Global warming: economists don't know best
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Simon Shackley
Sir: In her analysis of global warming (28 March), Frances Cairncross fails to move beyond an increasingly redundant economic framework. On the one hand, she stresses the scientific uncertainty of predicting climate change, and rightly so. But on the other hand, she treats economic analysis with far greater certainty; for example, quoting research which calculates the costs and benefits of taking action 150 years into the future.
Ms Cairncross also assumes that technologies will not change radically, yet the history of technical change points to their potential for massive and unpredictable effects on economies and societies. Treating economic analysis as more certain than climate change science seems a bizarre article of faith in an increasingly contested discipline.
One also wonders on what basis, she places so much confidence in the ability of societies to adapt to climate change, given the possibility of abrupt periods of climate change, especially if the climate system were to move into a quite different state. Arguing that economic wealth guarantees the success of adaptive responses seems unduly complacent about the sorts of societies we thereby create and ignores the critical role of communities and co-operation in responding to change.
The climate change issue is one of the few current opportunities for discussing whether we wish to continue with the increasingly dominant approach to development, and its understanding of the environment, provided by the industrialised countries. We cannot let the limiting assumptions of economics, which is, after all, the intellectual mentor of the Western paradigm, throw us off-course.
Yours sincerely,
SIMON SHACKLEY
Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change
Lancaster University
Lancaster
28 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments