Do climate skeptics believe in insurance?
The case for making the climate change debate less about science and more about risk management
Progressives are well-armed with a pithy one-liner to throw in the faces of climate change skeptics: Do you believe in science?
It might be smarter, however, to ask: Do you believe in insurance?
Let's be honest: Most people who support doing something about climate change don't understand the science any better than their opponents. I spent over a year reporting on the economics of climate change, and I still don't think I can really claim a genuine expertise. Rather, when people say they believe the science, they're making a tribal statement about the sort of institutional authority to which they pledge their loyalty.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Moreover, science can only outline the general forces at play in climate change — the physics of carbon in the atmosphere, the trapping of heat, the way it all changes weather patterns. It can sketch different scenarios in broad strokes, including the worst cases, and give us some sense of the odds of each. But that's about it. The science can tell us that we're running a risk. It can't tell us how to react to that fact.
So the "reasonable" climate skeptics step in and say they believe the science. But they also think environmentalist hawks are being irresponsible and imprudent in demanding massive and rapid changes to how the world produces and consumes energy. The debate thus shifts from science to responsibility and ethics. It completely short-circuits liberals' tribal signaling of "I stand with science."
Progressives would be better off if they championed science a little bit less, and tried to provoke conservatives' thoughts with the analogy of insurance.
The whole point of insurance is that we should pay a little now in order to prepare for worst-case scenarios even if they don't ultimately come to pass. We understand that the future carries risks. Sacrificing a little now to ward them off is what responsible and ethical human beings do. It's the reckless and unethical who just let things ride in the name of enjoying more abundance in the here and now.
Insurance comes in many forms: You pay premiums so health insurance companies will some day pay for your care. You buy homeowners insurance in case disaster strikes your house. And if you ride a motorcycle, you buy "insurance" by purchasing an expensive leather jacket and helmet that will protect you in case you ever crash.
Insuring against climate change is more like the latter example: We need to spend money on a whole lot of things now — constructing solar panels and windmills, research and development of batteries, smart grids, building weatherization, electric cars, etc. — to avoid losing a whole lot more money to storms and heat waves and water shortages and sea-level rise down the road. Pinning down exactly how much that would cost is horribly tricky, but the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generally put it at around 4.8 percent of global GDP by 2100.
But the key thing is that we make climate change less about science and more about risk management. Because once we all agree we're discussing risk management, we can discuss the potential risks more concretely.
The IPCC's models also project climate change could reduce global GDP by as much as 5 percent by 2100, assuming the world's current-but-inadequate efforts to reduce carbon emissions stay on course. Obviously, a 5 percent loss versus a 4.8 percent loss doesn't seem like much to panic over. But it's worth noting other models find considerably bigger reductions in global GDP from doing nothing — anywhere from one-fifth to two-thirds. Deeper than that, however, is the point that using losses of GDP as your metric for climate change's damage obscures more than it illuminates.
As energy and climate expert Trevor Houser once said: "Would you rather have a 1 percent tax increase on everyone in the country or kill 1 percent of the population? Because it's about the same impact [on GDP]." Point being, you can get a roughly 5 percent reduction in global GDP in ways that are morally mundane (raising everyone's taxes a hair) or morally horrifying (killing 1 percent of the global population would be about 75 million people). If the entire continent of Africa disappeared, for example, global GDP would only fall by about 5 percent. Climate change's economic effects will come through flooding cities, worse storms, droughts, disease, crop failures, and the like. And they will fall hardest on many of the world's poorest and most vulnerable regions. So most likely, letting climate change run its course is one of those ways of reducing GDP by 5 percent that would entail massive amounts of death and suffering. That changes the moral calculus profoundly. And it certainly seems like an unacceptable risk that we ought to insure against.
Climate change brings with it a 1-in-20 chance that agricultural production in the Midwest and South will drop by 70 percent over this century. That would surely mean the total economic destruction of towns, livelihoods, and ways of life. There's also a 1-in-20 chance that $701 billion worth of U.S. real estate will be underwater by 2100.
That certainly seems like an unacceptable risk that we ought to insure against. Indeed, that 1-in-20 chance is pretty close to the odds that you'll get colon cancer at some point in your life. You want to insure against that, don't you?
Once you've asked someone if they believe in insurance, it's inevitably followed by another question: Who pays for it? Or, to be more precise, who should pay for it? The answer is obvious: the wealthy. And that may be the outcome climate change skeptics want to avoid more than anything.
Editor's note: A previous version of this article mischaracterized an IPCC report. It has since been revised to address the mistake. We regret the error.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Jeff Spross was the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He was previously a reporter at ThinkProgress.
-
Are 'judge shopping' rules a blow to Republicans?
Today's Big Question How the abortion pill case got to the Supreme Court
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Climate change is driving Indian women to choose sterilization
under the radar Faced with losing their jobs, they are making a life-altering decision
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
'A great culture will be lost if the EV brigade gets its way'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published