Cochrane’s arguments don’t amount to much. There are two. One is that BIG1 x LOTS > BIG2, the unspecified numbers being respectively the cost of addressing global warning, the number of similarly expensive major threats, and total human resources. No numbers are attached, nor any argument given to establish the inequality. An argument that consists of saying “look how big (or small) this number is!” is worthless unless some effort is made to say specifically why the number is in fact big (or small) enough to do the work demanded of it.
His other argument is that global warming interacts with our emissions. If warming reduces wealth, that will reduce emissions; if emissions are high, we must be very wealthy to be emitting so much, and better able to spend money on not doing that. While this argument, unlike the first, is not dead on arrival, a great deal more work is required for it to be useful. What about lags? How big is this effect? Is there an equilibrium point, and if so, where will it be and what will it look like? Population is self-limiting too, but the Malthusian equilibrium is not where we want to be.
Certainly, the prediction of long-term growth rates is complicated by the effects of growth on climate and of climate on growth. However, he forgets all that when he goes on to compare acting with investing in order to act later:
Instead of spending say $1 trillion in carbon abatement costs, why don’t we invest $1 trillion in stocks? If the 100 year rate of return on stocks is higher than the 100 year rate of return on carbon abatement—likely—they come out better off.
100 year rate of return? No-one can know that (a point made by the article he starts off from). And how do you invest $1T in stocks, so as to cause total human wealth to increase? Buying stocks personally can increase one’s personal wealth (by increasing one’s personal money, which can then be exchanged for the things one values); how does moving $1T from wherever it was into stocks do this on a global scale?
And of course, he is not talking about MIRI at all, which is a special case. MIRI claims that for reasons depending on the specific properties of the hazard of UFAI, work must begin now, not postponed. If nobody does the work, the work will not be done.
Cochrane’s arguments don’t amount to much. There are two. One is that BIG1 x LOTS > BIG2, the unspecified numbers being respectively the cost of addressing global warning, the number of similarly expensive major threats, and total human resources. No numbers are attached, nor any argument given to establish the inequality. An argument that consists of saying “look how big (or small) this number is!” is worthless unless some effort is made to say specifically why the number is in fact big (or small) enough to do the work demanded of it.
His other argument is that global warming interacts with our emissions. If warming reduces wealth, that will reduce emissions; if emissions are high, we must be very wealthy to be emitting so much, and better able to spend money on not doing that. While this argument, unlike the first, is not dead on arrival, a great deal more work is required for it to be useful. What about lags? How big is this effect? Is there an equilibrium point, and if so, where will it be and what will it look like? Population is self-limiting too, but the Malthusian equilibrium is not where we want to be.
Certainly, the prediction of long-term growth rates is complicated by the effects of growth on climate and of climate on growth. However, he forgets all that when he goes on to compare acting with investing in order to act later:
100 year rate of return? No-one can know that (a point made by the article he starts off from). And how do you invest $1T in stocks, so as to cause total human wealth to increase? Buying stocks personally can increase one’s personal wealth (by increasing one’s personal money, which can then be exchanged for the things one values); how does moving $1T from wherever it was into stocks do this on a global scale?
And of course, he is not talking about MIRI at all, which is a special case. MIRI claims that for reasons depending on the specific properties of the hazard of UFAI, work must begin now, not postponed. If nobody does the work, the work will not be done.