually work?