You write, “I also note that what you suggest is an argument to the effect that the present generation never has a responsibility to control the externalities they create; on the contrary, for you the morally better position is contrary approach of passing problems off to wealthier future generations to adapt to (but not to solve, as they can also rationalize not solving the problem by passing it off onto subsequent generations).”

No, that’s a caricature of my position and my philosophy. As I explained to you great detail previously, the answer to the question, “Is it moral for one generation to leave debts which a later generation must pay?”…the answer HAS to be:

“It depends!”

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/09/some_questions_.html

It depends on: 1) Are later generations better off (if not, the answer is clearly “no”)? 2) How big is the debt, relative to later generation’s ability to pay (if it is huge, the anwewr is probably “no”)? 3) Was the debt incurred for frivolous reasons (e.g. to fight WWII, or build a Superconducting Supercollider)?

My attitude–unlike how I perceive your attitude–is that the answers to these questions are necessary to answer the question of whether this generation is moral to leave debts to other generations. And my answers–****in this particular case****–are that:

1) future generations will be almost incomprehensibly better off,

2) the debt will be trivial (to people in the 2050 to 2100 time period), and

3) it is not for a trivial reason (PARTICULARLY for people in China, India, and other developing countries).

It is ONLY because my answers to those three questions are what they are that I think the debt left for future generations is not merely moral, it’s trivial.

“I am afraid I don’t understand your position on the equities of action. To date, virtually all of the committed AGW has been due to emissions in the now developed world, and reviewers fairly universally report that the greatest negative impacts of AGW will be felt in the developing world.”

The absolutely critical words there are “WILL BE felt in the developing world.”

The “developing world” of 2070+ will be much richer and better off than even the most developed countries in the world in 2006. (I say. And unlike the Stern Review, I actually have economic and technological science on my side.)

“For this reason the Stern report explicitly argues that the developed countries have a moral obligation to seriously reduce their own emissions…”

I don’t agree, because the “developing world” of 2070+ will be will be much richer and better off than the developed countries of 2006.

“…and to compensate the developing countries for the costs of AGW damages,…”

I agree that the developed world should compensate the developing world OF TODAY for any of the costs of AGW damages.

“…and to assist the developing world in developing infrastructure and in meeting any GHG reductions that they are to bear.”

I absolutely disagree. The developing world should not “bear” even ONE PENNY of “GHG reductions.” I cannot understand why you don’t see what to me is the PROFOUND immorality of forcing developing countries to lower their GHG emissions. Do you not agree with me that it’s immoral for the poor to sacrifice for the benefit of the rich?

“It is interesting to hear you say that the Stern report is morally wrong, as it calls for the poor to subsidize the rich. To the contrary, it seems to me that you are saying that the rich countries have no obligations to the poor, despite the fact that the rich have essentially created the problem and the poor are likely to suffer proportionally greater negative effects and are least prepared to grow themselves to a position where they can afford to adapt.

Or am I missing something?”

You are indeed missing “something!” You are missing my entire point! I say that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH will be a millionaire by 2100:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/07/why_every_singl.html

And I mean that absolutely literally. In fact, (unlike the Stern Review!) I’m actually betting on it:

http://www.longbets.org/194

Mark

You write, “Mark, I note that you didn’t answer my question about the relative affordability of mitigation approaches in the light of your higher estimates of GDP.”

Wasn’t your question pretty much rhetorical?

But let’s run through some actual numbers:

Current (2005) GDP, population, per capita GPD = $61 trillion, 6.5 billion, $9,400 per person.

Stern Review 2050 GDP, population, per capita GPD = $110 trillion, 8.9 billion, $12,300 per person.

My estimate (i.e., an honest and competent estimate) of 2050 GDP, population, and per-capita GDP = $670 trillion, 8.9 billion, $75,000 per person.

Let’s assume that addressing global warming to the extent that there will be *no cost* to people from 2050 onward will cost 1 percent of the present (2005) GDP for the next 45 years. The 2005 GDP is approximately $60 trillion, so 1 percent is $600 billion per year, times 45 years, is $27 trillion.

Let’s compare that $27 trillion cost to GDP, calculate the cost per person, and calculate the cost per person as a percentage of per-capita GDP:

Current (2005): $27 trillion is 45 percent of GDP, and $4200 per person (which is 45 percent the per-capita GDP).

Stern Review (2050): $27 trillion is 24 percent of GDP, and $3000 per person (which is 24 percent of the per-capita GDP).

Mark Bahner (2050): $27 trillion is 4 percent of the GDP, and $3000 per person (which is 4 percent of the per-capita GDP).

Obviously, to answer your (rhetorical) question, the relative affordability of the $27 trillion cost is much better if the economic growth is better. But do you see no difference in the *morality* of the situation, depending on whether economic growth is what I predict, versus the ridiculously low prediction of the Stern Review?

I don’t have time on my lunch hour to address your other comments. I’ll try to do so tonight, but I might not be able to address them until tomorrow.

Mark

I also note that what you suggest is an argument to the effect that the present generation never has a responsibility to control the externalities they create; on the contrary, for you the morally better position is contrary approach of passing problems off to wealthier future generations to adapt to (but not to solve, as they can also rationalize not solving the problem by passing it off onto subsequent generations).

I am afraid I don’t understand your position on the equities of action. To date, virtually all of the committed AGW has been due to emissions in the now developed world, and reviewers fairly universally report that the greatest negative impacts of AGW will be felt in the developing world. For this reason the Stern report explicitly argues that the developed countries have a moral obligation to seriously reduce their own emissions and to compensate the developing countries for the costs of AGW damages, adaptation and to assist the developing world in developing infrastructure and in meeting any GHG reductions that they are to bear.

It is interesting to hear you say that the Stern report is morally wrong, as it calls for the poor to subsidize the rich. To the contrary, it seems to me that you are saying that the rich countries have no obligations to the poor, despite the fact that the rich have essentially created the problem and the poor are likely to suffer proportionally greater negative effects and are least prepared to grow themselves to a position where they can afford to adapt.

Or am I missing something?

But other than the fact that the ridiculously low prediction shows either profound incompetence or dishonesty, why should we care? Why should we care if the per-capita GDP growth rate will almost certainly be least 2-3 times that high? Or that an even more likely estimate would be 5-10 times that high? Why does it make a difference whether the per-capita GDP in 2050 is $12,300 or 2 or 3 times that high?

Well, almost everyone agrees that it’s morally wrong to force the poor to sacrifice for the benefit of the rich. The current world per-capita GDP is $9,400. If in 2050, the per-capita GDP were expected to be $20,000, or $30,000, or $50,000 (or more) most people would say it doesn’t make sense for people today to sacrifice for those much richer people in 2050.

Does anyone suppose that might be why the Stern Review chose such a ridiculously low GDP growth rate? Because they knew that otherwise people would think what they were advocating was morally wrong?

Tom, the real question is not whether my much higher estimates for GDP growth are better than those used by Stern (although the answer is almost certainly, “yes”)…the real question is how anyone who would attempt to claim credibility as an economist would predict a worldwide per-capita GDP growth over the next 45 years of 0.6 percent per year?

Barring global thermonuclear/biological war, or a really major asteroid strike, such a prediction is simply laughably low. It doesn’t even pass the straight face test. Global per-capita GDP growth over the PAST 45 years has averaged approximately 3-5 times that amount (per Brad DeLong, others have slightly lower estimates):

http://markbahner.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/per_capita_gdp_growth_october_2004_predi_1.JPG

And there is very solid evidence that the continuing evolution of computers will speed up economic growth (not slow it down).

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/11/why_economic_gr.html

So why would a group of people who presumably claim economic expertise make such a prediction? Two reasons I can think of are profound dishonesty or incompetence (or some combination of the two). In any case, it renders any recommendations they make in the matter highly suspect.

P.S. I’ll try to address what I see as the additional implications of higher GDP growth rates tonight.

P.P.S. How appropriate to issue a report apparently designed primarily to scare people so near to Halloween! But again, why would anyone who values his or her reputation as an economist do so?

Cutting off our nose to spite our face is a GOOD thing, but refraining is bad, since it slows GDP growth? Using statistics that disguise this cannibalism hamper our ability to discuss the problem forthrightly.