A Response to “Climate Change: An Economic and Financial Perspective”

By Andrew Herrera

There was a strange feeling in the room Monday night, as I and many other environmental studies students and faculty gathered in Ramapo College’s Friends Hall before the night’s speaker was set to begin. His name is Dr. Robert P. Murphy, chief economist for the Institute for Energy Research, and all we knew about his presentation was that he would be discussing climate change from an economic perspective, as the title of his talk suggested. We had been warned by faculty beforehand that he was a “climate denier” of some sort, and that we had best be prepared to ask him tough questions. Personally, I was somewhat nervous before the event began. Climate change deniers often rely on narrow and technical arguments, and climate science is so multidimensional, I have a hard time responding to their points.

What actually happened was a different sort of discussion that provoked many thoughts on the nature of climate change and humanity’s responsibility to address it. As I had thought, Dr. Murphy wasn’t a typical climate denier. He repeatedly stated that he was not challenging the science of anthropogenic climate change. He was instead, as had been advertised, applying an economic perspective to climate change. He used economic models to argue first that global warming, if not excessive, would help grow the global economy, and second that burdensome regulations meant to control carbon emissions would cost more economic growth than the future impacts of climate change, as defined by the value of the social costs of carbon.

It’s frustrating that this country is still divided over the science of climate change when most of the world has moved on from that. We have to worry so much about proving climate science that it can be difficult to prepare for other sorts of conservative arguments against taking political action. Dr. Murphy had thoroughly conducted his research and was reasonable in his discussion. But his presentation also helped me realize how limited the economic perspective can be in understanding a wicked problem such as climate change. As other students rightfully pointed out, regardless of early economic benefits, climate change threatens to drive many vulnerable species to extinction, which ought to be seen as an intrinsic loss for the planet, not merely a blow to the economy.

I also questioned Dr. Murphy’s use of “net” global economic benefits, because that implies that while certain populations will be devastated by climate change, such as the many tropical island nations that will be inundated, the Middle Eastern countries that will be scourged by oppressive heat waves, and the many coastal cities that will be ravaged by stronger storms, that doesn’t matter as long as temperate countries like Canada grow their economy. Dr. Murphy argues that governments should not attempt to curb carbon emissions, but how can we expect corporations to do anything if the economics of the moment don’t support it? Climate change is a complex problem; like education, health care, and environmental protection, viewing it in terms of dollars obscures its true significance.