“Some organizations and governments now appear likely to endorse an abatement strategy, largely for symbolic reasons, a strategy that will prove to be both costly and ineffective…. Until there is much better and broader understanding of this issue, a rush to judgement on the optimal response to the increase in global temperature is the greater danger.”
– William Niskanen, 2008
[Editor note: This completes a six-part series on the climate views of the late William Niskanen, taken from his Fall 1997 symposium essay, “Too Much, Too Soon: Is a Global Warming Treaty a Rush to Judgment?” as well as his 2008 postscript. Previous posts are:
Scientists have been correct to alert political officials about the possibility that a continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide may increase average global temperatures. However, many political officials have overreacted to this warning and many scientists have themselves been swept up in this momentum.
As suggested by Nordhaus, some short-term actions are likely to be valuable: continuing to improve the information base; reorienting technological priorities somewhat; and implementing a few “no-regret” policies. Too many scientific, economic, and political issues remain to be resolved, however, to support an early international commitment to control the emission of greenhouse gases. A global warming treaty in the next decade or so would be a rush to judgment.
…. There has been a rush to judgment, unfortunately, that abatement of carbon dioxide emissions is the optimal strategy to reduce the prospect of a continued increase in average world temperatures. For an abatement strategy to be optimal, however, the following conditions must apply:
There has not been sufficient attention, however, to two other strategies:
Some organizations and governments now appear likely to endorse an abatement strategy, largely for symbolic reasons, a strategy that will prove to be both costly and ineffective. My judgement is that most of the world will implicitly endorse an adaptation strategy for the next decade or so, at least until the nature and magnitude of the prospective temperature increase and the most efficient form of any collective response is much clearer than it now the case.
Until there is much better and broader understanding of this issue, a rush to judgement on the optimal response to the increase in global temperature is the greater danger.
Bill Niskanen’s geoengineering alternative has not gained traction within the activist community for two reasons. First, it would allow, to some degree or another, business-as-usual fossil-fuel usage. The obstructionists want natural gas, coal, and oil in the ground, not “corrected” in the air.
Second, geoengineering is untried and highly uncertain. From a free-market vantage point, Niskanen erred by giving it an economic pass, only comparing it to the other option of abatement/mitigation.
Niskanen’s preferred option–and the right one–is adaptation. Wealth is health, as the free-market environmentalists have taught. So not only should the US not regulate in the all-pain-no-gain quest for “climate stability,” other countries should reform toward private property, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law. Robert Mendelsohn’s work in the 1990s on the social impacts of climate change, in fact, found that free-market reliance was key for a nation to benefit from or reduce the negatives from climate change.