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

 

 Click logo to return to 'links-page'

2018 - The farcical update on this is that the US econmist behind this scandal has just
received the Nobel Prize for not solving the problem of 'climate economics' (stet).



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.

William Nordhaus wasn't stupid, he understood the issue of the 'numeraire' straightaway.
He insisted it could all be done in spotted-owl equivalents. Equal rights is the Well Tempered Climate Accord in a nutshell.

David Pearce & his students (Tol & Fankhauser) all calculated for the IPCCC that in the human mortality caused by climate change, the 'value of the statistical lives lost' meant that 15 dead poor people equalled 1 dead rich one as rights were by income (the 'dollar-vote') - this, even though poor people are much more 'carbon-efficient than rich people.

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.

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 still do not have an equal right to survive (even though spotted owls do) as people are dying as result of the climate change they did not cause.

To this day, the question that haunts all our 'confusion' is simply 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 for measuring 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 affair and GCI's critique was upheld by the IPCC in SAR.

Many other economist have begun to take 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.