Policy solutions to climate change: an economic perspective

Climate change is not something I believe people have an opinion on; that would be like having an opinion on poverty. The phenomenon exists. People cannot have opinions on whether climate change exists or even what causes it, but people can have opinions on how to address the issue and what types of policies should be in place to mitigate climate change or ameliorate the effects of climate change such as extreme weather or periodic flooding in coastal areas. I chose to discuss this topic primarily because I want to learn more about the scientific evidence. Also, I understand that how to address climate change has become a political issue. I want a more informed and educated opinion on my political stance related to climate change, and I believe that this research will help.

The first article I will discuss is called \"Climate Change Realism,\" by Edward Lazear, and is in the 2015 edition of Hoover Digest. The Hoover Digest is associated with the Hoover Institution, which is in turn associated with Stanford University. Therefore, a high degree of credibility can be assumed based on the academic connections of the supporting institution and author. The author is a Professor of Human Resources Management and Economics at Stanford, making the source a reliable one. Moreover, the author is a professor of human resources and economics, fields that use numerical data and facts. Also, I thought it would be helpful to have the perspective of an economist, because usually climate change arguments are framed in terms of how climate change and public policy related to climate change will impact the economy.

At first, it seems that Lazear (2015) is presenting a pessimistic point-of-view. The author states that, for example, eating local means very little because less than five percent of the energy used in produce is attributable to transportation, and that the vast majority comes from the production of agriculture. The author also points out that even if the United States \"completely eliminated carbon emissions from transportation over the next four years,\" world emissions would still rise due to carbon being emitted by the rest of the world (Lazear, 2015, p. 75). Some readers will find Lazear\'s (2015) statements evidence that America does not need to change its consumer behavior or public policy. In fact, Lazear (2015) also claims that changing the energy portfolio of the United States will not affect global emissions; only a radical energy innovation would reduce global emissions. What Lazear\'s (2015) analysis suggests is that (a) climate change is inevitable, and (b) that instead of focusing on emissions reduction, people should focus on adaptations to the impact of climate change.

Lazear\'s (2015) analysis is bleak indeed. The author basically claims that people should move to areas less affected by climate change. Yet the author\'s analysis is extremely short sighted and stupendously unworkable. A very small number of people can afford to move at will. Likewise, the impact of massive population migrations is going to be disastrous. When reaching the end of Lazear\'s (2015) article, I was genuinely expecting more evidence, and a more sensible solution. I then noticed that in spite of the author\'s credentials at Stanford, few specific sources are used to refer to the claims. In spite of this weakness, the author is correct that adaptation is part of the overall portfolio of addressing climate change. Whether we like it or not, climate change is going to cause disasters, so it is best to be prepared for those inevitabilities.

Moving onto another article, I decided upon Patrick Gonzalez, who is a forest ecologist and climate-change scientists at the National Park Service. Gonzalez is clearly a credible source on the subject of climate change, given his work as a scientist is coupled with real-life experience as a forest ecologist. Unlike Lazear (2015), Gonzalez (2013) urges conservation and changes to energy policy. The author bases his suggestions on evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Gonzalez (2013) uses persuasive rhetorical techniques to urge his audience to take action, such as describing in detail the devastation of climate change on specific species of plant and animal. The human casualties of climate change also evoke an emotional impact in the reader, including simple things we might have otherwise overlooked like \"heat-related deaths of susceptible people around the world,\" (Gonzalez, 2013, p. 2). Similarly, the author points out that people in the \"weakest economic positions are the most vulnerable to climate change due to lower capacities to adapt to drastic changes,\" (Gonzalez, 2013, p. 2). This point ties in with Lazear\'s (2015) argument about adaptability as a solution; not all people can afford adaptability, and therefore climate change is something that will affect poor and disenfranchised people more than wealthy people. Adaptations include not just moving, but changing agricultural practices, developing better water and transportation infrastructures now, and monitoring local ecosystems (Gonzalez, 2013). These are adaptations that can be integrated into aid and development agendas as well as to foreign policy, as not all nations have the wherewithal to make these adaptations for their people. I also believe that wealthy people may therefore be less likely to support measures and policies that are designed to reduce carbon emissions, given their lack of direct knowledge of the personal impact of climate change on their lives.

Unlike Lazear, Gonzalez (2013) places greater culpability on the United States than on other countries by stating that its emissions comprise 22% of the world\'s emissions. It would be helpful to apply Lazear\'s (2015) assertion that even if the United States completely cut transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, that it would not offset that of the rest of the world. Given that the United States emits 22% of the world\'s carbon, the numbers do conceivably add up. The goal would be to get all countries to reduce emissions, starting with innovations in technology. Increasing energy efficiency is one way to reduce emissions, until a radically new energy source surfaces. Gonzalez (2013) also diversifies the solutions to climate change by showing what agriculture industries can do.