Super Freakonomics, a book co-written by Stephen Dubner ‘84 and economist Steven Levitt, is now out. And it’s generating quite the firestorm regarding climate.
The book, the sequal to the bestselling Freakonomics, includes a chapter discussion on global warming. It’s entitled “Chapter 5: What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?” ABC News has posted an excerpt.
Mount Pinatubo was the most powerful volcanic eruption in nearly one hundred years. Within two hours of the main blast, sulfuric ash had reached twenty- two miles into the sky. By the time it was done, Pinatubo had discharged more than 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. What effect did that have on the environment?
As it turned out, the stratospheric haze of sulfur dioxide acted like a layer of sunscreen, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. For the next two years, as the haze was settling out, the earth cooled off by an average of nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit, or .5 degrees Celsius. A single volcanic eruption practically reversed, albeit temporarily, the cumulative global warming of the previous hundred years. …
… what if some foolish people thought Pinatubo could perhaps serve as a blueprint to stop global warming? The same sort of fools who, for instance, once believed that diseases like polio could actually be conquered, that worldwide famine was not foreordained?
While they’re at it, could they also make their solution cheap and simple?
And if so, where might such fools be found?
From there the authors detail one such “fool’s” theory that, in short, you can use a hose to pump chemicals into the higher atmosphere that would reduce global warming at a relatively cheap price. And that has inspired debate. Dr. John Whitehead, chairman of the Economics Department at Walker College, offers his thoughts at The Energy Collective blog.
Most economists aren’t trained in climate science either. Most economists can be convinced, at least in the short term, by a scientist who pursues theories that might have some theoretical justification but are a bit off the wall otherwise. In the same way, most non-economists can be convinced by an economist who doing the same thing (e.g., we should go back to the gold standard), at least in the short run. The SuperFreakonomics climate change trainwreck is riveting, but sad to watch.
I wish SuperFreakonomics had stuck to economics.
Due to the wide critiques centered specifically on Chapter 5, the authors have responded on their blog. It includes a global warming quiz which Levitt says will help readers “understand why we differ from our critics in our conclusions.”
Our question, at noted above, is what is the cheapest, fastest way to quickly cool the Earth. Like every question we tackle in Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics, we approach the question like economists, using data and logic to conclude that the answer to that question is geo-engineering. Not coincidentally, almost every economist who has asked the same question has come to the same conclusion, including Martin Weitzman and the economists at the Copenhagen Consensus.
But that is not the question that Al Gore and the climate scientists are trying to answer. The sorts of questions they tend to ask are “What is the ‘right’ amount of carbon to emit?” or “Is it moral for this generation to put carbon into the air when future generations will pay the price?” or “What are the responsibilities of humankind to the planet?”
Unlike the question that we are asking — How can we most efficiently cool the Earth fast? — the types of questions that environmentalists are trying to answer mix together both scientific issues and moral/ethical issues.
A blogger for TIME also weighed in, with this summation -
Dubner and Levitt (and Myhrvold) aren’t global warming skeptics, and they have some interesting (and still valid) points to make on the subject. The big three seem to be (1) don’t put all too much stock in climate forecasts, because forecasting of complex systems is really hard, (2) eating meat may be worse for the global climate than driving a car (a stance backed up by a new report out from Worldwatch, which says livestock may account for 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions), and (3) we should take geoengineering seriously as a way to attack global warming. I’m pretty sure they could have made all three of these points without bringing the wrath of the climate “zealots” (a.k.a. scientists and stuff) down upon them. Their chapter wouldn’t have been as contrarian and provocative, and contrarian and provocative is the freakonomists’ trademark. But the contrarianism and provocation seem to go over a lot better when it’s backed up by actual research done by Levitt or some kindred-spirit social scientist.
Profiles and reports focused on the past year's activities within the Walker College of Business. 