Brodie's Public Policy and Global Governance Blog

 I think it is a fair assumption to say that most people now beleive that climate change is a problem, and that man is contributing, at least in part, to the changes in our atmosphere. What people still bitterly disagree about is the course of action we should take in heading off further changes to the atmosphere and whether or not this will have devastating economic impacts. Popular sentiment would have us beleive that because economic growth and CO2 emissions are inextricably tied, this means that addressing climate change will necessarily mean a contraction of the economy.

My problem with this line of reasoning is that first, if not addressed, climate change could mean the very end of economy as we know it. What's worse that if we allow this to happen, the economy will have essentially destroyed itself by failing to internalize environmental damage caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Second, there are numerous experts that have argued if we fail to address climate change, we will see a contraction of the global economy anywhere from 10-40 percent. Considering it is estimated that half of the global increase in emissions could be reduced at a negative cost and the other half could be decreased for anywhere between 0.2-2% of GDP without full carbon trading and 0.1-1% of GDP with full carbon trading the math doesn't seem to add up.

In one of my earlier blog posts Some Sound Reasoning on Risk Management in Public Policy  it becomes even more clear that we need to act today to head off this crisis when we consider the risks of addressing climate change vs. not acting. Regardless of whether there are economic consequences to addressing climate change, these are likely necessary costs.