[Editor note: This continues a series on the climate views of the late William Niskanen from his Fall 1997 symposium essay, “Too Much, Too Soon: Is a Global Warming Treaty a Rush to Judgment?” Last week’s posts were:

1. Part I: Key Questions
2. Part II: Physical Science
3. Part III: Moderate Warming Scenario

Part IV today reprints his section, “What’s the Hurry,” followed by my concluding comment]

—————–

“Since 1990, when [William] Nordhaus endorsed this approach, no substantial information has developed that would make the case for more comprehensive and costly measures such as a carbon tax or emissions permits.”

– William Niskanen, Fall 1997

“[A mandatory] abatement strategy … will prove to be both costly and ineffective…. [A] rush to judgement on the optimal response  to the increase in temperature is the greater danger [than adaptation].”…

[Editor note” Part I presented the key questions regarding the climate-change issue from William Niskanen’s Fall 1997 symposium essay, “Too Much, Too Soon: Is a Global Warming Treaty a Rush to Judgment?.” Part II was Niskanen’s views on How Good is the Science of Global Warming? Part III today is his views on Should We Fear Some Moderate Warming?]

“On the whole, it is not yet clear whether some moderate warming should be a cause for concern. The balance of conditions suggests that moderate warming may generate net benefits to people in temperate regions and net costs to people in the tropics.”

“As now envisioned, however, the major costs of the measures presumed necessary to avoid global warming would be borne by people in the rich countries of temperate regions.…