Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING is behind the flooding

The recent weather in the South-West of England/Wales is frightening stuff. We have family in the thick of it, now counting the costs - initial relief at no serious losses is now tempered by the lengthening list of destroyed possessions. And for all of you concerned by such destructive weather patterns, there is evidence to suggest that anthropogenic global warming is to blame. The Independent reports that:

What this does is establish for the first time that there is a distinct 'human fingerprint' in the changes in precipitation patterns ­ the increases in rainfall observed in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, which includes Britain.

"That means, it is not just the climate's natural variability which has caused the increases, but there is a detectable human cause ­ climate change,caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. The 'human fingerprint' has been detected before in temperature rises, but never before in rainfall. So this is very significant.

The evidence will be published by Nature on Wednesday.

I'd like to claim that - if true - this new evidence reduces the economic argument for collective action against global warming.

In a recent talk on "Collective Goods Problems" that I gave in Cambridge, I tried to make the case that excludability and jointness of use (the two characteristics typically used to define a "public good") are cultural classifications. Because of this there's nothing inherent about goods, therefore economics cannot provide objective criteria to categorise on these grounds. This is a subjectivist argument, articulated well by Aaron Wildavsky:

This claim of externalities makes a good introduction to the assertion that there is a privileged class of goods so essentially public that government is justified in producing them if they are not available at all, or if they already exist, in providing more of them than people are willing to pay for. For the realization that externalities are what we think they are, even what we want them to be, brings us to the irremediable subjectivity of the concept of goods.

A good is not an item in a store with a price tag on it. If that were so, any one of us could put any item in any store at any price. No, a good is something someone values in exchange; someone is willing to give up something else for it. Truly, goods are goods only for those in whose eyes they are good enough.

Wildavsky 1998, p.23

The bottom line here is that a public goods argument rests on agreement about what we all define as externalities, and indeed what we define as "goods". If there's no unanimity about either of these points, economic science has no objective criteria by which to mediate.

Consequently, lets consider the following 3 statements:

a. Global warming is likely to lead to more rainfall
b. Global warming is influenced by man
c. Parts of the world suffer from drought

The evidence from Nature mentioned above suggests that a is true. b seems to be a fairly consensual position. And surely c is irrefutable.

What these points taken together suggest, is that mankind has discovered a way of influencing the global climate, without necessarily having a unanimous position on how to use it. *If* we can affect the weather, it *might* be possible to improve the lives of some people.

What this evidence from Nature suggests, is that the case for collective action - of government action - to improve upon the failures of a market system, is strengthened. But the economic rationale for doing so has weakened. There's convincing justification for government to combat global warming, but politicians cannot and therefore should not use economic rationale for doing so. It's a way to bamboozle a public held in the sway of science. But the emperor has no clothes.

---

* NB. I'll remind everyone that despite your inevitable and understandable instincts, I am not a "global warming skeptic".

Comments

[Jim]

I'm not sure I've understood your argument. Are you basing
"the economic rationale for doing so has weakened"
on your points about public goods or on the possible implication of the three facts you mention that global warming might increase rainfall in drought-stricken areas? Because the latter is unlikely to be true, since rainfall is likely to increase in latitudes that already get quite a bit, not where it's most needed.

[aje]

Both - I was trying to say that "public goods" don't have an economic basis if there's conflict over whether they're good or bad. Regardless of how likely it is that global warming might increase rainfall in drought-stricken areas, the more knowledge we have about the link between global warming and rainfall, and the more anthropogenic global warming is - the less unanimity there'd be on the entire issue, and the weaker the economic rationale.

[Matthew Whitfield]

Your argument makes sense insofaras it's speculative - there are 'ifs' and 'mights'. But what about what about we 'do' know, that above average rainfall at Britain's latitude causes flooding? This concrete evidence really doesn't weaken an economic case for action, it strengthens it, and it has the advantage of not being theoretical.

[Jim]

I've yet to see any persuasive evidence that the economic effects of global warming will be 'good' for a substantial enough proportion of the whole planet (which is surely the appropriate level of analysis), and the floods certainly don't change that.

[Joe Otten]

If there are no public goods without consensus, then one misanthrope will always piss in the drinking water.

[aje]

Matthew: Firstly, we don't "know" anything. There might be very strong evidence, but to suggest that we can easily step from "speculation" to "fact" is dishonest. Above average rainfall doesn't necessarily lead to flooding. We have above average rainfall 50% of the time. I don't see why this justifies collective action on economic grounds - please explain.

Even if it what you label as "concrete evidence" is strong enough to base policy on, the point is that the global climate is a global issue, and therefore even if the effects in the UK were "known", there wouldn't be a way to "solve" that problem without making someone else worse off, due to the interdependencies of the system.

You've identified a local problem, but accept there's a global cause. It doesn't matter how strong the link, it still necessitates a solution outside of UK jurisdiction.

I guess there's two reasons I'm doubting your claim that the economic justification is straightforward:
1. Flood prevention doesn't necessarily require government intervention
2. Even if there's consensus amongst Britons that global warming leads to bad outcomes, the only way policy could effect this is at an international level, where internal British unanimity is irrelevant.

Jim: I wasn't trying to claim that global warming will be "good" for a substantial number of people. The point is that the more control we have over climate, the greater the probability that there'll be conflict over what to do, and therefore the weaker the public goods argument. I'm not trying to convince you that we shouldn't do anything, just to accept that the economic case (which is based on consensus) has weakened.

Joe: What's more misanthropic than telling people what they should value, and forcing those values upon them? What's more misanthropic than having such utter disdain for humanity you'd suggest that 12m Indians forcedly removed from their homes were "pissing in the drinking water", and the enlightened political class should be able to pay no attention to their rights? You're comment is disgusting.

[Joe Otten]

Perhaps you didn't manage to read right to the end of my comment, but if you do, you'll see that I suggested no such thing.

Is that the best you can do?

[aje]

then what did you suggest?