from PERC.
"What if some of the most effective climate adaptation policies weren’t climate policies at all?
Esteban Rossi-Hansberg and
Klaus Desmet visited us this summer as
PERC Lone Mountain Fellows to explore two seemingly unrelated—and often unrecognized—methods of climate adaptation: free trade and migration.
We asked Rossi-Hansberg, an economist at Princeton University, and Desmet, an economist at Southern Methodist University, about
their research and its potential influence on current policy debates over climate change.
Q:
We don’t often think of climate adaptation this way, but you argue that
free trade and migration can be important tools to allow us to adapt to
climate change. First, why is free trade so important for climate
adaptation?
A: If you are a
wine grower, climate change will affect you more in southern Spain,
where temperatures are already quite extreme, than on the Oregon coast,
where the climate is much milder. So as global temperatures rise, we
expect trade patterns to shift. As some places become too warm to
produce wine, other locations will become more suitable for grape
production. In a world with trade, where we don’t all need to grow our
own vegetables in our backyard, there is no reason why people cannot
prosper in the middle of the desert. Between 2000 and 2010, one of the
fastest-growing cities in the United States was Las Vegas. Such growth
would have been unthinkable if all of the city’s food had to be sourced
locally.
Q: What about free migration? Why is it so important for climate adaptation?
A:
Migration would not be much help if the entire world loses from climate
change. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts
that by 2100 temperatures will increase by about 2 degrees Celsius at
the Equator and by about 6 degrees at the North Pole. While this could
spell disaster for some tropical regions, it will bring advantages to
places farther north, such as Canada and Siberia. These areas have the
additional advantage of being thinly populated, so in principle free
migration should be able to solve many of the problems derived from
rising temperatures.
Q: What would we expect the
effects of future climate change to be in a world with free trade and
free migration, compared to a world in which there is less trade and
migration?
A: In our research
we have developed an economic model of the world that allows us to
analyze both the local and the global effects of climate change. We find
that rising temperatures would essentially have no effect on economic
welfare in a world with free migration and free trade. In contrast, in a
world where no one is allowed to move, the cost would rise to about 5
percent of world GDP, with some regions of the world suffering huge
losses of more than 20 percent.
Q: What are some of the dynamics between the human economy and physical climate that you are accounting for in your work?
A:
Economic activity generates emissions, which in turn lead to rising
temperatures. Global warming affects economic production, but its
impacts differ across sectors and space. Growing crops is more sensitive
to temperature than assembling cars, and an increase in temperatures
may lower crop yields in the Congo but increase them in Canada. As a
result, climate change will affect not just specialization and trade
patterns but also the spatial distribution of people and economic
activity. That, in turn, will have a profound impact on the geography of
innovation, as well as on local and global economic growth. In our
work, we model and quantify these links.
Q: There are major obstacles to free migration today. So how likely is it to be an effective strategy?
A:
We live in a world with political borders, visa requirements, and
migration restrictions. At first sight this appears to be a major
obstacle. But we should remember that climate change is a slow-moving
process. Yes, over the next 200 years the distribution of population
across the globe will look quite different if we are to adapt to climate
change. However, because the process is so gradual, we are unlikely to
see massive movements of people over short periods of time.
This
makes migration as a way of adapting to climate change more politically
feasible than we might think. After all, if instead of looking 200
years into the future, we go 200 years backward, the distribution of
population across the globe looked quite different than it does today.
In 1800, only 3 percent of the world’s population lived in the Americas,
compared to 14 percent today, whereas Europe’s share declined from 21
percent to 12 percent. Of course, the past need not predict the future.
One obvious difference is that the world’s population has increased
six-fold in the last two centuries. Although that might make it harder
to move people, it is worth remembering that 70 percent of the world’s
population lives on only 10 percent of the land. So there continues to
be plenty of unpopulated land available in northern latitudes that could
be put to productive use.
Q: How do you see
recent issues relating to global migration—from European countries'
mixed response to refugees coming into the European Union, to a newly
elected U.S. president pledging to build a border wall, to a Brexit vote
fueled partly by anti-immigration sentiments—affecting our ability to
adapt to climate change?
A:
The political debate on immigration is understandably dominated by
short-sighted concerns. In the short run, immigration may bring a
certain degree of economic, social, and cultural turmoil. Workers in the
United States worry their jobs will go to newcomers, Brexiteers are
concerned about the strain migrants from the rest of the European Union
put on the social welfare state, and Europe debates about the loss of
its cultural identity. In the long run, however, countries that accept
more immigrants expand the size of their local markets, which ends up
being a powerful driver of innovation. Our research shows that freer
migration has enormous long-run benefits for economic growth in the
United States and Europe. It would be foolish to shut our borders. Doing
so would not only limit our ability to adapt to climate change, it
would also sow the seeds of our long-run economic decline.
Q:
You've argued that the world has seen climate change before and people
have taken measures to adapt to these changes. When and how did these
adaptations happen?
A: During
the Medieval Warm Period from the 9th to the 14th century, world
temperatures increased about 1 degree Celsius. This had a profound
impact on both trade patterns and population movements. During that
period there were vineyards as far north as southern Norway, and there
is evidence of long-distance trade across the Arctic. Scandinavia’s
population grew, and the Vikings ventured to new lands, colonizing
Iceland, Greenland, and the coast of Newfoundland.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.