What do we owe to our great-great-great-grandchildren? What actions are we obligated to take now in order to diminish the risks to our descendants and our planet from the increasing likelihood of global warming and climate change?
Almost everyone -- except the likes of ExxonMobil, US Vice President Dick Cheney and their paid servants and deluded acolytes -- understands that when humans burn hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere, where it acts like a giant blanket, absorbing infrared radiation coming up from below and warming the earth.
Likewise, almost everyone understands that while global warming might be a much smaller or larger problem than existing models suggest, this uncertainty is no excuse for inaction. In fact, uncertainty about global climate change should lead us to do more to guard against it than if we knew it would proceed exactly according to the central-case projections.
Finally, almost everyone agrees that governments, non-profit institutions, and energy companies should be spending far more to develop technologies that generate non-carbon-emitting power, that remove it from the atmosphere to forests or oceans, and that cool the earth by reflecting more of the sunlight that lands on it.
Clearly, the world's rich countries should carry the burden of dealing with climate change over the next generations. After all, they could take an easy, emissions-intensive path to industrialization and wealth. Today, China, India and other developing countries cannot, and it would be unfair to penalize them for that.
So now is the time to build, not disrupt or impede, the international institutions that will manage our response to global climate change in the years ahead. But should we be doing anything else now and in the next decade?
Economists like to think of things in terms of prices. And when economists see behavior that has destructive side effects, we like to tax it. Taxation makes individuals feel in their wallets the destruction they are causing. Imposing a tax on those who, say, drive low-mileage SUVs is a way of harnessing humanity's collective intelligence to decide when bad side effects are a reason to alter behavior.
But it has to be the right tax. An SUV going 10 miles (16km) in the city and burning a gallon of gasoline pumps about 3kg of carbon into the atmosphere. Should the extra "global warming" tax be US$0.05 per 4.5 liters, US$0.50 per 4.5 liters, or US$1.50 per 4.5 liters? Our views will change as we learn more, but at the moment the size of the tax hinges on a question of moral philosophy: how much do we believe we owe our distant descendents?
The Australian economist John Quiggin has an illuminating discussion on his Web site (johnquiggin.com) that comes down on the side of a US$0.50 per 4.5 liters tax, because he projects that spending today to reduce carbon emissions is a good investment for the future.
Assuming that annual per capita income grows at about 2 percent per year worldwide, a marginal expenditure of roughly US$70 today to cut carbon emissions would be worth it if, accounting for damage from global warming and adjustment costs, the world of 2100 would be US$500 richer in year-2006 purchasing power.
On the other hand, critics point out that the world today is poor: average annual GDP per capita at purchasing power parity is roughly US$7,000. We expect improved technology and its spread to make the world of 2100, at a 2 percent annual growth rate, much richer: US$50,000 per capita of year-2006 purchasing power.
So the critics argue that we need the marginal US$70 per capita today much more than the richer people of 2100 will need the US$500 that they would gain from being spared the effects of global climate change.
But what the critics often don't say is that the same logic applies to the world today. Average annual per capita incomes in the US, Japan and Western Europe are currently around US$40,000, and less than US$6,000 for the poorer half of the world's population. The same logic that says we need our US$70 more than the people of 2100 need an extra US$500 dictates that we should tax the world's rich more, as long as each extra US$500 in first-world taxes generates as little as an extra US$70 in poor countries per capita incomes.
In short, if the world's rich are stingy today toward our much richer descendants, and if we want to leave our environmental mess to them to deal with, we should be lavish toward the world's poor. Likewise, if we are stingy today toward the world's poor, we should be lavish toward our descendents.
At least, that is what we should do, if our actions are based on some moral principle, rather than that of former Soviet Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev: What we have, we hold.
J. Bradford DeLong is a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and was assistant US Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS