Monday, April 12, 2010

Krugman on Climate Change

Paul Krugman has a great piece in Sunday's NYT Magazine.

1 comment:

Jennifer said...

“One way to deal with negative externalities is to make rules that prohibit or at least limit behavior that imposes especially high costs on others”, Krugman.

This rule seems in alignment with the Pigovian tax that I believe simply stated requires eco-system offenders pay a sum that’s proportional to the amount of the infraction.

Cap-and-trade system seems likewise to the Pigovian philosophy that an effective method to reduce pollutions where buying licenses act as a tax and selling licenses act as a compensation.

As far as the mention of the China Syndrome, (why should we if they won’t), I will quote “How Much is an Eco-System Worth”, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK, 2004
“Economic analysis is not and should not be the only input into conservation decisions. People can and do decide to conserve things based on a range of other criteria, such as for ethical, cultural, and historical reasons.”

In view of the economic consequences on a global option value level it would seem in humanities best interest to work toward reversing the effects of climate change because it is the right thing to do and because caring, (“true expressions of the benefits of actions affecting natural resources”, Field, p.50) is contagious. Didn’t Tom Sawyer prove this? And can’t we say that what we feed grows? What will happen if we fuel global cooperation and act courageously for the higher good (global social efficiency)?