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 the 'Global Cost Benefit Analysis of Climate Change' (GCBA) introduced by Economists William Nordhaus of Yale University, David Pearce of CSERGE (UEA UCL) and his students Richard Tol and Samuel Fankhauser.

GCI called GCBA,"The Economics of Genocide". It caused caused international outrage because: -

  • 'Mortality-valuation' was proportional to income (15 dead Chinese people equalled 1 dead English person) &
  • it was too expensive to solve the problem
  • and anyway if it got a bit hot, 'we' had air-conditioning and shopping-malls.

    However, William Nordhaus wasn't stupid, he understood the issue of the 'numeraire' (the unit of measument) straightaway.
    Obviously deeply wounded, when he was thrown out of the IPCCC, he insisted it could all be done in spotted-owl equivalents if it was preferred to 'the $'.

    Equivalence & equal rights are the numeraire of the solution - the Well Tempered Climate Accord and CBAT

    The 'Equivalence Principle' applies to face the existential threat of climate change

    This Equivalence Principles' first articulated by Galileo, developed by Kepler and Newton all the way to Einstein and General Relativity.
    NASA paid tribute to Galileo in this beautiful and inspirational movie.

    For practical/ethical purposes, each human being is equivalent & now this equivalence needs be recognised in the numeraire for measuring sustainability globally.

    Unwittingly David Pearce et al revealed the 'Inequivalence Paradox'

    Introducing the $-vote into their 'Global Cost-Benefit-Analysis' (GCBA) of Climate Change, they calculated 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.

    The 'inequivalence-paradox' is simply that poor people are much more 'carbon-efficient' than rich people as is clear from the chart.

    GCBA was just false assumptions trying to justify the growth ideology where people do not have an equal right to be here in the first place; people's rights are deemed proportional to their income and not to their impact. Accelerating entropy is what the $-vote comes to.

    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 (& spotted owls) are dying as result of the climate change they did not cause.

To this day, the question that haunts all our 'economic-confusion' is simply the equivalence principle: -
"if one spotted owl equals one spotted owl, why doesn’t one human equal one human?"

As wealth & carbon-impact are so closely correlated at low efficiency values globally and this is fundamental to rational global analysis & precautionary/prevention-based global decision-taking.

Assuming equal rights to the global commons leads to the Well-Tempered Climate Accord This is not 'long-term' or 'short-term' but 'full-term' (i.e. its shorter that we think), which means C&C is the numeraire underpinning the solution to the climate-dilemma.

There really was a huge outcry about this whole affair

However, GCI's critique was upheld by the IPCC in SAR and
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.



It is officially now a 'climate-emergency'.

If we are serious about addressing it, this is what it now comes to: -
Rapid rates of global contraction & convergence