The Nordhaus Racket

For a general discussion of topics relating broadly to power and political economy (e.g., capital-as-power, Marxism, neo-classical economics, institutionalism).

Moderator: sanha926

The Nordhaus Racket

Postby Jonathan Nitzan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:30 pm

The Nordhaus Racket: how to use capitalization to minimize the cost of climate change and win a Nobel for ‘sustainable growth’

By Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan
nordhaus_04.jpg
nordhaus_04.jpg (247.3 KiB) Viewed 944 times

In his 2007 ‘Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’, William D. Nordahus mocked Lord Nicolas Stern’s assumption of a low discount rate of 1.4%, suggesting we should instead discount the future by his favourite rate of 6%.

This modest suggestion to leverage the capitalization ritual in the name of profit and glory has helped investors minimize the apparent cost of climate change and Nordhaus win the Nobel Prize as the white knight of . . . ‘sustainable global economic growth’!

The gist of the racket:

The future of humanity

The all-encompassing role of discounting is most vividly illustrated by recent discussion of environmental change. One key issue is the process of global warming/dimming and what humanity should do about it. Supporters of immediate drastic action, such as Nicholas Stern, argue that there is no time to waste. According to The Economics of Climate Change (2007), the report produced by a review panel that he headed for the British Government, the world should invest heavily in trying to limit climate change: the cost of inaction could amount to a permanent 5–20 per cent reduction in global GDP (p. xv). But this conclusion is by no means obvious. Critics such as William Nordhaus (2007) argue against drastic actions. In their view, the overall cost of climate change may end up being negligible and the investment to avert it a colossal blunder.

The interesting thing about this debate – apart from the fact that it may affect the future of humanity – is that both sides base their argument on the very same model: capitalization. Climate change is likely to have multiple effects – some positive, most negative – and the question is how to discount them to their net present value. Part of the disagreement concerns the eventual consequences and how they should be priced relative to each other and in relation to other social outcomes. But the most heated debate rages over the discount rate. At what rate of return should the damage be capitalized?

One thousand dollars’ worth of environmental damage a hundred years from now, when discounted at 1.4 per cent, has a present value of –$249 (negative since we measure cost). This is the discount rate that led Stern to conclude that climate change would be enormously harmful, and that urgent action was needed. But the same one thousand dollars’ worth of damage, discounted at 6 per cent, has a present value of only –$3. This is the long-term discount rate that Nordhaus likes to use in his computations. It implies that the impact of climate change may end up being minimal, and so should the response be, at least for now.”

(Nitzan and Bichler, Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder, 2009, pp. 164-5).
Jonathan Nitzan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: The Nordhaus Racket

Postby blairfix » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:28 am

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is certainly a public relations coup d'état. It constantly frustrates me that science journalists cover the prize just like other Nobels.

For instance, the otherwise excellent sciencenews.org simply quotes the prize's press release:

Nordhaus and Romer “significantly broadened the scope of economic analysis by constructing models that explain how the market economy interacts with nature and knowledge

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/economics-climate-change-and-tech-innovation-win-us-pair-nobel

A more appropriate press release would have been:

Nordhaus and Romer have constructed models of how the market economy interacts with nature and knowledge. The models, however, are based on dubious assumptions. Therefore, the findings should be treated with appropriate scepticism. Because the models suggest that drastic action on climate change is not needed, they have gained popularity with certain factions of the population.
blairfix
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Nordhaus Racket

Postby blairfix » Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:06 am

Thankfully not everyone has drank the Nordhaus kool-aid:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
blairfix
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Nordhaus Racket

Postby Jonathan Nitzan » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:25 pm

We posted a longer blog entry on "The Nordhaus Racket".

RWER Blog:
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2018/11/05/t ... le-growth/

The Bichler and Nitzan Archives:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/562/
Jonathan Nitzan
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:39 pm


Return to Political Economy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron