Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
A Change of Climate at The Economist
A Change of Climate at The Economist
Mar 18, 2025 11:44 AM

At the request of Andy Crouch, who is among other things editorial director for The Christian Vision Project at Christianity Today, I have taken a look at the editorial from The Economist’s special issue from Sept. 9.

To recap, Andy asked me, “what are your thoughts about The Economist’s special report on climate change last week, in which they conclude that the risks of climate change, and the likely manageable cost of mitigation, warrant the world, and especially the US, taking prompt action?”

He continues, “This is, obviously, a magazine with impeccable liberal economic (not to mention journalistic) credentials, and one of the sponsors of the Copenhagen Consensus that raised questions about the wisdom of prioritizing climate change. I believe they would not have taken this editorial position five years ago. Do you think they are mistaken in doing so now? What do you see as the salient evidence they missed, if so?”

The special report consists of a number of articles examining the issue of climate change and are available for purchase as a PDF set here.

In general, I found The Economist’s editorial to be written in a clear and straightforward manner, free from much of the fear-mongering and polemic that marks much of these debates. The gist of the editorial is based on the findings of the special report, summarized as follows:

Climate change plicated and uncertain, but, as our survey this week explains, the underlying calculation is fairly straightforward. The global average temperature is expected to increase by between 1.4ଌ and 5.8ଌ this century. The bottom end of the range would make life a little fortable for northern areas and a little less pleasant for southern ones. Anything much higher than that could lead to catastrophic rises in sea levels, increases in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding and drought, falling agricultural production and, perhaps, famine and mass population movement.

In light of the evidence, The Economist decides that it is worth it for “the world to spend a small proportion of its e” to avert the risk of a “climatic catastrophe.” I would note that this is essentially an economic assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, and it is one that concludes that the level of the risk outweighs the damage of sacrificing a “small proportion of its e.”

Unfortunately, the closest the es to actually calculating the “small proportion” so far as I can tell is in the following statement, “the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably not huge. The cost differential between fossil-fuel-generated energy and some alternatives is already small, and is likely e down.” So just which is the cost of reducing emissions, “small,” “not huge,” or something else? These are, of course, relative terms, so “small” for me may not be “small” for you.

The editorial also notes that the Kyoto protocol was at least partly successful, because “European Union countries and Japan will probably hit their targets, even if Canada does not.” I’m not sure this is true. The last reports I heard about the protocol noted that a at least few EU nations were having trouble meeting their targets, although admittedly that information may be out of date.

I do think the editorial makes an excellent and often overlooked point in this paragraph about the looming presence of India and China:

The United States is the world’s biggest producer of greenhouse gases, though not for long. Every year China is building power-generating capacity almost equivalent to Britain’s entire stock, almost all of it burning coal—the dirtiest fuel. It will shortly overtake America, and India is not far behind. Developing countries argue, quite reasonably, that, since the rich world created the problem, it must take the lead in solving it. So, if America continues to refuse to do anything to control its emissions, developing countries won’t do anything about theirs. If America takes action, they just might.

Andy’s assertion that simply because The Economist was a sponsor of the Copenhagen Consensus that they agreed with its findings is rather tenuous. To my knowledge, the magazine did print a number of articles summarizing and debating the findings on climate change, including various sides of the argument. I’m not familiar with the editorial history of the magazine, however, but it is notable how different this editorial’s conclusions are from those of the Copenhagen Consensus.

The methods of the two are essentially the same: attempting to do a cost-benefit analysis of proposed solutions to various global threats. In 2004, the Copenhagen Consensus found that neither carbon taxes nor cap-and-trade schemes such as Kyoto were good solutions, rating them in the “bad projects” category. By contrast, The Economist endorses either of these schemes as part of the solution, while mending “the more efficient carbon tax.”

The 2006 Copenhagen Consensus, held in June, again rated these proposed tools quite low: the Kyoto Protocol at 27 out of 40, and three different carbon taxes last at 38, 39, and 40 respectively.

I applaud The Economist for looking at another aspect of the issue that is often overlooked regarding the possibilities for “carbon sequestration.” There are two major ways to deal with CO2 in the air: reduce emissions into the air and/or increase the rate at which CO2 is taken from the atmosphere. The vast amount of attention has been placed on the former rather than the latter.

I’m not as optimistic as the editorial about the size of the economic costs for these significant carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes. And having attended Tom Ackerman’s lecture, “Global Warming: Fact or Fiction,” I have seen first hand the rhetorical power of the infamous “hockey stick,” the legitimacy of which e under increasing scrutiny. If the temperature record is only reliable up to 500 years, I’m not convinced that this is enough of a data set to responsibly make such huge predictions. So, in general, I don’t agree with, or at least remain agnostic about, The Economist’s conclusions on the economic viability or the environmental urgency of climate change.

I do think, however, and have written before, that there are plenty pelling reasons other than the potential threat of climate change for petroleum-based economies to move toward renewable and sustainable sources of energy. In this, I might venture to guess that Andy and I are in broad agreement.

The disagreement e in with respect to our views of the acceptable time horizon for what I’ve called the transcendence and obsolescence of petroleum (my timeline being somewhat more elastic than Andy’s). This presumably manifests itself in Andy’s emphasis on the necessity for government action while I am less inclined to resort to coercive legislation.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Upstream: A Conversation on Artist Renee Radell
On the Upstream segment of this week’s Radio Free Acton podcast, I discuss the visual art of Renee Radell with Gregory Wolfe. Radell’s work is the subject of Renee Radell: Web of Circumstance (Predmore Press, 2016, 220 pages, $80), a book presenting a career overview of her artistic efforts. In his review of Web of Circumstance for The University Bookman, Wolfe – founder and editor of Image magazine – determines the panying text by Eleanor Heartney superficial in contrast to...
The consuming self as tyrant
“Consumerism is, quite precisely, the consuming of life by the things consumed. It is living in a manner that is measured by having rather than being.” -Richard John Neuhaus In a free economy, we each serve distinct roles as both producers and consumers. As producers, we create and serve, leveraging the work of our hands to meet the needs of our neighbors. As consumers, however, we look to ourselves and our own needs. Consumption is good and necessary thing, but...
Explainer: What you should know about single-payer healthcare
Today, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is unveiling his legislation for a single-payer healthcare system. Here is what you should know about single-payer systems and Sanders’s proposal: What is single-payer healthcare? In a single-payer healthcare system, the government pays for all medically necessary service for of all citizens, regardless of e or ability to pay. Does the U.S. have a single-payer system? In the U.S. most citizens over the age of 65 and people under 65 who have specific disabilities qualify...
5 Facts about the 9/11 aftermath
Today marks the 16th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil. Here are five facts you should know about what happened in the aftermath of the events on September 11, 2001: 1. It took 99 days—until December 19, 2001—for thefires at Ground Zeroto be extinguished.Cleanup at Ground Zero wasn’t pleted until May 30, 2002. It took 3.1 million hours of labor to clean up 1.8 million tons of debris at a total cost of cleanup of $750...
A holistic view of Christian vocation
In a society where personal identity is conveyed by one’s job title, it is of little wonder that the nation’s youth are so anxious about career choice. But what if your identity is found in Christ? What if living vocationally has nothing to do with finding the “perfect” career? ...
Missiles, threats and sanctions: How should the United States respond to North Korea?
The North Korean people are not the same as the North Korean regime. Photo: “Pyongyang, North Korea” by (stephan) (CC BY-SA 2.0) Today the United Nations Security Council will meet and vote on a resolution to impose new restrictions on North Korea. This resolution is a direct response to recent North Korean missile activity and threats from Kim Jong Un. On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile and claimed it could hit any nation on Earth and...
Erasing the cross: Public vs. private sector
The European discount grocery chain Lidl stirred controversy by removing the cross from its products’ labels, so as not to give offense. Eagle-eyed consumers noticed that Eirdanous, its Greek food line, featured a picture of a blue-domed Greek Orthodox Church by the sea – but unlike every other such church, its cupola was not topped by a cross. pany Photoshopped the symbol of Christ’s victory over death and Hell off of the Anastasi(in Greek, literally, “resurrection”) Church inSantorini. Perhaps to...
7 Figures: Income and poverty in the U.S.
The U.S. Census Bureau released its latest report on e and poverty in the United States today. Here are seven figures from the report you should know about: 1. Real median household e increased 3.2 percent between 2015 and 2016—from $ 57,230 to $59,039. (This figure surpasses the previous high reached in 1999.) 2. Real median es in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. (This is...
The monopoly markup
Note: This is post #48 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Ever wonder why pharmaceuticals are so expensive? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Alex Tabarrok shows how low elasticity of demand results in monopoly markups. This is especially the case with goods that involve the “you can’t take it with you” effect (for example, people with serious medical conditions are relatively insensitive to the price of life-saving drugs) and the “other people’s money” effect (if third...
The archbishop of Canterbury eyes a ‘broken’ economy
Defending the free market and advocating for ever-greater access to capital is of paramount importance during uneven economic patches. That is how Christians should ments from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who recently said that the economy is “broken.” The archbishop cited familiar economic data of unequal economic growth, youth hopelessness, and questions about wage stagnation. Many of these are part of a ing report from the IPPR’s Commission on Economic Justice, of which he is a member. But...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved