I was a lead author on the climate report that won Al Gore the Nobel Prize. Here’s what we know now that we didn’t know then
November
15, 2022 at 4:51 AM CST
What if we have been looking
at climate change totally wrong? What if our greatest existential fear could
instead offer hope for a brighter future?
Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), going back to 1995, have set the stage for how we think about climate
change. First, climate impacts were thought to be a gradual and slowly
increasing set of problems that would be manageable by well-understood
technological and management processes. Second, mitigation was thought to be
expensive and damaging to the economy. By that way of thinking, climate change
would on balance be expensive to prevent and only moderately damaging.
As such, much of the motivation to respond has been driven
by nonmarket considerations such as equity, the preservation of the natural
world, and other benefits that are hard to price. As a lead author of the
second and third IPCC reports, I understand this framework of beliefs quite
well.
But what if these two core assumptions are wrong? What if
the severity of climate change has been underestimated, and many of its harms
are hard or impossible to adapt to? And what if the rate of potential
technological progress is faster and the cost of alternative technologies
cheaper than projected?
Then the fundamental economic equation changes, and
decarbonization could be inexpensive compared to damages—or even benefit the
global economy.
We likely live in that world.
No comments:
Post a Comment