Climate change has been good - so far - but its getting worse

So says Richard Tol in this new research paper that uses the FUND3.6 model to examine the impact of climate change in the 20th century.

So what is the punchline - overall climate change has been good for the world (on average).


The Economic Impact of Climate Change in the 20th Century

Date: 2011-02

By: Tol, Richard S. J.

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp376&r=env

The national version of FUND3.6 is used to infrapolate the impacts of climate change to the 20th century. Carbon dioxide fertilization of crops and reduced energy demand for heating are the main positive impacts. Climate change had a negative effect on water resources and, in most years, human health. Most countries benefitted from climate change until 1980, but after that the trend is negative for poor countries and positive for rich countries. The global average impact was positive.

Keywords: Climate change/impacts/Impacts of climate change/Human health

.

Communicating Climate Change

Climate sceptics remain "sceptical". The "significant" chance of "catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences" during the next 100 years barely registers on the public's list of concerns.

Kevin Parton and Mark Mossison investigate.

This is an interesting topic of debate.


Communicating Climate Change: A Literature Review
Date: 2011
Parton, Kevin
Morrison, Mark
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aare11:100693&r=env

For climate scientists, climate change is a problem that has a significant chance of having catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences during the course of this century. In contrast, public opinion seems to regard with scepticism the pronouncements on climate change that emanate from the scientific community. Why the difference? This is what our research project was designed to examine. Or to put it another way: Assuming that the scientific information is correct, and that without a dramatic change in technology (and policy to promote such a change) there would be a significant risk of man-made, global catastrophe, what must be done to communicate this urgent issue to the public? We have approached the analysis of this problem by reviewing the literature on communicating climate change. By organising the literature according to the role of the major groups of participants in the information transfer process, useful insights can be gleaned. These groups include scientists, business, the government, the media and the general public. This analysis leads to an overall model of the information transfer process that highlights various issues including the role that the media plays as a lens through which the public observes scientific results.

.

Is "degrowth" the future?

The "strategy of “degrowth” has appeared as an alternative to the paradigm of economic growth."

That makes logical sense but if a government were to pursue an active policy of "degrowth" we had better nail down exactly what it means.

Luckily the latest issue of Ecological Economics (a post-normal science journal) has the answer.

It appears to be that "a-growth" is better than degrowth. Now I need to find out exactly how to define "a-growth".

Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Berghlow

Abstract

In recent debates on environmental problems and policies, the strategy of “degrowth” has appeared as an alternative to the paradigm of economic growth. This new notion is critically evaluated by considering five common interpretations of it. One conclusion is that these multiple interpretations make it an ambiguous and rather confusing concept. Another is that degrowth may not be an effective, let alone an efficient strategy to reduce environmental pressure. It is subsequently argued that “a-growth,” i.e. being indifferent about growth, is a more logical social aim to substitute for the current goal of economic growth, given that GDP (per capita) is a very imperfect indicator of social welfare. In addition, focusing ex ante on public policy is considered to be a strategy which ultimately is more likely to obtain the necessary democratic–political support than an ex ante, explicit degrowth strategy. In line with this, a policy package is proposed which consists of six elements, some of which relate to concerns raised by degrowth supporters.

In defence of "degrowth" we have the following paper which makes it clear that degrowth is a "a radical political project that offers a new story and a rallying slogan for a social coalition built around the aspiration to construct a society that lives better with less."

Sounds great. Count me in.

In defence of degrowth

Giorgos Kallis

Abstract

This article defends the proposal of sustainable degrowth. A starting premise is that resource and CO2 limits render further growth of the economy unsustainable. If degrowth is inevitable, the question is how it can become socially sustainable, i.e. a prosperous and stable, rather than a catastrophic, descent. Pricing mechanisms alone are unlikely to secure smooth adaptation; a full ensemble of environmental and redistributive policies is required, including – among others – policies for a basic income, reduction of working hours, environmental and consumption taxes and controls on advertising. Policies like these, that threaten to “harm” the economy, are less and less likely to be implemented within existing market economies, whose basic institutions (financial, property, political, and redistributive) depend on and mandate continuous economic growth. An intertwined cultural and political change is needed that will embrace degrowth as a positive social development and reform those institutions that make growth an imperative. Sustainable degrowth is therefore not just a structuring concept; it is a radical political project that offers a new story and a rallying slogan for a social coalition built around the aspiration to construct a society that lives better with less.

Is ecological economics becoming a "post-normal" science

Some paper titles cannot be ignored especially when I am not entirely clear what it means. The title suggests that ecological economics is (1) a science and (2) normal.

So far so good. Ecological economics is a normal science (not a social science?).

However, now we have to worry that it is becoming post-normal or perhaps that is a good thing. It appears to hinge on the empirical content of the paper. A regression in a paper appears to be post-normal.

In that case, all my EE papers have contributed to this big push into post-normality and now I feel a little guilty. In fact my et al. from the previous post is an EE paper.

Time to investigate further.

A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?

Manuela Castro e Silvaa and Aurora A.C. Teixeira

Abstract

In ecological economics the debate on formalism and formalization has been addressed in the context of a lively discussion on ecological economics as a ‘post-normal’ (versus ‘normal’) science. Using ecological economics (EE) as a ‘seed’ journal and applying bibliometric techniques to all (2533) the articles published in EE from January 1989 to December 2009, we analyze the evolution of the field of ecological economics aiming to shed light on this debate. We observe the predominance (and increased relevance) of certain research topics: ‘Methodological issues’, ‘Policies, governance and institutions’ and ‘Valuation’. Moreover, ‘Collective action’, ‘Technical change and the environment’ and ‘Values’ stand as emergent themes of research. Finally, we note that ecological economics experienced an ‘empirical turn’ reflected in a shift away from exclusively formalized papers towards exclusively empirical and, to a larger extent, ‘formal and empirical’ ones. The combination of the prominent and emergent topics and the ‘empirical turn’ mirrors the increasing awareness among researchers in the field of the need to address a key specificity of ecological economics — the interdependence of the economic, biophysical and social spheres. On this basis, we argue that at least through the lens of EE, ecological economics has evolved towards a post-normal science.

Keywords: Ecological economics; Bibliometrics; Research trends; Methodology; Post-normal science

.

"Environmental Substance Abuse"

A truly astonishing piece of work in which the author Mark Atlas proceeds to do a pretty convincing hatchet job on a very large number of applied "environmental economics" papers (550) including one of mine :-( (I am part of an et al).

It is hard to argue with much in the 715 pages (and over 4,000 footnotes) from what I have read so far.

Anyone doing applied environmental economics has to at least attempt to read some of this report.

Thanks to Aquanomics (a very fine new "...nomics" to add to my collection) for the hat tip.

The Aquanomics article on this topic is certainly worth a read for its "academic bun fight" report.

It is very impressive that Atlas went to the lengths he has gone to in this paper (and his post reported in Aquanomics). This paper deserves to be read by anyone purporting to be an environmental economist.

Back to the report......where does something like this get published? A little long for JEEM unfortunately.

My papers will never be the same again...

Environmental Substance Abuse: The Substantive Competence of Social Science Empirical Environmental Policy Research[LARGE PDF]

Mark K. Atlas
affiliation not provided to SSRN
December 22, 2010

Abstract:
In a 2002 article, social science scholars criticized legal scholars for violating empirical analysis principles in law review articles. Their review of hundreds of empirical law review articles led to a pervasively grim assessment of these articles and their authors, concluding that empirical legal scholarship was deeply flawed, with serious problems of inference and methodology everywhere. In essence, the 2002 article argued that although legal scholars’ articles might be substantively competent (i.e., knowledgeable about the law and facts), they were, at best, methodologically incompetent.

This Report reverses the 2002 article’s focus, assessing the substantive competence of social science empirical research articles, ignoring their methodological competence. This Report focuses on about 550 social science articles from peer-reviewed journals since the 1960’s that used quantitative research to study United States domestic environmental policies and practices. The 2002 article examined aspects of law review articles at which legal researchers might be deficient but at which social science researchers should be competent. This Report does the opposite by focusing on what legal researchers should be most expert – determining the relevant laws, government policies, and facts. Consequently, just as the 2002 article evaluated whether law review articles violated empirical research rules, this Report evaluates whether social science environmental policy articles were incorrect or incomplete about the relevant laws, government policies, or facts.

Although the 2002 article concluded that every empirical law review article was fatally flawed methodologically, this Report does not conclude that every social science environmental policy article was fatally flawed substantively. However, the overwhelming majority of those articles were substantively uninformed, amateurish, shoddy, and/or deceptive. Anyone with a basic understanding of the environmental laws, policies, facts, and/or data relevant to any particular article would conclude after only a brief review that the article was seriously flawed. Unfortunately, social science journals publishing environmental policy articles have been like runaway trains of invalid research that keep picking up new passengers. This Report explains in detail the substantive problems with each of these articles.

JEL Classifications: K23, K32, K41, K42, Q25, Q28
Working Paper Series

.

Health effects of climate change

When writing an environmental economics paper one always needs to provide motivation and there is nothing better than some scary numbers on the health and mortality impacts of climate change.

These numbers are real and it is important that as economists we try to relate economics to the real world. I have used the WTO quote before and will probably do so again.

This new working paper by Grasso, Maera, Chiabai and Markandya provides a good survey of the literature.

The Health Effects of Climate Change: A Survey of Recent Quantitative Research [PDF]

In recent years there has been a large scientific and public debate on climate change and its direct as well as indirect effects on human health. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2006), some 2.5 million people die every year from non-infectious diseases directly attributable to environmental factors such as air pollution, stressful conditions in the workplace, exposure to chemicals such as lead, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Changes in climatic conditions and climate variability can also affect human health both directly and indirectly, via changes in biological and ecological processes that influence the transmission of several infectious diseases (WHO, 2003). In the past fifteen years a large amount of research on the effects of climate changes on human health has addressed two fundamental questions (WHO, 2003). First, can historical data be of some help in revealing how short-run or long-run climate variations affect the occurrence of infectious diseases? Second, is it possible to build more accurate statistical models which are capable of predicting the future effects of different climate conditions on the transmissibility of particularly dangerous infectious diseases? The primary goal of this paper is to review the most relevant contributions which have directly tackled those questions, both with respect to the effects of climate changes on the diffusion of non-infectious and infectious diseases. Specific attention will be drawn on the methodological aspects of each study, which will be classified according to the type of statistical model considered. Additional aspects such as characteristics of the dependent and independent variables, number and type of countries investigated, data frequency, temporal period spanned by the analysis, and robustness of the empirical findings are examined.

.

"Economists, time to team up with the ecologists!"

A very fine title for a paper and this one is newly published in Ecological Economics.

The abstract seems to be blaming economists for a lack of interdisciplinary work. Economists get accused of this from virtually every discipline from what I can make out.

I am all for such joint work. Apparently ... "the easiest candidates for interdisciplinary teamwork in bioeconomics are therefore researchers who acknowledge ethical relativism."

I am not sure if I qualify or not but it sounds like I should acknowledge it.

For those less familiar with what ethical relativism actually is Answers.com and dictionary.com write as follows:

Ethical Relativism is operating in a system of situational ethics. Thou shalt not steal, unless you get a chance to steal from a big corporation, the government or someone you don't like. You are faithful to your wife, except on business trips, when everybody cheats, right? Basically, it means being comfortable with shifting your ethics to meet the situation. I try to maintain my ethics in all situations, however though I believe in thou shalt not kill, ants, flies and roaches die if I find them in my house and if you break into my home and come up the stairs, you are a direct threat to my family's safety and I will blow you away with little to no warning. But since I know these are my ethics, family before thief, I do not consider that a case of situational ethics.
Also see "moral relativism".

or

In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period.

Do economists as a general rule reject ethical relativism? My guess is that we would be all for it. Sounds good to me.


Economists, time to team up with the ecologists!

Hilde Karine Wam

Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway

Abstract

Bioeconomic modeling is an increasingly relevant meeting arena for economists and ecologists. A majority of the growing literature, however, is written by economists alone and not with ecologists in true interdisciplinary teamwork. Physical distance between research institutions is no longer a reasonable justification, and I argue that, in practice, neither do the more fundamental philosophical oppositions present any real hindrance to teamwork. I summarize these oppositions in order of increasing magnitude as: 1) the axiom, held by many ecologists, of ‘irreducible complexity of ecosystem functioning’, which is avoided simply because the ecological ‘whole’ (as opposed to its ‘parts’) is not an element of most realistic modeling scenarios; 2) the axiom, also held by many ecologists, of ‘the precautionary principle’, which mainly surfaces at the applied end of natural resource management, and thereby should not prevent economists and ecologists from jointly building the models necessary for the final decision making; and 3) the economists' axiom of ‘the tradability principle’, which is harder to overcome as it demands value-based practical compromises from both parties. Even this may be solved, however, provided the economists accept non-marketable components in the model (e.g. by using restriction terms based on ecology), and the ecologists accept a final model output measured in terms of monetary value. The easiest candidates for interdisciplinary teamwork in bioeconomics are therefore researchers who acknowledge ethical relativism. As bioeconomics presently functions mainly as an arena for economists, I say the responsibility for initiating interdisciplinary teamwork rests most heavily on their shoulders.

Keywords: Ecological economics; Intrinsic; Nature; Management; Philosophy; Wildlife

.

"Reality used to be a friend of mine"

I have often thought that the relationship between academic economics and reality can appear tenuous not least when I am in sitting through another hard core theoretical economics seminar and the 23rd slide of complicated looking equations appears on the screen.

On a more trivial level I have always wanted to use "reality used to be a friend of mine" as a blog post title although I forget where this quote comes from now.

Harald Uhlig (Chicago) takes a look at this relationship in a non-technical way (phew). He looks at important issues not least whether economics is a "science" or an "art".

Economics and Reality

Harald Uhlig
University of Chicago - Department of Economics

September 2010

NBER Working Paper No. w16416

Abstract:
This paper is a non-technical and somewhat philosophical essay, that seeks to investigate the relationship between economics and reality. More precisely, it asks how reality in the form empirical evidence does or does not influence economic thinking and theory. In particular, which role do calibration, statistical inference, and structural change play? What is the current state of affairs, what are the successes and failures, what are the challenges? I shall tackle these questions moving from general to specific. For the general perspective, I examine the following four points of view. First, economics is a science. Second, economics is an art. Third, economics is a competition. Forth, economics politics. I then examine four specific cases for illustration and debate. First, is there a Phillips curve? Second, are prices sticky? Third, does contractionary monetary policy lead to a contraction in output? Forth, what causes business cycles? The general points as well as the specific cases each have their own implication for the central question at hand. Armed with this list of implications, I shall then attempt to draw a summary conclusion and provide an overall answer.

.