We appreciate that Jesper Roine continue this important debate. But we regret the fact that he rather than respond to our arguments is trying to defame them through a confusion with the vetenskapsförnekare and Donald Trump. His attitude to scientific disagreement should be silenced in order to not nourish the external opponent is deeply anti-intellectual.
As our points can apparently be misunderstood, we want to be clear: it is precisely out of respect for the natural scientific climate research, which we criticize Nordhaus and the procrustean bed to the model as he tries to force it in. Static equilibrium models are the wrong tools for analyzing dynamic systems such as earth's climate (or the economy for that matter) where spårbundenhet and feedback mechanisms are governing. It is, therefore, Nordhaus can reach so strange conservative results that a global warming of three degrees – a disaster according to most climate scientists – would only reduce the U.S. GDP by one per cent in 2100. This at the same time as large parts of the country could be under water or have turned into desert.
Calculations of the sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases is, of course, necessary, and can be done with reasonable precision. The same applies, to some extent, estimates of what resources would be required to make these sectors sustainable. The analysis of how players then take a position on these facts is, however, inevitably ideological, since it involves the underlying beliefs about how the economy and society works. Of Nordhaus hides this behind a claim of a cost effective ”optimum” allocation of resources. It is this treacherous confusion of science and ideology to which we are opposed.
Roine mean that Nordhaus should not be judged on the basis of their policy recommendations, but for its scientific achievement. Let us first stress that it is legitimate to criticize Nordhaus policy recommendations. If they could get climate change to rail and hundreds of millions of people to die, we believe they are worthy of criticism. The nobel prize has a signal value which is not possible to deny. For the second Nordhaus recommendations not to separate from his model, when they are enrolled in its assumptions. For example, the how nature and life should be valued, and the idea that the price mechanism is the most cost-effective tool for reducing emissions.
. They distort many of the major climate-science explanations. They also assume without further ado that climate action is in immediate conflict with economic growth. In this way expresses a view on the economy similar to that of professor Pangloss, where we live in the best of worlds, and each departure from the current scheme involves a cost to society. With this false contradiction between climate action and growth as the starting point becomes the only reasonable solution to the climate crisis a utopian idea of binding international agreements.
It is very true that Roine writes that Nordhaus want to regulate the market to reduce emissions. But unlike, for example, Paul Romer (which we have criticized) want to Nordhaus do it with only one tool: a (modest) carbon price; the market is then expected to do the rest. This suggests a in our opinion, this huge over-reliance on what the price mechanism can achieve. Just take a simple example, it is rarely the fastighetsbyggaren that pays the bills, why a carbon tax does not constitute an incentive to build energy-efficient. A price on carbon is necessary, but not sufficient, and moreover it is politically difficult. The science climate science is clear: climate policy has failed miserably. Therefore, we need a total turnaround from the unrealistic economic models that say it is too expensive to buy in the time.