Rights by income - the 'Economics of Genocide' - & WHAT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE> >.

 

 Click logo to return to 'links-page'



Between 1992 & 1995 & at the request of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], GCI contributed analysis highlighting the worsening asymmetry, or Expansion & Divergence (E&D) to IPCC 2nd Assessment Report (SAR).

It was a forensic but also blunt critique of what we called,"The Economics of Genocide". Economists William Nordhaus, David Pearce and his students Richard Tol and Samuel Fankhauser draft authored the economic analysis in this report.

While Nordhaus insisted it could all be done in spotted-owl equivalents, Pearce & his students all calculated that in the human mortality caused climate change, the 'value of the statistical lives lost' meant that 15 dead poor people equalled 1 dead rich one, though poor people are much more 'carbon-efficient than righ people.

Notwithstanding that, in the twisted logic of the Pearce-Nordhaus global cost/benefit analysis (Pearce died in 2005; Nordhaus just won the Nobel Prize for failing to solve climate change), people do not have an equal right to survive, even though spotted owls do. All this was another false assumption to justify the ideology where people do not have an equal right to be here in the first place; people's rights are proportional to their income and not to their impact.

To this day, the question that haunts their confusion is this: -
"why, if one spotted owl equals one spotted owl, doesn’t one human equal one human?"

In terms of achieving sustainable development globally, this is dangerous nonsense. For practical as well as ethical purposes, each human being is - and must ethically be recognised as - the equal unit formeasuring sustainability. Especially as wealth & carbon-impact are so closely correlated at low efficiency values globally, this is the irreducible level of decision-taking

Their was a huge outcry about this whole and GCI's critique was upheld by the IPCC in SAR.

Many other economist have taken a much more enlightened view.

However, as we contemplate the growing and now existential threat of climate change, this discriminatory and dysfunctional 'economic approach' still defaults to dominance at this time, as 100's of millions of people have already become deceased as a result of climate damages and we are still causing the problem faster than we are responding to avoid it.