Joe Romm Punches Climatopolis Again

Joe Romm is a smart angry man.  He throws some new punches at my Climatopolis.   Under the scenario that greenhouse gas concentrations reach 1000 ppm (which sounds high), some of the scenarios he sketches may play out.  He makes some reasonable points but he ignores two key facts about my book.  In the next edition of the book, I will address his points but in no way do his points detract from the book’s core thesis.  Capitalism will help us to adapt to climate change and we will rebuild our future cities in places that are less at risk from climate change and we will be pro-actively in embracing strategies to protect ourselves from different dimensions of climate change.  If it turns out that Salt Lake City can flood, then we will learn this and build with materials that can withstand this. If Moscow turns out to be much hotter in the future, then they will purchase more energy efficient air conditioners and build their buildings in ways that allow for ventilation. We learn and our engineers make progress to protect us.

1. He overstates the “geographical determinism” of my book— I don’t have a crystal ball — I don’t know what will happen to Salt Lake City in the year 2100 and neither does he.  I never meant for Climatopolis to be a bet on any one specific city.   In Climatopolis, I sought to highlight some of the differences that different cities face depending on their geographical location. Does he really mean to say that all geographical areas face the same and equal threats from climate change?

2. Climatopolis is meant to be a celebration of capitalism as an evolutionary force for helping us to adapt to changing constraints.  It is meant to show the reader how individuals and firms respond to capitalist market signals as climate change makes certain commodities such as water and food more scarce and affects the day to day quality of life (and the probability of disasters) in different cities.   I do think that Detroit will fare better than New York City in the face of climate change.  In Climatopolis, I sketch how the process of migration and investment in cities will be shifted by the anticipated threat of climate change.

No where, in Joe Romm’s second attack does he mention “choice” or “incentives” — his attacks are devoid of basic microeconomic logic.  This logic is exactly what I’m trying to inject into the rational discussion of planning for climate change adaptation.  Joe Romm is better climate scientist than I am and his blogging actually helps us to adapt to climate change. This is the evolutionary learning process I talk about in Climatopolis.

He is right that in the next version I will speak about Bangladesh more.  In the Freakonomics blog posted here, I wrote;

“Today, the World Bank celebrates the sharp reduction in Bangladesh’s poverty. Richer people will have more strategies to cope with climate change. In Climatopolis, I argue that climate change is likely to accelerate urbanization in developing nations such as Bangladesh. Urban households have fewer children than rural households. So, urbanization can have a causal role in reducing the number of victims caused by climate change.

But, suppose that I am wrong and Bangladesh’s quality of life declines dramatically. Many environmentalists have written pessimistic reports about millions of “environmental refugees.” A microeconomist would point out that migration is an investment choice. The rational household will tradeoff the benefits and costs of migration. For example, as India and China develop, their growing middle class may desire low skill services that Bangladeshi migrants could supply. As China ages due to its one child policy, it may be actively looking for millions of young migrants to move to Southern China. In this sense, immigration represents a “gains to trade” in the international labor market. People from Bangladesh will have choices over where to move to. Mobility across nations helps to protect the people of Bangladesh from challenges their nation may not be able to escape. My grandfather immigrated to New York City from Poland in 1923. Immigrants have played a key role in the growth of the United States. Why won’t a similar dynamic play out in Bangladesh? I realize that I am glossing over ethnic and religion assimilation issues, but if there are significant economic gains to such trade then I am optimistic that these costs can be borne.”

Read more at Environmental and Urban Economics