I submitted the following to the Climate Spectator on Nov 13, after several attempts to get in contact with the editor.

On October 3 and again on October 23, the Business Spectator published articles by Mr Robert E.T. Ward BSc criticizing my work. Mr Ward is a public relations professional in the employ of Lord Stern of Brentford. He is without formal qualifications in economics, the subject matter of his criticism. Although Mr Ward has been invited to publish his concerns in the academic literature, he has chosen the popular media instead.

Mr Ward raises many trivia. I here focus on the two points of contention. First, Mr Ward disputes that climate change might have positive impacts. Such impacts are well documented and straightforward. Warmer winters imply lower heating costs and reduced cold-related illness. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that crops grow better, particularly in dry areas. A number of studies have concluded that these positive impacts are larger than the negative impacts, at least for modest climate change. Mr Ward has not disputed these studies – instead he has targeted my work which merely summarizes earlier findings. In my latest synthesis, I reckon that incremental impacts will turn net negative in the near future. Indeed, that paper concludes that greenhouse gas emissions should be taxed.

Second, Mr Ward disputes that the impacts of climate change on human welfare are not large. The Stern Review estimates that climate change would make the average person feel as if she had lost five to twenty percent of her income. Other studies find lower numbers. Twenty per cent may seem like a lot, but it is the impact of a century of climate change. Put in context, a century of climate change is about as bad as losing a decade of economic growth – or as bad as lowering the economic growth rate from 2.0% to 1.8% per year. That is by no means trivial – but it is not very large either compared to, say, the economic crisis in Greece. Similar estimates of the welfare impact of climate change have been reported in the last four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are shared by other economists, including Mr Ward’s colleagues Professors Fankhauser and Stern. This basic finding is supported by a large technical literature, but it is also in line with casual observations. If we compare hot and rich Singapore to the hot and poor Congo, cold and rich Sweden to cold and poor Mongolia, then we realize that climate is not a fundamental driver of economic well-being. Climate change is a problem, but we should not lose perspective.

Mr Ward’s concerns are without merit.


On Nov 24, Tristan Edis announced the discontinuation of this publication.