I take it that the costs of climate change are reckoned in crop losses due to more extreme weather, damage to infrastructure due to more intense storms, the need for additional electricity generation capacity (to supply additional air conditioners during more frequent heat waves) and other new infrastructure (to shield against rising sea level), loss of coastal mangrove swamps and other wetlands (to rising sea levels) where commercially valuable fish spawn, and perhaps other costs that I can't think of now. Correct me if I have mentioned some costs that were left out of the calculation.



How is the cost of lost polar bear habitat calculated? Or is it? How is the cost of lost species calculated? Some species can migrate northward as temperatures rise. But we have largely foreclosed that possibility with our paved and fenced world now. Mountain-dwelling plants can migrate up-slope to some degree as temperatures increase, but this possibility exists only so long as there is an up-slope to go toward. Those plants already adapted to living near the tops of mountains may have nowhere to go to. And this is a slow process. Plants already at risk due to loss of pollinating insects may not be able to withstand this additional challenge to their survival. How is the loss of biodiversity calculated as a cost of climate change? Or is it?



If biodiversity is not a value that is reflected in the calculations, then the numbers presented are at best misleading. If diversity of life is reflected as a value in the calculus, then it is certainly a factor that it would seem to be hard to fix with precision. Those who say that we should not base our policy on economists' bean counting have a point. We cannot put a price on the value of a diverse and resilient ecosystem any more than we can easily put a monetary measure on the value of a breath of fresh air or a beautiful sunset.



The question for a democratic society is, "What amount of carbon dioxide should we allow to be released into the air each year (and what amount of methane, and what amount of various other materials)?" If we notice that most people want significant reductions in carbon emissions (because we decide to take a random survey and ask the question), and if we know that actual emissions are far in excess of what most people feel is acceptable, then we can ask, what is the cost of sacrificing our democratic principles on the altar of economic growth?



The truth is that a path forward that assumes perpetual economic growth is a road to oblivion. The cosmos cannot support the growth projections that are offered as the basis for comparison in this analysis. We *can* create a society that grows in productive capacity when people learn new ways of making wealth *without* growing in its tendency to squander natural wealth and foreclose future opportunities for those not yet born. I believe that to do so, we will need to recognize a shared ownership in the natural wealth of the planet. We will need to impose the fee or tax (or adopt a system that provides for sale of a limited number of permits at auction) and make the price of various kinds of environmental impacts (emissions and extractions) high enough so that the overall impacts of the various kinds do not exceed what most people feel is acceptable. The fee proceeds should go to all the people, to each an equal amount (or according to a sliding scale, based on income and endorsed by the people at large, to be determined by random survey).



I agree with Dr. Lomborg that we should end policies that subsidize inefficient industries. The market can work out the best path forward *when all costs are properly accounted for*. (This article unfortunately omits any direct discussion of external costs.) As fossil fuel (and manufacturing based on extraction of virgin raw materials) becomes more expensive, market forces will favor investment in alternative forms of energy (and manufacturing based on recycled materials) AND they will favor increased efficiency AND changes in lifestyle choices, all of which would contribute to the stability and sustainability of civilization. Appropriate fees, with sharing of fee proceeds, would mean a sustainable and more just society. Political pressure to promote economic growth would abate, since downturns in economic activity would not bring with them extreme economic hardship and strong perceptions of economic injustice, because every person would retain their share of natural wealth as a cushion against any hard bumps in their road.



Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability:

http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html