National Climate Assessment

December 3, 2018

Previous | Next

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. Washington, DC, 2018.

Federal law requires the government to issue a new climate assessment every four years. Thirteen government agencies participated in the current assessment, including the Departments of State, Commerce, Interior, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Defense, Agriculture, and Energy; along with the National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency.

This year’s report is Volume II of the fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume I, issued last year, provided a comprehensive summary of climate changes themselves, based on the best science available. Findings from Volume I are incorporated into the impact assessment in Volume II.

Full disclosure: I haven’t read all 1,656 pages of this report. What I am summarizing is the 40-page overview in Chapter 1, supplemented by a brief look at selected other chapters.

Here is a statement of the report’s general conclusions:

This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the resulting changes that affect Americans’ lives, communities, and livelihoods, now and in the future….It concludes that the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.

The climate changes

The most obvious change is that the country is getting warmer along with the rest of the planet. On the average, temperatures have increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit across the contiguous United States since around 1900. The warming in Alaska has been even greater. Since the 1980s, arctic sea ice has been decreasing by 11-16% per decade. (Here in the Southeast, the rise in temperature is expected to be smaller than in most of the northern United States, and the main effect will be warmer nights rather than hotter days.)

The median sea level along our coasts has risen about 9 inches since the early 20th century, due to ocean warming and melting land ice. The oceans have also become more acidic as they have absorbed more carbon dioxide.

Although these changes may sound small, they are enough to produce large changes in the weather. Extreme climate-related weather events are becoming more common, and when they occur they often last longer and cause more damage. We are experiencing more frequent and longer heat waves, especially in urban areas. More of our annual rainfall is coming in the form of intense, one-day rainfalls that cause more flooding, especially in coastal areas affected by higher sea levels and tides. Recent hurricanes have been especially severe. Hot, dry conditions have contributed to unusually large wildfires in the western states.

Scientists have known for a long time that naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap some of the heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. That keeps the planet surface warm enough to be habitable for living things. But in the industrial era, human activity has added dramatically to these gases, especially through emissions of carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 40%. Burning fossil fuels accounts for about 85% of all greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

Scientists have concluded that non-human factors alone cannot account for climate change. In fact, “Without human activities, the influence of natural factors alone would actually have had a slight cooling effect on global climate over the last 50 years.” Scientists have found no credible alternative to the consensus view that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible for global warming.

Scenarios for future change

Science is often in the position of being unable to predict the future with certainty, but being able to project possible futures based on reasonable assumptions. For example, financial planners cannot predict a couple’s future retirement income without making assumptions about how much they will save, how they will invest it, and how closely market performance will conform to historical averages. So they often construct multiple scenarios based on a reasonable range of assumptions.

Climate scientists do not know how much global temperatures will increase or how much sea levels will rise, mainly because they don’t know how much humans will curb their emissions of greenhouse gases. So the National Climate Assessment relies on a “suite of possible scenarios” based on “Representative Concentration Pathways”–that is, different concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere later this century.

Some additional rise in temperature is inevitable over the next few decades, even if we start reducing carbon emissions now. That’s because the climate system responds slowly to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Even in the lowest scenario considered, “additional increases in temperatures across the contiguous United States of at least 2.3ºF (1.3ºC) relative to 1986-2015 are expected by the middle of this century.” Around mid-century, the various scenarios diverge dramatically. In a “very low” scenario, which assumes that emissions are peaking now, temperatures level off after 2050. In a “low” scenario, which assumes that emissions peak around 2050, temperatures rise another 2.3-6.7ºF (1.3-3.7ºC) by the end of the century. In a “higher” scenario, which assumes that emissions keep rising, temperatures rise another 5.4-11.0ºF (3.0-6.1ºC) by the end of the century, resulting in the most catastrophic effects. “Coastal flood heights that today cause major damages to infrastructure would become common during high tides nationwide.”

Perhaps the most sobering finding is that current global trends in annual greenhouse gas emissions are most consistent with the highest scenario considered. The evidence so far does not inspire confidence that global emissions are peaking now or will do so in the near future. But business as usual is not a viable option, and serious emission reductions are required soon to avoid catastrophic outcomes before the end of the century.

This is probably what the White House was referring to when it dismissed the report as being “largely based on the most extreme scenario,” as if the researchers deliberately chose the most pessimistic assessment in order to upset people. What they actually did was project a reasonable range of scenarios, but then come to the scientific conclusion that allowing carbon emissions to rise would result in the least desirable outcome. What the Trump administration is doing is rejecting the report as too dire, and then insisting on continuing the policies that are most likely to produce the most dire results!

The risks

The report discusses three kinds of risks arising from climate change: risks to economy and infrastructure, risks to the natural environment and “ecosystem services,” and risks to human health and well-being.

Climate change could cause substantial damage to infrastructure and private property. Regional economies and industries that depend on favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism and fisheries, will be especially vulnerable. The researchers tried to quantify many of these effects throughout the report, but the overview included only a few general references to dollar amounts: “The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.”

Climate change produces economic losses in many different ways. Extreme heat waves and more powerful storms put stress on energy systems and create widespread power outages. Much of the infrastructure for producing energy is located along ocean and gulf coasts that are vulnerable to strong hurricanes and increased flooding. Although the warming climate lengthens the growing season, yields for many major crops are expected to decline because of excessive heat and greater pest activity. Bad weather around the world also impacts on the U.S. economy by disrupting international supply chains, as happened with hard-drive imports from Thailand in 2011.

An example of what the report calls “ecosystem services” is the availability of water or snow for drinking and recreation. In the Southwest, “intensifying droughts, heavier downpours, and reduced snowpack are combining with other stressors such as groundwater depletion to reduce the future reliability of water supplies in the region.”

Heat waves are associated with higher death rates, especially for older adults, pregnant women, and children. Climate change will also increase exposure to pollen allergens associated with allergic illnesses such as asthma and hay fever. And as North America warms, disease-carrying insects from Southern climates are migrating northward.

Since low-income communities are especially vulnerable to many of these risks, “climate change threatens to exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities….”

Reducing the risks

Many states, cities and businesses have taken some measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to adapt to climate changes. However, the report states that “these efforts do not yet approach the scale needed to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health expected over the coming decades.” Time is of the essence, since some effects of climate change will be difficult or impossible to reverse if they are allowed to occur. Once ice sheets melt enough to make sea levels higher and coastal cities uninhabitable, those conditions may persist for thousands of years.

The report makes a distinction between mitigation, which reduces risks by limiting further climate change, and adaptation, which reduces risks by softening the impact of the climate changes that do occur.

With regard to mitigation, one area where some progress has been made is the power sector of the economy. Greenhouse gas emissions from power generation dropped 25% from 2005 to 2016, the greatest decline for any sector. As a result, the sector with the largest emissions is now transportation.

Last week’s announcement of automobile plant closings by GM is very much related to our emissions problems. By increasing domestic gasoline production, we have lowered the price of gas, but that encourages consumers to buy larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The plants to be closed are producing smaller, more fuel-efficient cars for which there is currently less demand. Gas prices are artificially low, since they don’t include the ultimate cost to society of environmental damage. A carbon tax would be a rational way of discouraging our short-sighted reliance on fossil fuels, but that requires courageous leadership and a better-informed public.

With regard to adaptation, some communities have taken measures like strengthening buildings to withstand extreme weather events. They tend, however, to prepare only for the range of events that are familiar to them, rather than the even wider range that scientists anticipate. They are more likely to raise construction standards than to block construction altogether in high-risk locations.

In many areas, the costs that can be avoided through advance planning and investment are substantial. For example, “More than half of damages to coastal property are estimated to be avoidable through adaptation measures such as shoreline protection and beach replenishment.” Nevertheless, the researchers believe that moving populations away from the most threatened coastlines will become unavoidable.

Crisis, what crisis?

With the issuance of this report, the American people have just experienced a remarkable spectacle. On the one hand, thirteen federal agencies have collaborated to produce the most scientific report they can assemble on climate change, as mandated by federal law. On the other hand, the Trump administration has tried to bury it by releasing it on Black Friday and encouraging people not to believe it. “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” the president tweeted during a recent cold snap.

The President of the United States has considerable power both to define issues and to address them. This president is doing what he can to ridicule the whole idea of controlling emissions and undermine existing efforts to do so. He has blocked the previous administration’s clean energy initiative, lowered standards for vehicle fuel efficiency, taken the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, and encouraged more fossil fuel production. I am tempted to use a term like “criminal negligence” to refer to his leadership in this area, except that ignorance is not a crime.

President Trump’s idea of a real crisis is illegal immigration. But according to The Economist, total apprehensions at the border were already way down before he even took office. “Not only have the migration numbers tumbled and the share of Mexicans among them dwindled. More Mexicans are now returning to Mexico than are coming to the United States illegally.” Central American migrants have increased in the past decade, but their numbers are still too small to change the overall story. By trying to close the border to asylum seekers, Trump provokes border confrontations that seem to confirm his largely phony crisis.

Given Donald Trump’s hyper-nationalist worldview and distorted priorities, it’s no wonder that immigration far surpasses climate change as a hot political topic and campaign issue. Too many Americans seem willing to follow this president wherever he leads, even if it’s over a climate-change cliff. Isn’t it time for the country to come to its senses and demand realistic, fact-based leadership?

Thank You for Being Late

November 13, 2018

Previous | Next

Thomas L. Friedman. Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016.

This book is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s latest reflection on social change–technological, global and environmental. The title refers to his experience of having someone show up late for an appointment, and then realizing that the extra few minutes provide a time for reflection in an otherwise busy day.

Friedman’s basic premise is that “the three largest forces on the planet–technology, globalization, and climate change–are all accelerating at once. As a result, so many aspects of our societies, workplaces, and geopolitics are being reshaped and need to be reimagined….In such a time, opting to pause and reflect, rather than panic and withdraw, is a necessity.”

Technological acceleration

In chapters 2 through 4, Friedman pulls together a wealth of examples to provide a fine overview of developments in digital technology. I can’t do justice to all the detail, but here are a few highlights.

Remarkable breakthroughs have affected all five of the basic components of computing:

(1) the integrated circuits that do the computing; (2) the memory units that store and retrieve information; (3) the networking systems that enable communications within and across computers; (4) the software applications that enable different computers to perform myriad tasks individually and collectively; and (5) the sensors—cameras and other miniature devices that can detect movement, language, light, heat, moisture, and sound and transform any of them into digitized data that can be mined for insights.

The result is “one of the greatest leaps forward in history.”

All this computing power is not just on a desktop or a laptop, but in the “cloud”, or what Friedman calls the computing “supernova”. The ability to tap into this universal information-processing capacity is deeply empowering to individuals, groups and organizations. The challenge is to use that power constructively and not destructively, for collective liberation and not just for domination or other selfish purposes. One downside is that technological innovation is occurring faster than “the average rate at which most people can absorb all these changes.” For example, we are not yet accustomed to the kind of lifelong learning that the information age will require.

Friedman also asks why it’s taking so long for technological change to raise economic productivity. In The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Robert Gordon argued that the extraordinary productivity gains of the “special century” from 1870 to 1970 are unlikely to be repeated. Friedman is more optimistic, pointing out that productivity gains from electrification took several decades to materialize. New factories and business processes had to be designed, and a new generation of managers and workers had to emerge. Many technological breakthroughs are far too new–a number of them emerged in 2007–to assess their effects on social institutions. I find it exciting to imagine a new era of rising productivity and wage gains, which might go a long way to alleviate class, race and gender tensions.

Global acceleration

Electronic connectivity is one of the main factors accelerating human interactions across vast distances. The total value of global flows of goods, services, and finance increased from 24 percent to 39 percent of world GDP between 1990 and 2014.

William H. McNeill, the historian noted for The Rise of the West, argues that “the principal factor promoting historically significant social change is contact with strangers possessing new and unfamiliar skills.” People may perceive such contacts as either a threat or an opportunity, but in the long run they provide societies with more solutions to human problems. Friedman believes that “those societies that are most open to flows of trade, information, finance, culture, or education, and those most willing to learn from them and contribute to them, are the ones most likely to thrive in the age of accelerations.” Although Friedman has little to say about the Trump presidency in this book, we know from his columns that he has little use for nationalism or isolationism.

Friedman does recognize that people whose lives are vulnerable to disruption by globalization will need help coping with this new world. “If a society doesn’t build floors under people, many will reach for a wall–no matter how self-defeating that would be.” Nevertheless, his chapter on globalization contains his most optimistic statement:

[I]f there is one overarching reason to be optimistic about the future, and to keep trying to get the best out of digital globalization and cushion the worst, it is surely the fact that this mobile-broadband-supernova is creating so many flows and thus enabling so many more people to lift themselves out of poverty and participate in solving the world’s biggest problems. We are tapping into many more brains, and bringing them into the global neural network to become “makers.” This is surely the most positive—but least discussed or appreciated—trend in the world today, when “globalization” is becoming a dirty word because it is entirely associated in the West with dislocations from trade.

Environmental/demographic acceleration

The human impact on the planet is increasing, as a result of both our dramatic population growth and our intensive use of the Earth’s resources.

Here Friedman is most concerned with global climate change, and he does not explain demographic trends as much as I would like. Human population growth accelerated especially in the twentieth century because of progress in reducing mortality rates, especially for infants and children. Just between 1900 and 2000, world population increased from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. Smaller families and declining birth rates have reduced the rate of growth somewhat, but the world population is now 7.7 billion and expected to add a couple billion more before leveling off.

A team of scientists specializing in Earth systems identified “nine key planetary boundaries we humans must make sure we do not breach.” Unfortunately, we have already breached four of them. We have put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, if we want to hold average global temperature rise since the Industrial Revolution to 2 degrees Celsius. In some places, biodiversity is already below 90 percent of preindustrial levels. The portion of the earth’s original forests that remain has fallen below 75%. And we have been poisoning the earth by adding far too much phosphorus, nitrogen and other elements.

Other boundaries that we are currently staying within, but not by much, involve how much we are acidifying oceans, using freshwater, loading the atmosphere with microscopic particles, and introducing other novel entities into nature, like plastics and nuclear wastes.  One area where we are moving in the right direction is in restoring the thickness of the ozone layer that protects us against dangerous radiation.

Technological breakthroughs–especially in clean energy–are helping. But we also need to change our behavior more rapidly, in order to apply known solutions on a large enough scale.


Strangers in Their Own Land

June 18, 2018

Previous | Next

Arlie Russell Hochschild. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press, 2018.

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild makes a fine contribution to our understanding of today’s political polarization. Trying to move across what she calls the “empathy divide,” she gets as close as she can to far-right conservatives in one of the reddest parts of the country, the Lake Charles area of southwestern Louisiana.

The book is based primarily on long conversations with forty Tea Party Republicans, supplemented with interviews with twenty other individuals who are knowledgeable of the area and its issues. Although her study is small-scale and exploratory, she does a good job of placing her findings in a larger context with national survey data and statistics.

The “Great Paradox”

Hochschild begins with a paradox observed by others before her. Many of the people who vote conservative could benefit from many of the liberal programs they oppose.

Across the country, red states are poorer and have more teen mothers, more divorce, worse health, more obesity, more trauma-related deaths, more low-birth-weight babies, and lower school enrollment. On average, people in red states die five years earlier than people in blue states….Red states suffer more in another highly important but little-known way, one that speaks to the very biological self-interest in health and life: industrial pollution.

This certainly holds true for Louisiana, which ranks among the worst states in the country for poverty rate, educational levels, income inequality, pollution, and many measures of health and well-being. And yet the majority of its citizens seem staunchly opposed to many government efforts to alleviate such conditions. Instead they support low-tax, low-regulation policies that seem to work to the main benefit of a wealthy minority.

Hochschild reviews some of the previous efforts to resolve the paradox and finds them unsatisfying. For example, in What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank suggested that wealthy conservatives trick people into voting conservative by using social issues like abortion and gay marriage as bait. Hochschild thinks it is too simple to regard people as gullible and misled, without considering how their votes express their deep convictions.

For Alec MacGillis in “Who Turned May Blue State Red,” it’s more a matter of who votes. The people who most need government assistance don’t vote enough, while the people who need it less vote against it. Hochschild’s hunch is that the paradox goes deeper. People really do vote against their own self-interest–at least economic self-interest–because of their deep emotional commitments.

Hochschild believed that the way to test her hunch against MacGillis’s was to study an issue that affected everybody in a state, even the affluent, and “to show they don’t want government help for that either.” The issue she needed was all around her in Louisiana, since “Lake Charles had become ground zero for production of American petrochemicals.” Now the paradox took the form of great pollution on the one hand, and great resistance to regulating polluters on the other. Many of the author’s subjects had experienced firsthand the terrible toll that hazardous waste disposal and other environmental problems were taking on their families and communities; yet they continued to support anti-environmentalist candidates.

The paradox went well beyond Louisiana. According to Hochschild’s analysis of survey data:

If, in 2010, you lived in a county with a higher exposure to toxic pollution, we discovered, you are more likely to believe that Americans “worry too much” about the environment and to believe that the United States is doing “more than enough” about it.

Red-state logic

Part of the reason sounds like economic self-interest, although it actually goes deeper than that. It is partly a matter of creating jobs:

The logic was this. The more oil, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more prosperity, and the less need for government aid. And the less the people depend on government —local, state, or federal—the better off they will be.

Carrying this one step further, the more state government has to spend on incentives and tax breaks for industry to bring in jobs, the less it has to spend on programs to help people or protect the environment. But then again, the hope is that people with jobs can take care of themselves.

The logic makes most sense to the people who actually do get high-paying jobs in the polluting industries, although they are a small percentage of the population. But when all the costs and benefits are added up, the wisdom of relying so heavily on petrochemicals is less clear. One expert Hochschild consulted argued that “the oil industry suppressed other lines of work, drew a third of revenue out [of the state], left pollution, and did nothing to resolved the many problems saddling the state.” The oil boom left the state’s poverty rate essentially unchanged.

The strategy of attracting jobs by offering corporations low taxes, weak regulation, and a low-wage non-unionized workforce has been called a “low-road” strategy. Apparently it isn’t the only strategy, since researchers have found that states with tougher environmental regulations have an even better record of job creation. One question the book does not try to answer is how feasible it would be for Louisiana to stop welcoming the polluters. States that are poor in financial and human capital, including workforces with limited education, have fewer choices. They may be at the mercy of companies that take much and give back little.

What the book does establish is that the red-state logic has become a deeply-held belief system. As one of the author’s interviewees, General Russel Honoré, put it, the people have become “captives of a psychological program.”

Emotional allegiances

Beliefs about jobs and the environment do not exist in isolation from other deeply-held beliefs. Conservatives put more faith in private enterprise to create the good society, while liberals put more faith in democratic government. Southern conservatives see the petrochemical industry as the latest goose to lay the golden eggs, hopefully replacing good jobs lost in the declining textile industry. For them, strict environmental regulation threatens to kill the goose.

Favoring business over government also has a deeper personal meaning. Business is associated with hard work, earnings, self-reliance, personal success and the ability to provide for one’s family. Government is associated with handouts, taxes, dependency, personal failure and family breakdown. Attitudes toward environmental regulation may reflect a much broader anti-government sentiment that goes beyond the alleged trade-off between the environment and jobs.

As a sociologist who has always been interested in the social construction of feelings, Hochschild looks for the deep, emotionally meaningful story that underlies seemingly non-rational behavior. That will be the topic of the next post.


Viking Economics (part 3)

June 28, 2017

Previous | Next

Even the wealthiest, most economically developed countries in the world face serious challenges in the years ahead. An important question for the future is whether a more egalitarian social system is an advantage in dealing with these challenges. If so, that makes the Nordic model even more relevant to current policy discussions.


In much of the developed world, globalization has benefited capital more than labor, as global corporations profit by offshoring work to cheaper sources of labor. Nordic countries have a long history of global trade. Countries like Norway “lacked the extensive land, abundant resources, and large population that enabled countries like the United States and Germany to generate robust, internally driven economies.” But Nordic countries also have a strong commitment to high employment and good wages. Can they sustain that in the global economy?

One way of reconciling an openness to foreign trade with a desire to protect domestic workers is a policy of “flexicurity,” a Dutch concept that has become central to economic policy in Denmark. “The Danes changed the social contract between the state and the workforce. Instead of guaranteeing workers their existing jobs, the government would guarantee workers ongoing support and retraining so they could get new jobs.” By providing the universal services of education, training and a strong social safety net, Nordic countries help their workers cope with a world of enhanced foreign competition.

Although immigration is a controversial issue almost everywhere, Nordic countries have also had the confidence to extend economic assistance to newcomers. Both Norway and Sweden have about a 14 percent foreign-born population, even a little higher than the US’s 13 percent. Norway will support immigrants for a year while they learn the language and culture and receive job training. “Norway is ranked number one among the twenty-seven richest countries for its policies on migration: acceptance of asylum-seekers and refugees, open borders to immigrants and students from developing countries, and friendly integration practices.”

That is not to say that conflict between immigrants and natives is nonexistent. Sweden has experienced youth riots in immigrant neighborhoods, especially during the period after the mid-1980s, when it was cutting public spending and allowing inequality to grow. In general, however, Lakey believes the Nordic model goes a long way to reduce social conflict. While American-style inequality “institutionalizes scarcity,” making people of different races and ethnicities compete for too few opportunities, the Nordic model:

generously funds agencies and programs that assist people who otherwise might lack opportunity. It seeks out barriers to advancement, such as burdens of childcare and dependent elders, and tries to alleviate those to free everyone to move ahead. By universalizing such programs, as well as health care, vacations, access to public transportation, and other enhancements that otherwise can become racialized for disadvantaged populations, the model carefully avoids setting categories of people against each other.

Of course, doing all these things is costly. But who can calculate the social and personal costs of our failure to do them?

Climate change

As I have argued elsewhere, environmental issues highlight the tension between private gain and public cost. Fossil fuels provide profits for producers and cheap energy for consumers, but their market success depends on not factoring in the social and environmental costs of climate change and other environmental damage. Renewable energy will become cheaper and more profitable over time, but the government may need to put a big thumb on the scale to discourage what is publicly dangerous and encourage what is publicly good as quickly as possible.

Because Nordic countries are more receptive to market interventions for the public good, they have generally been leaders in national and international action on climate change. Sweden, Denmark and Norway were among the first to impose taxes on carbon emissions, back in 1991. Denmark has been a world leader in wind power, because of national policies like incentives to form local wind energy co-ops. In 2013, Sweden was already getting over half of its energy from renewable sources, compared to an average of 15% in the European Union and even less in the U.S.

Norway is in an awkward position on climate change, because oil accounts for almost half of its exports. How much of the Arctic oil reserves it can actually develop without unacceptable environmental damage is a vital but unresolved question. On the other hand, Norway’s large public pension fund has divested from coal, as well as from Canadian tar sands oil. Norway also doubled its carbon tax in 2012 because the government wasn’t satisfied with the country’s rate of emission reductions.


Lakey does not discuss the potential impact of automation on employment, but it is a challenge that is receiving more and more attention. I recently reviewed Martin Ford’s Rise of the Robots, which warns of a “jobless future” for millions of workers whose jobs are vulnerable to automation. Ford and others envision an expansion of public welfare programs to support the jobless multitudes.

Lakey has described Nordic countries not as welfare states, but as “universal service states.” They place a strong emphasis on helping people to become productive citizens with good jobs. Does that make them more or less prepared to cope with a more automated economy?

In Parts 2 and 3 of my discussion of Ford’s book, I described my somewhat different vision of the future, emphasizing the transformation of work rather than just the elimination of jobs. I have no doubt that robots will take over many tasks that they can do more efficiently than humans. But as in the transition from farming to manufacturing in an earlier time, I would hope to see human labor shifted to new frontiers of economic activity, especially in the area of skilled personalized services. I would also like to see the extension of the twentieth-century trend of shortening the typical work week, which would have the effect of spreading the available work to more people. As the twentieth-century experience showed, fewer hours is compatible with high pay as long as workers have the skills and the technological support to achieve high productivity. That in turn depends on the development of human capital, which requires broad access to education, health care and other human services, industries that both create jobs and equip people to get jobs. Since the development of human potential is a public good that not every family is able to pay for, a strong public role in such areas as health insurance is called for. There is also a role for non-market work–labors of love if you like–which can flourish when people have the leisure to balance their work and family responsibilities and participate in volunteer work.

Although I hadn’t read Viking Economics when I developed these ideas, the Nordic model seems relevant to everything on my list. The same “flexicurity” policies that reduce fears of globalization can also reduce fears of automation. If you lose a job, you can expect help in finding and qualifying for a new one. The Nordic work week is already shorter than ours. The universal services model is more conducive to the development of human capital, and citizens are already accustomed to paying high taxes to support it. Finally, “Thanks to an economic model that fosters work/life balance, people have abundant time to volunteer in the community.” It’s a way of life that compares favorably to the American system, where workers cling to technologically and environmentally obsolete jobs like coal mining because they expect little help to become something new. We can do better.



Trump Rejects Global Cooperation on Climate Change

June 2, 2017

Previous | Next

Yesterday, President Trump announced his attention to withdraw from the Paris Accord on Climate Change. In doing so, he carried his nationalist, “America First” thinking to a new extreme.

The Paris Accord represented a breakthrough in international cooperation to address the most pressing global issue of our time, dramatic climate change due mainly to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Countries can continue to argue and negotiate over their relative contributions to a solution. But the important thing is that almost every country–Syria and Nicaragua were the exceptions–agreed to join in the effort, each setting targets for the reduction in fossil fuel emissions. Even if some of the targets were more ambitious than others, and some will not be met, the world will be better off because of the agreement. The United States can be proud of its leadership in bringing the nations of the world together in this cause.

Donald Trump views such agreements through the eyes of a businessman accustomed to driving hard bargains. Each deal is a zero-sum game, where each side’s gain is the other side’s loss. Trump’s speech reveals that he is narrowly focused on the costs to the American fossil fuel industry, not the benefits of controlling climate change or creating cleaner energy industries. That makes his economic analysis flawed from the start. He counts only jobs lost but not new jobs to be created. He claims that our large fossil fuel reserves are “sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty,” but fails to mention that developing those reserves would, according to scientists, send climate change out of control and produce dire economic consequences. New York’s attorney general is currently investigating the possibility that Exxon Mobil may be defrauding its investors by placing a higher public value on its reserves than it knows to be realistic.

Because he looks at the world from a narrow “America First” point of view, President Trump tries to minimize the American responsibility for the problem while placing as much blame as possible on poorer countries, especially China. True, China is currently the world biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but that’s partly because it’s so big, and it has only recently been developing its fossil fuels. China is only sixth in per-capita emissions, and it is now making large investments in clean energy. The United States is still first in per-capita emissions, and “with just over 4% of the world’s population, is responsible for almost a third of the excess carbon dioxide that is heating the planet” (New York Times). Developed areas like North America and Europe have been filling up the atmosphere with carbon emissions for a long time, while poorer countries have only joined them recently. It’s only fair that developed countries should lead the way in energy transformation, and they are starting to do so. But one reason they have been reducing emissions is that they have been exporting their problem by offshoring a lot of their manufacturing operations to poorer countries.

Trump claims that even without the accord, “the United States…will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally-friendly country on earth,” That is simply not true. An Environmental Performance Index developed at Yale ranks the United States 43rd in air quality, 22nd in clean water, and 44th in climate and energy policies. The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back environmental regulation certainly won’t help. But by denying we have a problem, Trump can claim that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the proposed solution. “The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” One could argue the opposite, that Trump is disadvantaging the U.S. by withdrawing from the fight for clean energy, which may allow countries like China to assume leadership in developing the industries of the future.

Trump is especially critical of the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations fund through which richer countries help poorer countries transition to cleaner energy. Without it, very poor countries like India say they cannot afford to leave their coal in the ground. Trump claims that the fund “is costing the United States a vast fortune.” In fact, we have pledged only $3 billion, about $10 for each American, which Trump now refuses to pay. But 5.5 trillion in proposed tax cuts? No problem.

Most experts believe that the world will continue to progress toward cleaner energy with or without the support of the U.S. government. But the pace of change is already too slow, and may now slow further. The world needs every country doing as much as it can to avoid a costly environmental disaster. The last thing it needs is the withdrawal of the United States from its longstanding role of international leader at this critical time.