Peter Konchak, Law & Public Policy Scholar, JD Anticipated May 2021
In recent years, the climate change debate in the United States has focused on the divide between those who advocate for action to combat global warming and those who oppose such action by denying the basic science that proves we are living in an age of rising global temperatures and increasingly severe weather events as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The pervasiveness of this position among elected officials in the modern Republican Party might suggest that there’s little to no chance that those individuals—or, more importantly, their constituents—will ever be willing to support policies that reduce man-made emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases. However, another, more sophisticated view held by some climate change “skeptics” suggests that it may yet be possible to realize substantial interest convergence on the issue of combating climate change.
The more cogent argument put forth by those who oppose action to combat climate change essentially goes as follows: even if it is assumed that climate change exists, and that it poses severe risks to our planet, to confront that crisis would require developed countries (such as the United States) to impose upon themselves severe economic costs that will not be similarly borne by developing states and may not even solve the crisis. The first prong of this argument suggests that efforts to combat climate change will necessarily come at the cost of the economic welfare of the United States. The second prong assumes that so-called “developing” states—such as China and India—will continue on paths of robust economic development powered by significant and growing greenhouse gas emissions, which will outpace economic growth in a United States that acts to combat climate change. The third prong adds the caveat that even if the United States were to act to combat climate change, we cannot be sure of the efficacy of those efforts. Therefore, it follows that there is a fundamental tradeoff between climate change action and the maintenance of the economic welfare and international political power of the United States. This argument is certainly far more compelling than the reasoning of the “basic science skeptics” mentioned above. It is also fundamentally flawed in terms of its most basic assumption.
The argument set forth by the more sophisticated “skeptics” accepts as true the traditional popular narrative on the relationship between climate change mitigation and economic growth and development. Consciously promoted by some of the most high-profile climate change advocates, the traditional narrative suggests that the two phenomena are inversely correlated—that combating climate change requires humankind to undergo a process of large-scale deindustrialization. It is argued that an economic system that incentivizes and results in robust and sustained wealth creation is fundamentally incompatible with an economic system that ensures ecological stability and lower man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, that the existing standard of living enjoyed by the citizens of advanced industrial societies cannot be maintained without the earth succumbing to the effects of global warming. Importantly, the corollary of this basic assumption is often that, not only must deindustrialization be pursued in order to combat climate change, but that this process must be undertaken only in the “developed” states, while allowing the “developing” countries of the world to continue to emit greenhouse gases.
The problem is that the trade-off articulated above doesn’t exist. As a basic proposition, economic growth amounts to the growth of two interrelated factors: labor and productivity. The growth of labor is essentially coextensive with the growth of population, and therefore leads to absolute, but not per capita, economic growth. Productivity, however, depends on both the growth of capital inputs—growth in the supply of economically-productive resources—as well as developments in scientific and technological knowledge that leads to the more efficient employment of those resources. Therefore, despite the fact that the stock of natural resources on Earth have remained absolutely stagnant since the dawn of human history, the growth of knowledge with respect to the efficient production and employment of those resources has resulted in exponential growth in the stock of wealth during that same period. In fact, historical economic development has corresponded with a decrease in the material intensity of the global economy. In other words, over the course of history, increases to economic growth have corresponded to decreases in the per capita and absolute use of natural resources.
The implications of this phenomenon for policies that seek to combat climate change are profound. Even if the negative economic externalities associated with greenhouse gas emissions—as measured by the negative economic costs of climate change for each additional unit of such emissions—are not taken into account, the most advanced clean energy resources are in fact more economically productive than fossil fuels and other ecologically-harmful sources of energy. Similarly, advanced forms of transportation, manufacturing, and other industrial processes that produce fewer greenhouse gases and are generally less energy-intensive are also more economically efficient. Therefore, far from economic growth and climate change mitigation being mutually exclusive phenomena, the two actions are in fact mutually-reinforcing.
Economic theory, history, and present reality thus all work to disprove the more sophisticated argument put forth by those “skeptics” who argue we should not take action against climate change. The adoption of advanced clean energy resources and carbon-neutral industrial technologies in the United States will in fact promote rather than detract from economic development for the United States and bolster rather than diminish its political influence in the international arena. These efforts will give the United States a comparative advantage over developing states such as China and India, rather than reducing its relative standing. That’s the argument that should be put to those who argue that action against climate change is too costly for the United States. That’s what should be communicated to the part of the American electorate who are perhaps agnostic about the environment, but who care enormously about our economic well-being and international influence. It’s interest convergence, pure and simple. And it’s the economy, stupid.