Kenneth Arrow on “The case for cutting emissions”
However, I believe that Stern’s fundamental conclusion is justified: We are much better off reducing carbon dioxide emissions substantially than risking the consequences of failing to act, even if, unlike Stern, one heavily discounts uncertainty and the future.
Two factors differentiate global climate change from other environmental problems.
First, whereas most environmental insults — for example, water pollution, acid rain, or sulfur dioxide emissions — are mitigated promptly or in fairly short order when the source is cleaned up, emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace gases remain in the atmosphere for centuries. So reducing emissions today is very valuable to humanity in the distant future.
Second, the externality is truly global in scale, because greenhouse gases travel around the world in a few days. As a result, the nation-state and its subsidiaries, the typical loci for internalizing externalities, are limited in their remedial capacity. (However, since the US contributes about 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, its own policy could make a large difference.) Thus, global climate change is a public "good" — as defined in economic terms — on an enormous scale.
"The people", in the form of the US citizenry that are not running the government or huge corporations, tend to like their science the same way they like their news – in short, catchy, easily (pre)digested form that can be transmitted via AIM with under 200 keystrokes. As a result, much very well written, well researched, and important work zooms right past people who are more eagerly awaiting news on the status of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s relationship.
Search