Klaus 1

William Klaus
Professor Derek Lemoine
ECON 150C2
5 December 2022

Signature Assignment 3: Comparing Perspectives Project

1) Summary of the News:

For this project, the news source used will be Section 2.3 of the 2022 Emissions Gap Report. This
section is titled “Emissions trends of major emitters,” and it discusses counties that emit the most,
consumption-based emissions in different countries, and countries with peaked emissions. In the opening
sentence of this section, the article details how just a handful of countries were responsible for over half
of global emissions in 2020. Additionally, in 2021 emissions from many countries shot back up their pre-
pandemic levels in 2019, with the highest of these increases occurring in China and Indonesia. However,
per capita emissions for some groups decreased; some notable regions in this category include the United
States and the European Union. However, the United States and the European Union were still
responsible for an incredibly high portion of the world’s total emissions. The article also dives into how
countries with higher income tend to have more per capita emissions, like the United States, whereas
countries with lower incomes tend to have less per capita emissions, such as India. The final point
addressed by Section 2.3 of the article is how reductions in emissions in some countries are
overshadowed by an overarching global increase in emissions. These findings will be interesting to
explore because raise questions about who should be reducing their emissions, when they should be
reducing their emissions, and how much they should be reducing their emissions by.

2) A Climate Scientist’s Perspective:

A climate scientist would have great interest in the information provided in the article because it can
be used to aid in choosing an optimal temperature limit goal for the world to attempt to achieve. When
thinking about an optimal temperature goal, a scientist will focus on the environmental science aspect
more than the economic aspect of the choice. Therefore, the environmental scientist will prefer a very low
temperature increase. This means that they will aim for a temperature increase of approximately 1.5
degrees Celsius. This is because earlier in the article a 1.5 degree increase is the lowest possible warming
outcome using current technology and government policy. In order to achieve this goal, the scientist
might suggest to reduce emissions across the board, meaning a reduction in emissions in all industries and
in all countries. This would not heavily consider the amount of per capital emissions as detailed by the
article, because every country would be forced to emit less. Additionally, the climate scientist will likely
take a risk-averse approach, electing to reduce emissions as fast as possible in order to minimize possible
damage caused by a global temperature increase. In summary, a climate scientist would be alarmed by
this report and would select a temperature increase as low as possible in order to reduce damage from a
changing climate.

3) An Economist’s Perspective:
An economist would have great interest in the information provided in the article because it can be
used to aid in choosing an optimal carbon price. When thinking about reducing emissions by putting a
price on carbon, an economist would want to do so in a way that preserves short term economic growth
 Klaus 2

while avoiding a catastrophic climate event in the future that would have devastating economic impacts.
An economist would likely evaluate the risks of climate change with a less substantial impact than a
climate scientist would. For the price of carbon, an economist might suggest starting with a relatively low
carbon price, and then increase it over time to gradually reduce emissions. Additionally, an economist
might also suggest to price carbon differently in various parts of the world. For example, a high carbon
price would be in effect in highly developed countries such as the United States, whereas there might be a
low carbon price in countries like Indonesia. This would allow less developed countries to take advantage
of emissions to further their industries; if they were forced to stop emitting altogether, they could face an
energy crisis as more renewable energy tends to be priced higher. This would simultaneously force highly
developed countries to make sustainable energy more affordable, thus allowing less developed counties to
take advantage of this cheaper technology in the future. In this scenario, there would still be a significant
amount of carbon emissions in the short term, and short-term economic growth would only be inhibited
by a small amount.

4) Strengths and Weaknesses of Both Approaches:

Because the climate scientist’s approach and the economist’s approach are so different, they each
present a unique set of strengths and weaknesses. For the climate scientist, the goal is to reduce emissions
in order to decrease temperature by as much as possible with as little risk as possible. This is a good
approach because it means that there will be as little damage to the climate possible with current
technology. However, this policy would likely have harmful effects on the global economy; because
current technology makes emissions necessary for development, underdeveloped countries would have a
hard time advancing in a world with little to no emissions allowed. On the other hand, an economist’s
goal is to reduce emissions by an amount that would not harm the global economy and preserve short
term economic growth. This approach is good because it allows for more comfortable, affordable
lifestyles, and does not slow economic growth. However, this has the cost of taking on more risk and a
higher global temperature increase, along with all the adverse effects that may bring.

5) How Perspectives may be Reconciled:

By reconciling the two different ways of thinking, one can create a model with an attainable
temperature target and carbon price. This would incorporate the best of both perspectives. In the short
run, economic growth should be valued somewhere between the value assigned by a climate scientist and
an economist. Emissions should not be slashed equally across the world as a climate scientist might
suggest; rather, more emissions should be allowed from less developed countries so that they may become
wealthier and invest in cleaner sources of energy. This may be done by having different carbon prices in
different areas of the world. In more developed countries, the price of carbon should exceed what an
economist might suggest, because an economist’s intended pathway might allow substantially more risk
than a climate scientist’s possibly by a dangerous amount. When trying to establish an ideal temperature,
a climate scientist might choose an optimistic 1.5 degrees of warming, whereas an economist might allow
a more generous 4 degrees of warming. Attempting to achieve 1.5 degrees could inhibit economic growth
to the point where quality of life is reduced, and 4 degrees could have unintended consequences that
deeply harm the planet and make certain areas uninhabitable. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the
environment and for consumers in the global economy to select a level of warming somewhere between
roughly 2 and 3 degrees of warming; this could allow for continued economic growth while reducing the
likelihood of horrible side effects of climate change.