Hot Times in the City! UCLA Students Learn in 105+ Degree Heat
Today was my first day of classes for the fall 2010 term. I was actually happy to be teaching again but it was hot outside. 110 Degrees in Los Angeles! People were suffering in the heat. Now, a reasonable question is; "how much would everyone in the city be willing to pay for it to have been "merely" 90 degrees today?"
What will be the amenity costs of climate change?
This paper argues that cities South of Chicago will suffer and that the national loss will be on the order of a 3% drop in income. That strikes me to be a small number.
Will there be "heat wave" deaths in Los Angeles? I certainly hope not. My "advanced Google searches" over the last week reports no stories on this topic. Los Angeles has opened up air conditioning centers and people have taken precautions. This is what a richer city can do when faced with an unexpected shock.
Most people agree that income insulates urbanites against Mother Nature's blows but then some Climatopolis critics say that rising income will merely exacerbate the greenhouse gas emissions level making climate change even worse. There is some truth to this but there are reasons to push back against this pessimism;
1. Greater income ===> improved universities ==> research ideas ==> uncouple GHG emissions from economic growth (i.e the rise of the electric car, and renewable power generation)
2. educational attainment rises in richer nations and education is likely to make us more patient and more patient voters may be more willing to tackle the collective action problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So, if India and China continue to develop then in the near future --- their middle class will be more likely to support a carbon deal out of national self interest.
3. Richer urbanites have fewer children than rural people; the urbanization of the world population will slow world population growth.
4. There are scenarios under which fossil fuel prices rise as developing nations consume the existing stock, anticipating this creates incentives to innovate to substitute away from them. I recognize that the anticipation of rising fossil fuel prices creates incentives to also search for more (in the tar sands in Canada). So, this is the amazing race --- given anticipated scarcity --- this race for fossil fuel substitutes (that are green and low GHG) versus finding more fossil fuels (with the resulting GHG emissions).
What will be the amenity costs of climate change?
This paper argues that cities South of Chicago will suffer and that the national loss will be on the order of a 3% drop in income. That strikes me to be a small number.
Will there be "heat wave" deaths in Los Angeles? I certainly hope not. My "advanced Google searches" over the last week reports no stories on this topic. Los Angeles has opened up air conditioning centers and people have taken precautions. This is what a richer city can do when faced with an unexpected shock.
Most people agree that income insulates urbanites against Mother Nature's blows but then some Climatopolis critics say that rising income will merely exacerbate the greenhouse gas emissions level making climate change even worse. There is some truth to this but there are reasons to push back against this pessimism;
1. Greater income ===> improved universities ==> research ideas ==> uncouple GHG emissions from economic growth (i.e the rise of the electric car, and renewable power generation)
2. educational attainment rises in richer nations and education is likely to make us more patient and more patient voters may be more willing to tackle the collective action problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So, if India and China continue to develop then in the near future --- their middle class will be more likely to support a carbon deal out of national self interest.
3. Richer urbanites have fewer children than rural people; the urbanization of the world population will slow world population growth.
4. There are scenarios under which fossil fuel prices rise as developing nations consume the existing stock, anticipating this creates incentives to innovate to substitute away from them. I recognize that the anticipation of rising fossil fuel prices creates incentives to also search for more (in the tar sands in Canada). So, this is the amazing race --- given anticipated scarcity --- this race for fossil fuel substitutes (that are green and low GHG) versus finding more fossil fuels (with the resulting GHG emissions).
posted by Matthew Kahn at 9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home