Professor Steven D. Levitt, an eminent popular economist from the University of Chicago and co-author of the widely successful books Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics gave a lecture here on Monday. Despite being sparsely publicized, the lecture attracted around 200 people from around the campus, an obvious testament to the popularity of Levitt’s unorthodox economics style. While I was impressed with Professor Levitt as a researcher, having read both his books and some of his papers, I was perhaps more intrigued with a more serious public policy proposal that Levitt discussed: his solution to climate change. The predictable topics like prostitutes and crack gangs generated a good about of enthusiasm and applause, yet it is this one rogue economists’ view of climate change that is so revealing about the society in which we live today.
The current state of global climate change policy ideas is, well, depressing. Politicians from around the developing world, egged on by some zealous climate scientists, have been pigeonholed into believing that only an international, all-encompassing, sweeping global legislative action is necessary to save the planet from extinction. In the US, this means pushing a cap-and-trade system that would cost perhaps around $1 trillion and impose crippling new taxes throughout the system. Internationally, this means attempting to sit down leaders from across the globe, who generally cannot agree on fair sports practices, let alone multi-billion dollar aid transfers, and creating an agreement to halt economic activity throughout the developing world. Failures in Copenhagen, and failures domestically, signal global impasse. We’re left with a seemingly runaway climate train, chugging out deadly carbon pollutants with no solution in sight.
With all this in mind, is Steven Levitt really crazy as climate bloggers and environmentalists have surmised? In a fairly straightforward, rational economic way, Professor Levitt explained that while he admits he knows nothing about climate science, he has identified two problems plaguing all climate change legislation. First, the half-life of carbon is so long that limiting carbon emissions may have very little impact at all considering we have been stressing the atmosphere for over 200 years now. Second, the cost is just unparalleled and would have far ranging consequences on our economy. In response, Levitt proposes simple proposals like creating a large garden hose and injecting sulfur dioxide six miles up into the stratosphere, a phenomenon often seen after major volcanoes. The price tag of this plan: $200 million. Predictably, a wide range of critics of emerged in response to Levitt.
Yet, this type of geoengineering, whose scientific research was done by ingenious researchers and not crackpot economists, could in fact be the wave of the future. While politicians debate amongst themselves the value of complex caps and taxes, it may well be human innovation and ingenuity that can serve as the real solution to climate change. Too much of our politics has been singularly focused on solutions that limit carbon emissions by force, rather than investing energy and resources in problem-solving devices. While the magical garden hose is far from a perfect solution to climate chnage, there is no reason why such proposals must be immediately written off as insane. For one, it took insane ideas like cars, light-bulbs, and computers to launch us into the modern era, why is the future of our planet any different?
Photo Citation: Flickr Creative Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.