November 08, 2006

Should the poor subsidize the rich?

Indur M. Goklany writes in The Commons Blog:
[T]he numbers provided in the [Stern] Review and the analytical sources that it relies upon indicate that despite any climate change, future generations of both the developing and industrialized countries will be far better off than the present generations inhabiting these areas. [...] [U]nder the richest-but-warmest (A1FI) scenario, "net" annual GDP per capita in the "developing" world, after accounting for a 20 percent loss in welfare due to climate change, would be over $53,000 in 2100 compared to $875 in 1990 (the base year used in the IPCC scenarios). Under the poorest-but-less-warm (A2) scenario, the net annual GDP per capita for developing countries in 2100 would be $9,500. [...]

[T]he Stern Review would have today's poorer generations subsidize tomorrow's much wealthier generations to make them even richer.

1 comment:

  1. My, a scan of the authors there at TCB reveals Steven Hayward, Iain Murray, and all the leading lights of the CEI/Heritage axis of right think-tanks.

    Anyway, the false premise in Indur's argument is the lack of consideration of decreased resilience of ecosystems in the paper.

    You being an ecologist, I'm sure you noticed that and linked there to point out the flaw in the argumentation.