What do you think?
Rate this book
The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World
The 2018 Nobel laureate for economics analyzes the politics and economics of the central environmental issue of today and points the way to real solutions Climate change is profoundly altering our world in ways that pose major risks to human societies and natural systems. We have entered the Climate Casino and are rolling the global-warming dice, warns economist William Nordhaus. But there is still time to turn around and walk back out of the casino, and in this essential book the author explains how. Bringing together all the important issues surrounding the climate debate, Nordhaus describes the science, economics, and politics involved—and the steps necessary to reduce the perils of global warming. Using language accessible to any concerned citizen and taking care to present different points of view fairly, he discusses the problem from start to finish: from the beginning, where warming originates in our personal energy use, to the end, where societies employ regulations or taxes or subsidies to slow the emissions of gases responsible for climate change. Nordhaus offers a new analysis of why earlier policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, failed to slow carbon dioxide emissions, how new approaches can succeed, and which policy tools will most effectively reduce emissions. In short, he clarifies a defining problem of our times and lays out the next critical steps for slowing the trajectory of global warming.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
189 people are currently reading
2078 people want to read
About the author
William D. Nordhaus
69 books75 followersWilliam Dawbney Nordhaus is an American economist and Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, best known for his work in economic modelling and climate change.
He is one of the laureates of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Nordhaus received the prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".
He studied at Yale University and completed his PhD in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been associated with Yale University since 1967 and a professor there since 1973. He has been a member of the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity since 1972, and from 1977 to 1979 he was an economic advisor to President Jimmy Carter’s administration.
William Nordhaus’ findings deal with interactions between society, the economy and climate change. In the mid-1990s, he created a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. Nordhaus’ model is used to examine the consequences of climate policy interventions, for example carbon taxes.
He is one of the laureates of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Nordhaus received the prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".
He studied at Yale University and completed his PhD in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been associated with Yale University since 1967 and a professor there since 1973. He has been a member of the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity since 1972, and from 1977 to 1979 he was an economic advisor to President Jimmy Carter’s administration.
William Nordhaus’ findings deal with interactions between society, the economy and climate change. In the mid-1990s, he created a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. Nordhaus’ model is used to examine the consequences of climate policy interventions, for example carbon taxes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
December 10, 2014
This is a good but problematic book. Everyone concerned about climate change should be aware of it and the ideas it has, but some of these ideas are flawed, most notably what Nordhaus says about economic growth. What follows is my lengthy commentary.
The world has serious problems, such as climate change, peak oil, and resource depletion generally. Economists should be leading the charge on these types of issues, but except for the very few “ecological economists,” like Herman Daly, they say increasingly strange things about a parallel world which seems to have only a tangential relationship to the one in which we actually live.
A case in point is the recent book The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World(2013) by William Nordhaus. His book is quite insightful on several levels. The Climate Casino is a disturbing book, but unfortunately some of what makes it disturbing is not intentional on the part of the author.
On the positive side, his book is accessible to a reasonably smart person without any special technical knowledge. He believes that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. He discusses “tipping points” in the climate that could dramatically escalate the impact of climate change. Another key point is that without international cooperation, dealing with climate change is much more difficult, if not impossible: “If you really thought that only half of all countries would participate [in a climate change pact], then aiming for [a maximum warming of] 2 degrees C is like hoping you can take Amtrak to the moon” (p. 218). It’s also impressive that he discusses the intricacies of negotiating a climate agreement across international boundaries, and in the face of intense partisan politics.
So this is by no means a useless book. But there are a number of very serious problems with his approach. Here are some issues:
1. Limits to Growth. The author doesn’t understand that there are basic limits on human activity, and that we’ve pretty much run into the limits to growth. He doesn’t really argue this point; he, like most other mainstream economists, just assumes that the economy is going to get a whole lot bigger. In fact, the economy is going to be so much bigger, that future economic growth is going to help pay for the costs of dealing with climate change.
For Nordhaus, the economy of tomorrow is going to be vastly bigger than today’s economy. Over the next half century to a century, poor and middle-income countries will improve 500% to 1000% (p. 145). On p. 80, he presents a chart which shows that the AVERAGE world per capita income will be $55,000 in 2100, and $130,000 in 2200, whereas today it is less than $10,000. This means that the typical citizen of Chad or Somalia will, in 2200, have a better standard of living than I do today in the U. S. A. Even without factoring in population increases (9 billion? 12 billion?), this means the economy will be OVER 10 times bigger than it is today.
Nordhaus says: “This sounds like a fantasy, but it is the result of exponential growth of living standards” (p. 81).
Really?
Nordhaus is relying on future economic growth to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need some sort of explanation here. Most likely, it sounds like a fantasy because it is a fantasy. On the face of it, if the economy increases by a factor of 10, energy use will need to increase by a factor of 10, or perhaps (with hugely increased efficiency) an increase of a mere 3, 5, or 8 times over what we now use. Are we going to be burning 3, 5, 8, or 10 times the coal and oil that we now use? Or throw up huge quantities of solar panels and wind turbines? Or “decarbonize” the economy so that most of our wealth is going into things like poetry readings, massage therapy, or teaching?
Anyone who has been keeping up with the news knows that energy has become hugely more expensive in the past couple of decades; oil increased in price eight-fold between 1998 and 2013. Despite these huge increases in price, we have had only a slight increase in oil supplies, at a huge environmental cost as well (think Alberta tar sands, think Gulf oil spill).
Excuse me? Is this what economic growth is going to look like? Most likely, peak oil will occur fairly soon, and even maintaining the energy status quo will become quite difficult. Increasing energy supplies by a factor of 10, or even 3, needs some kind of explanation.
2. “No growth” alternatives. Nordhaus briefly considers a “no growth” alternative in trying to understand approaches to climate change. He acknowledges that the “no growth” alternative would have comparatively much lower greenhouse gas emissions(!), but feels that this is not acceptable because it would leave billions of people mired in poverty. The only way out for the poverty-stricken masses, he suggests, is through economic growth.
Nordhaus has completely distorted ecological economics. “No-growth,” Nordhaus says, means “no new or improved products or processes—no growth in total factor productivity, to use the economist’s technical language” (p. 81). Nordhaus footnotes prominent ecological economist Herman Daly, but it’s fairly clear that he has not read Daly.
Daly specifically rejects this concept of a “no growth” economy. Daly says:
- - - - -
We define growth as an increase in throughput, which is the flow of natural resources from the environment, through the economy, and back to the environment as waste. . . . While growth must end, this in no way implies an end to development, which we define as qualitative change, realization of potential, evolution toward an improved, but not larger, structure or system. (Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, Daly and Farley, p. 6, italics added).
Ecological economics does not call for an end to economic development, merely to physical growth. (Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, p. 64, italics added)
- - - - -
The ecological economists clearly distinguish between productivity gains and total physical throughput. Total physical throughput is the problem. If you can make the economy bigger without increasing total physical quantities of materials and energy used, then hooray and more power to you.
3. Economic redistribution. Nordhaus sees economic growth as the only way to get the world’s poor out of poverty. If Nordhaus had bothered to read Daly any further, he would have also seen that another key point of the ecological economists is that we need to redistribute the wealth. A lot of poverty in the world is simply due to the oppressive and increasing inequality. It is manifestly not the case that our only means to deal with poverty is to increase the size of the economy. We could redistribute some of the wealth out of the hands of the super-rich and give the poverty-stricken masses a stake in saving the planet.
4. Dealing with the climate in a declining economy. The really challenging problem — and one which I would much prefer to see economists address — is how to deal with climate change in a world of declining resources, instead of just assuming that economic growth will solve everything.
It’s not impossible. When there is general recognition of a crisis situation, as when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the nation can rise to the occasion. A crisis will be needed to mobilize the country, but that will probably come soon enough. When resource depletion starts to bite and the economy starts to tank again, as it did in 2008, there will be a good opportunity to address the underlying problems.
We need to embrace limits rather than run from them. We will need to have buy-in from the lower classes, and that means income redistribution on a fairly massive scale. If there is assurance that our society will support those at the bottom — that we will not simply turn the poor into the homeless, as we are doing today — then it makes sense to ask people for wide-ranging changes in society and culture.
One effective way of combating climate change which will actually improve the economy is to eliminate livestock agriculture. Livestock agriculture is responsible for over half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Much of climate change is due to the radical changes in land use we have seen in the 20th century. The whole balance between plants (which respire oxygen) and animals (which respire carbon dioxide) has been upset, and the plant-animal imbalance is now responsible for a significant surplus of carbon dioxide. On top of that, all those cows are producing methane, a significant greenhouse gas. Switching away from livestock agriculture will substantially reduce medical expenses by removing the number one cause of disease in the Western world and a significant burden of society’s expenses.
To really fight this thing we are going to need the maximum contribution of ideas and energy. This is where economists should come in, but it looks like they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you are relying on economic growth to pay for climate change, then your plan is fundamentally flawed.
The world has serious problems, such as climate change, peak oil, and resource depletion generally. Economists should be leading the charge on these types of issues, but except for the very few “ecological economists,” like Herman Daly, they say increasingly strange things about a parallel world which seems to have only a tangential relationship to the one in which we actually live.
A case in point is the recent book The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World(2013) by William Nordhaus. His book is quite insightful on several levels. The Climate Casino is a disturbing book, but unfortunately some of what makes it disturbing is not intentional on the part of the author.
On the positive side, his book is accessible to a reasonably smart person without any special technical knowledge. He believes that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. He discusses “tipping points” in the climate that could dramatically escalate the impact of climate change. Another key point is that without international cooperation, dealing with climate change is much more difficult, if not impossible: “If you really thought that only half of all countries would participate [in a climate change pact], then aiming for [a maximum warming of] 2 degrees C is like hoping you can take Amtrak to the moon” (p. 218). It’s also impressive that he discusses the intricacies of negotiating a climate agreement across international boundaries, and in the face of intense partisan politics.
So this is by no means a useless book. But there are a number of very serious problems with his approach. Here are some issues:
1. Limits to Growth. The author doesn’t understand that there are basic limits on human activity, and that we’ve pretty much run into the limits to growth. He doesn’t really argue this point; he, like most other mainstream economists, just assumes that the economy is going to get a whole lot bigger. In fact, the economy is going to be so much bigger, that future economic growth is going to help pay for the costs of dealing with climate change.
For Nordhaus, the economy of tomorrow is going to be vastly bigger than today’s economy. Over the next half century to a century, poor and middle-income countries will improve 500% to 1000% (p. 145). On p. 80, he presents a chart which shows that the AVERAGE world per capita income will be $55,000 in 2100, and $130,000 in 2200, whereas today it is less than $10,000. This means that the typical citizen of Chad or Somalia will, in 2200, have a better standard of living than I do today in the U. S. A. Even without factoring in population increases (9 billion? 12 billion?), this means the economy will be OVER 10 times bigger than it is today.
Nordhaus says: “This sounds like a fantasy, but it is the result of exponential growth of living standards” (p. 81).
Really?
Nordhaus is relying on future economic growth to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need some sort of explanation here. Most likely, it sounds like a fantasy because it is a fantasy. On the face of it, if the economy increases by a factor of 10, energy use will need to increase by a factor of 10, or perhaps (with hugely increased efficiency) an increase of a mere 3, 5, or 8 times over what we now use. Are we going to be burning 3, 5, 8, or 10 times the coal and oil that we now use? Or throw up huge quantities of solar panels and wind turbines? Or “decarbonize” the economy so that most of our wealth is going into things like poetry readings, massage therapy, or teaching?
Anyone who has been keeping up with the news knows that energy has become hugely more expensive in the past couple of decades; oil increased in price eight-fold between 1998 and 2013. Despite these huge increases in price, we have had only a slight increase in oil supplies, at a huge environmental cost as well (think Alberta tar sands, think Gulf oil spill).
Excuse me? Is this what economic growth is going to look like? Most likely, peak oil will occur fairly soon, and even maintaining the energy status quo will become quite difficult. Increasing energy supplies by a factor of 10, or even 3, needs some kind of explanation.
2. “No growth” alternatives. Nordhaus briefly considers a “no growth” alternative in trying to understand approaches to climate change. He acknowledges that the “no growth” alternative would have comparatively much lower greenhouse gas emissions(!), but feels that this is not acceptable because it would leave billions of people mired in poverty. The only way out for the poverty-stricken masses, he suggests, is through economic growth.
Nordhaus has completely distorted ecological economics. “No-growth,” Nordhaus says, means “no new or improved products or processes—no growth in total factor productivity, to use the economist’s technical language” (p. 81). Nordhaus footnotes prominent ecological economist Herman Daly, but it’s fairly clear that he has not read Daly.
Daly specifically rejects this concept of a “no growth” economy. Daly says:
- - - - -
We define growth as an increase in throughput, which is the flow of natural resources from the environment, through the economy, and back to the environment as waste. . . . While growth must end, this in no way implies an end to development, which we define as qualitative change, realization of potential, evolution toward an improved, but not larger, structure or system. (Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, Daly and Farley, p. 6, italics added).
Ecological economics does not call for an end to economic development, merely to physical growth. (Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications, p. 64, italics added)
- - - - -
The ecological economists clearly distinguish between productivity gains and total physical throughput. Total physical throughput is the problem. If you can make the economy bigger without increasing total physical quantities of materials and energy used, then hooray and more power to you.
3. Economic redistribution. Nordhaus sees economic growth as the only way to get the world’s poor out of poverty. If Nordhaus had bothered to read Daly any further, he would have also seen that another key point of the ecological economists is that we need to redistribute the wealth. A lot of poverty in the world is simply due to the oppressive and increasing inequality. It is manifestly not the case that our only means to deal with poverty is to increase the size of the economy. We could redistribute some of the wealth out of the hands of the super-rich and give the poverty-stricken masses a stake in saving the planet.
4. Dealing with the climate in a declining economy. The really challenging problem — and one which I would much prefer to see economists address — is how to deal with climate change in a world of declining resources, instead of just assuming that economic growth will solve everything.
It’s not impossible. When there is general recognition of a crisis situation, as when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the nation can rise to the occasion. A crisis will be needed to mobilize the country, but that will probably come soon enough. When resource depletion starts to bite and the economy starts to tank again, as it did in 2008, there will be a good opportunity to address the underlying problems.
We need to embrace limits rather than run from them. We will need to have buy-in from the lower classes, and that means income redistribution on a fairly massive scale. If there is assurance that our society will support those at the bottom — that we will not simply turn the poor into the homeless, as we are doing today — then it makes sense to ask people for wide-ranging changes in society and culture.
One effective way of combating climate change which will actually improve the economy is to eliminate livestock agriculture. Livestock agriculture is responsible for over half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Much of climate change is due to the radical changes in land use we have seen in the 20th century. The whole balance between plants (which respire oxygen) and animals (which respire carbon dioxide) has been upset, and the plant-animal imbalance is now responsible for a significant surplus of carbon dioxide. On top of that, all those cows are producing methane, a significant greenhouse gas. Switching away from livestock agriculture will substantially reduce medical expenses by removing the number one cause of disease in the Western world and a significant burden of society’s expenses.
To really fight this thing we are going to need the maximum contribution of ideas and energy. This is where economists should come in, but it looks like they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you are relying on economic growth to pay for climate change, then your plan is fundamentally flawed.
April 15, 2021
In The Climate Casino, economist William Nordhaus considers how we should respond to climate change according to economics.
The first policy recommendation of the book is a carbon tax. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, especially CO2, but no one pays for the consequences of putting carbon in the atmosphere--as far as economics is concerned, it's an externality. Nordhaus wants to impose a carbon tax to make fossil fuels more expensive. This should limit consumption and make alternative energy more affordable relative to fossil fuels.
But the second idea here is that a tax would help us to more accurately assign value to the planet, ecosystems, forests, ocean currents, species, atmospheric temperatures, etc. Nordhaus wants to tone down the emotional rhetoric and focus on the numbers. If the Arctic melts, for example, but if we also produce economic growth relative to costs incurred by climate change, that's a win. (Northern countries like Canada, Denmark, Norway, the USA, and Russia are betting on that win now because the Arctic covers a lot of fossil fuels.) If forests are cut down and the species that rely on them for a habitat go extinct, that's a win so long as we assign those species low value relative to the profits of the lumber company. There's a danger that people will perform the analysis Nordhaus does and conclude that they, at least, will come out ahead. (I suspect that these costs are almost always estimated too conservatively.)
I am not a huge fan of this economic analysis, which is not to say I dismiss it entirely. While I find Nordhaus's willingness as an economist to study climate change unusual and therefore admirable, it is disturbing to look at the planet in economic terms alone. Fossil fuel extraction is very profitable, and it's not easy to imagine governments ever deciding to significantly reduce fossil fuel profits in order to save pretty much anything. I further wonder about the economic framing. Let's imagine rising sea levels threaten the lives of potentially millions of people. If their homes are in an impoverished country, their loss doesn't count as much as the loss of a home of someone living in Miami because the global economy will not be affected as severely. Am I being naive to point out that something important is missing in this analysis?
The discourse on this subject would be much easier if conservatives could get past obnoxious denial and recognize that Nordhaus has presented a conservative idea based on markets as opposed to a leftist idea (i.e. limiting and regulating production). Sigh. But it's not as though liberals have leapt at every opportunity to act, even if I would expect things like adopting a vegetarian diet or driving a hybrid or electric car to correlate with liberal attitudes. I note that Washington (state) voted down its carbon tax proposal. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has made some noise about carbon tax, I rarely hear people cheering about it. To some extent, I worry that George Monbiot is correct when he writes:
Nordhaus's contribution here is to note that nobody really wants to give up a ton to deal with climate change. A carbon tax is helpful because it forces people to put up the money to release carbon into the atmosphere. But he acknowledges that, on the international stage, it has become a prisoner's dilemma. (*Update* David Roberts of Vox has convincingly argued that although liberals don't always leap at the chance to act, the only productive response to climate change in the liberal democracies has come from left leaning governments.)
Finally, the overview of climate science is actually quite good--one of the best I've so far encountered in one of these climate-change-for-a-popular-audience books. Nordhaus goes over the greenhouse effect, tipping points, and geoengineering--pretty standard. But he also introduces, explains, and summarizes various climate models. He explains what a model is, something these books far too rarely do given that models are responsible for our projections, and there are plenty of charts showing what these models reveal. At the end of the day, I wouldn't recommend Climate Casino alone to readers looking to learn about climate change. But I do recommend it.
**Update** Nordhaus's climate model had begun reporting that the economically profitable path would be to let the planet warm 3.5 Celsius. That now appears to be a weak position (hardly shocking, imho, as we tend to underestimate cost on this issue). See "Climate Economics Support for UN Climate Targets," published in Nature Climate Change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
**Update 2021** Noah Smith offers a useful, though mostly critical, overview of climate economics, including of Nordhaus. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why...
The first policy recommendation of the book is a carbon tax. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, especially CO2, but no one pays for the consequences of putting carbon in the atmosphere--as far as economics is concerned, it's an externality. Nordhaus wants to impose a carbon tax to make fossil fuels more expensive. This should limit consumption and make alternative energy more affordable relative to fossil fuels.
But the second idea here is that a tax would help us to more accurately assign value to the planet, ecosystems, forests, ocean currents, species, atmospheric temperatures, etc. Nordhaus wants to tone down the emotional rhetoric and focus on the numbers. If the Arctic melts, for example, but if we also produce economic growth relative to costs incurred by climate change, that's a win. (Northern countries like Canada, Denmark, Norway, the USA, and Russia are betting on that win now because the Arctic covers a lot of fossil fuels.) If forests are cut down and the species that rely on them for a habitat go extinct, that's a win so long as we assign those species low value relative to the profits of the lumber company. There's a danger that people will perform the analysis Nordhaus does and conclude that they, at least, will come out ahead. (I suspect that these costs are almost always estimated too conservatively.)
I am not a huge fan of this economic analysis, which is not to say I dismiss it entirely. While I find Nordhaus's willingness as an economist to study climate change unusual and therefore admirable, it is disturbing to look at the planet in economic terms alone. Fossil fuel extraction is very profitable, and it's not easy to imagine governments ever deciding to significantly reduce fossil fuel profits in order to save pretty much anything. I further wonder about the economic framing. Let's imagine rising sea levels threaten the lives of potentially millions of people. If their homes are in an impoverished country, their loss doesn't count as much as the loss of a home of someone living in Miami because the global economy will not be affected as severely. Am I being naive to point out that something important is missing in this analysis?
The discourse on this subject would be much easier if conservatives could get past obnoxious denial and recognize that Nordhaus has presented a conservative idea based on markets as opposed to a leftist idea (i.e. limiting and regulating production). Sigh. But it's not as though liberals have leapt at every opportunity to act, even if I would expect things like adopting a vegetarian diet or driving a hybrid or electric car to correlate with liberal attitudes. I note that Washington (state) voted down its carbon tax proposal. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has made some noise about carbon tax, I rarely hear people cheering about it. To some extent, I worry that George Monbiot is correct when he writes:
"But the thought that worries me most is this. As people in the rich countries--even the professional classes--begin to wake up to what the science is saying, climate-change denial will look as stupid as Holocaust denial, or the insistence that AIDS can be cured with beetroot. But our response will be to demand that the government acts, while hoping it doesn't. We will wish our governments to pretend to act. We get the moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the discomfort of doing it.
Nordhaus's contribution here is to note that nobody really wants to give up a ton to deal with climate change. A carbon tax is helpful because it forces people to put up the money to release carbon into the atmosphere. But he acknowledges that, on the international stage, it has become a prisoner's dilemma. (*Update* David Roberts of Vox has convincingly argued that although liberals don't always leap at the chance to act, the only productive response to climate change in the liberal democracies has come from left leaning governments.)
Finally, the overview of climate science is actually quite good--one of the best I've so far encountered in one of these climate-change-for-a-popular-audience books. Nordhaus goes over the greenhouse effect, tipping points, and geoengineering--pretty standard. But he also introduces, explains, and summarizes various climate models. He explains what a model is, something these books far too rarely do given that models are responsible for our projections, and there are plenty of charts showing what these models reveal. At the end of the day, I wouldn't recommend Climate Casino alone to readers looking to learn about climate change. But I do recommend it.
**Update** Nordhaus's climate model had begun reporting that the economically profitable path would be to let the planet warm 3.5 Celsius. That now appears to be a weak position (hardly shocking, imho, as we tend to underestimate cost on this issue). See "Climate Economics Support for UN Climate Targets," published in Nature Climate Change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
**Update 2021** Noah Smith offers a useful, though mostly critical, overview of climate economics, including of Nordhaus. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why...
March 2, 2019
For those who actually want to change the world instead of just complaining about environmental politics.
William Nordhaus takes a very objective approach to the science, economics and politics of climate change in a very easy to read way and good figures that illustrate the trends of our climate and impacts of human activity.
This book is from 2013, and many developments have been made since then, including the Paris Climate Agreement which would come as a surprise for Nordhaus following his belief that uniting countries under such an agreement would be a very remote possibility (though Trump might prove him right after all). This makes the book feel a little bit outdated to read now, but for sure motivates me to keep an eye on his more recent research in this field.
Even being a 6-year-old book, it still carries very important information trying to lead the reader through the cycle of anthropogenic global warming - how we do it, what it does to the environment, what does the environment does to us in return, and what can we do to stop this.
For those searching more about the science around climate change, they will not find that knowledge in this book, and it's advised searching elsewhere.
William Nordhaus takes a very objective approach to the science, economics and politics of climate change in a very easy to read way and good figures that illustrate the trends of our climate and impacts of human activity.
This book is from 2013, and many developments have been made since then, including the Paris Climate Agreement which would come as a surprise for Nordhaus following his belief that uniting countries under such an agreement would be a very remote possibility (though Trump might prove him right after all). This makes the book feel a little bit outdated to read now, but for sure motivates me to keep an eye on his more recent research in this field.
Even being a 6-year-old book, it still carries very important information trying to lead the reader through the cycle of anthropogenic global warming - how we do it, what it does to the environment, what does the environment does to us in return, and what can we do to stop this.
For those searching more about the science around climate change, they will not find that knowledge in this book, and it's advised searching elsewhere.
July 28, 2015
I think this is a very solid intro to some of the challenges surrounding dealing with climate change, but it has some flaws. The biggest issue with it is really just that it's not capable of changing minds, though Nordhaus is very upfront about that in the beginning. But I think a bigger concern is just that it feels too abbreviated - on the one hand, he covers all the major territory and brings in a lot of ideas, but too often (particularly in areas involving skepticism about the science and everything to do with adaptation) he glosses over some areas where a quick rebuttal would be better. Obviously the other major issue is just that he's an economist and is in crazy love with carbon taxes, although after totally biffing on a section on transportation policy (seriously, he gets it wrong in a bunch of different ways) he ends up rounding out the chapter discussing how some of these non-ideal policies might actually be a productive (albeit flawed and insufficient) way of going about things.
I want this book to better because it's got a lot of good points to it. I think it makes a lot of the best arguments of the Skeptical Environmentalist but put in a more accurate and realistic picture. But the flaws really hurt its ability to change minds, even those who might be more open than the crazy conservative skeptics. I feel like too often he's too close to his argument and doesn't realize where it needs to be made more compelling, and that's kind of the fault of an editor. He also doesn't get the arguments around wildlife and ecosystem services right at all, which is a little frustrating. Similarly, the behavioral econ was only touched upon, and I think that is the sort of discussion that can undermine his major policy desire (carbon tax), so I wish maybe it had eeked through a bit more.
It's interesting to note that some people complained about the number of charts/graphs because they are very simple and illustrative, and if you're interested in reading about this issue from an economist, you should obviously be capable of dealing with them. And I think if you do have an open mind but want to think more about how one balances policy decisions in this area, this is definitely a book worth reading. But I just don't know that it is going to change anything.
I want this book to better because it's got a lot of good points to it. I think it makes a lot of the best arguments of the Skeptical Environmentalist but put in a more accurate and realistic picture. But the flaws really hurt its ability to change minds, even those who might be more open than the crazy conservative skeptics. I feel like too often he's too close to his argument and doesn't realize where it needs to be made more compelling, and that's kind of the fault of an editor. He also doesn't get the arguments around wildlife and ecosystem services right at all, which is a little frustrating. Similarly, the behavioral econ was only touched upon, and I think that is the sort of discussion that can undermine his major policy desire (carbon tax), so I wish maybe it had eeked through a bit more.
It's interesting to note that some people complained about the number of charts/graphs because they are very simple and illustrative, and if you're interested in reading about this issue from an economist, you should obviously be capable of dealing with them. And I think if you do have an open mind but want to think more about how one balances policy decisions in this area, this is definitely a book worth reading. But I just don't know that it is going to change anything.
November 5, 2018
Having just been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics, William Nordhaus undoubtedly has a very good reputation in the field of economics. However, as an author, and as a scientist, he definitely shows off his weak sides to the reader.
He makes very good arguments for global climate change taking front seat in the survival of the world, and primarily on the cost of that change, primarily having to do with the rise of CO2 in the environment.
Two serious problems with the book: 1. He repeats the information ad nauseam to the point of being difficult to keep the reader's interest; 2. Some of the suggestions for reducing the CO2 in the environment are scientifically nonsense. Not poorly stated, but seriously wrong.
Not a book I would recommend for either people interested in economics or global climate change.
He makes very good arguments for global climate change taking front seat in the survival of the world, and primarily on the cost of that change, primarily having to do with the rise of CO2 in the environment.
Two serious problems with the book: 1. He repeats the information ad nauseam to the point of being difficult to keep the reader's interest; 2. Some of the suggestions for reducing the CO2 in the environment are scientifically nonsense. Not poorly stated, but seriously wrong.
Not a book I would recommend for either people interested in economics or global climate change.
April 1, 2021
4'5/5.
Se puede hacer algo denso y complicado por las gráficas y los datos económicos si no estás acostumbradx a ellos, pero al final del libro todo el mensaje, análisis y propuestas del autor quedan muy claros. Me parece un libro necesario, si bien no estoy de acuerdo al 100% en todo lo que plantea, porque hace un estudio de la realidad del clima desde la ciencia, la economía, la política y la opinión pública muy práctico y del que se pueden extraer ideas muy importantes y útiles. Creo que habría que darle más importancia a libros de este estilo, porque acercan al público las realidades sobre el cambio climático de una forma accesible y que permite comprender cuál es la situación, los retos y los peligros.
Se puede hacer algo denso y complicado por las gráficas y los datos económicos si no estás acostumbradx a ellos, pero al final del libro todo el mensaje, análisis y propuestas del autor quedan muy claros. Me parece un libro necesario, si bien no estoy de acuerdo al 100% en todo lo que plantea, porque hace un estudio de la realidad del clima desde la ciencia, la economía, la política y la opinión pública muy práctico y del que se pueden extraer ideas muy importantes y útiles. Creo que habría que darle más importancia a libros de este estilo, porque acercan al público las realidades sobre el cambio climático de una forma accesible y que permite comprender cuál es la situación, los retos y los peligros.
August 7, 2019
I don’t like the style. I hoped for a good argument for climate change, I'm disappointed. The positive thing is that the book acknowlafges limitations of science (in one chapters, not in all). Athor present intersting and wide view on topic and insights beyond common knowledge. Unfortunately the book lacks sensible refutations of contrarians. The arguments have logical flaws and often turn out to say that “because science”. Author abuses all forms of word sobering.
November 15, 2019
An excellent book on Climate Change. Not quite new but explains the economist view on Climate Change in a way accessible to an educated reader. I am not 100% convinced on everything - my priorities are higher on protecting ecosystems than optimizing the well-being of other people. But I highly appreciate the intellectual honesty of Nordhaus.
It is that kind of a book that creates the feeling "where can I read more on this".
It is that kind of a book that creates the feeling "where can I read more on this".
September 22, 2014
This was an economics treatment of climate change when the real problem is one of science and belief, not economics.
September 1, 2019
If you are already convinced that climate change is real and worry about it, this book is not for you, mostly. It's for politicians. There are some interesting data and details though.
March 15, 2022
This book is the best book on climate change that I've read so far and probably is going to be my "book of the year" (I know it's still too early too tell but this book is so good I have the confidence to say so).
First of all, if you love facts, numbers and figures like I do, than this book is a must. The author is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics. He's among the first that examine the economic consequences of climate change. Like I said, the arguments are written with facts and the author tries to write it as objectively as possible: no exaggeration, no scaremongering, and at the same time does not try to tone down the potential catastrophe caused by climate change.
He starts with scientific facts by the variables used to measure climate change as well as other externalities that are difficult to measure such as biodiversity. Then the book shows methods and modelling use to forecast future climate and emissions. He also admits the potential volatility of these forecasts due to the large components involved in the model and the uncertainties associated with unobservable data. Then, he illustrates how these forecasts would affect humanity, from economic performance, health, migration, etc.
The second half of the book focuses on policies, global cooperation, and necessary technological advancement. He shows two most promising regulations: carbon tax and carbon cap, and explain further how effective (or ineffective) these regulations can be. For instance, it is difficult to find a universally accepted carbon cap but it is also (politically) difficult to raise tax. Further, it shows some incentives and subsidies can be counterproductive due our "irrational behavior" such as energy-cost myopia. The book also examines the effects of technological changes: how future alternative energy sources can help emission reduction. Finally, the book concludes by saying our best chance is by incorporating adaptation/acceptance, effective rules and global cooperation, as well as reliance on technological changes.
Hence, I think this book is "Climate Change 101" and should be read by not only all environmental economists but also general public. It comprehensively covers every aspect of climate change and its consequences. Finally, it shows how a dedicated academia can write a much better, more objective, facts driven book than most opportunistic journalists.
First of all, if you love facts, numbers and figures like I do, than this book is a must. The author is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics. He's among the first that examine the economic consequences of climate change. Like I said, the arguments are written with facts and the author tries to write it as objectively as possible: no exaggeration, no scaremongering, and at the same time does not try to tone down the potential catastrophe caused by climate change.
He starts with scientific facts by the variables used to measure climate change as well as other externalities that are difficult to measure such as biodiversity. Then the book shows methods and modelling use to forecast future climate and emissions. He also admits the potential volatility of these forecasts due to the large components involved in the model and the uncertainties associated with unobservable data. Then, he illustrates how these forecasts would affect humanity, from economic performance, health, migration, etc.
The second half of the book focuses on policies, global cooperation, and necessary technological advancement. He shows two most promising regulations: carbon tax and carbon cap, and explain further how effective (or ineffective) these regulations can be. For instance, it is difficult to find a universally accepted carbon cap but it is also (politically) difficult to raise tax. Further, it shows some incentives and subsidies can be counterproductive due our "irrational behavior" such as energy-cost myopia. The book also examines the effects of technological changes: how future alternative energy sources can help emission reduction. Finally, the book concludes by saying our best chance is by incorporating adaptation/acceptance, effective rules and global cooperation, as well as reliance on technological changes.
Hence, I think this book is "Climate Change 101" and should be read by not only all environmental economists but also general public. It comprehensively covers every aspect of climate change and its consequences. Finally, it shows how a dedicated academia can write a much better, more objective, facts driven book than most opportunistic journalists.
February 16, 2024
Economists are untethered from biophysical reality, unable to ackowledge the consequences of limits to growth. One way of putting it is the ol’ “it’s impossible to get a man to understand the truth if his salery depends on him not understanding it.”
But it goes deeper than that. There’s both personal and cultural identiies locked up with it, burgeoned by our economic and political systems, and of course the flipside of privilege that is blindness.
They can’t help it. They are only human. If you or I were in their shoes, we’d be the same.
The mindvirus that causes it enjoys an R-naught well above one, and it perpetually spread via our fatally flawed institutions, locked in via basic human psychology and gametheoretical pitfalls of the capitalistic system.
For a hint of what might have been, enjoy Kata Raworth’a ‘Doughnut Economics’ while we descend into hell as a direct consequence of inescapable capitalism dependant on gdp growth that is causally corrolated with energy use: a planet-sized gordian knot we can’t afford to cut (pun intended).
But it goes deeper than that. There’s both personal and cultural identiies locked up with it, burgeoned by our economic and political systems, and of course the flipside of privilege that is blindness.
They can’t help it. They are only human. If you or I were in their shoes, we’d be the same.
The mindvirus that causes it enjoys an R-naught well above one, and it perpetually spread via our fatally flawed institutions, locked in via basic human psychology and gametheoretical pitfalls of the capitalistic system.
For a hint of what might have been, enjoy Kata Raworth’a ‘Doughnut Economics’ while we descend into hell as a direct consequence of inescapable capitalism dependant on gdp growth that is causally corrolated with energy use: a planet-sized gordian knot we can’t afford to cut (pun intended).
September 19, 2019
I have a lot of issues with this book. My biggest one is which country should we invade first to guarentee that they abide by proscribed CO2 emission standards....that is the logical conclusion, as even if the US quit emitting all CO2 tomorrow it would do little to correct the issue, and even sanctions would not be enough to prevent free riders.
July 21, 2024
Sobering. Full analysis of the need for and issues associated with climate policies. 11 years later little progress has been made, political divide in the US only widened, Europe seems to drop its climate ambitions and meanwhile global emissions continue to increase. Only good news is that renewable energy has become competitive and much cheaper than anticipated a decade ago.
September 11, 2019
This book is enlighting because it is clear about the great danger of global warming but it is also rational and is not catastrophic on some aspects (for example agriculture and health care). I think the author is a little bit naive in the last chapters (those about obstacles to climate change policies), because it seems he thinks it’s easier than it is to change doubters mind and align countries policies for full participation in climate change policies. Overall is a book that should be read to understand climate change.
July 9, 2023
This book, by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, is particularly useful thorough its analysis of global warming and climate change. With statistics and economic models, the author discusses the various elements of climate change and their effect on the world economy. "The Climate Casino" does require considerable concentration, but once absorbed it tells pretty much all that a layman needs to know about climate change.
The author deals with temperature variations in agriculture, in oceans and other habitats. He notes the differences between “managed” systems, which can adapt better through human effort, choice, and innovation (e.g. farming, indoor living, travel, etc. ) and “unmanaged” systems that operate without human intervention (e.g. oceans, wildlife environments, hurricanes, forest fires, etc.).
He notes that in some areas the effects are not significant in the short run, but will burgeon later. For example, he deals intelligently with “tipping points” which, when reached and passed, can result in very radical changes afterwards. He analyzes the effect of coal, oil and gas as energy sources, and notes their different impacts on the environment.
When all is said and done, the author’s conclusion is that climate change poses serious risk to the world economy, and that the economics of climate change come down to the effects of carbon dioxide emissions in the environment.
The key to understanding the author’s solution to the climate change problem lies in his use of the economic concept of “externalities,” which are the eventual costs of economic activity but which lie outside the immediate pressure of the supply and demand.
An example is overfishing in a river; the fisherman knows the cost of fishing (cost of his boat, gear, fuel, etc.) and he adjusts the prices of his fish in order to provide revenue to cover his costs and generate a profit, always within the framework of the supply of fish for sale and consumer demand for them. What the fisherman does NOT factor into the economic equation is the eventual depletion of fish in the river later on. Yet, that too is a cost, for which everyone will eventually pay albeit later in the game. Such a cost, which does not immediately affect producer and consumer, is, then, an “externality.”
The point of this book is that economic activities involving carbon emissions (such as carbon-generated electricity, air travel, automobile travel. etc.) do not take into consideration the “externalities” thereof. Yet these “externalities” generate the great cost of eventual climate change which are not immediately apparent.
The author notes that it is possible to fix the absence of such “externalities” from the immediate supply-and-demand calculus of carbon energy consumption. Governments, through taxation, simply must ensure that the public, in its economic transactions, pay for the full eventual cost of carbon emissions. Such costs can be quantified by the models and statistics outlined throughout the book. The author notes that everyone everywhere, now and indefinitely, consumers simply must face prices that actually reflect the later social and environmental costs of their economic activities. Such prices would then discourage deleterious economic activity involving excessive carbon emissions.
The author is aware that the economic drives towards growth varies in countries that are at different levels of development, and tend to mitigate the attempts of other countries to discourage energy use that yields carbon emissions. Therefore, the effort must be through international cooperation. Countries that will not cooperate must be brought to heel by such means as tariffs, and embargoes.
The author deals with temperature variations in agriculture, in oceans and other habitats. He notes the differences between “managed” systems, which can adapt better through human effort, choice, and innovation (e.g. farming, indoor living, travel, etc. ) and “unmanaged” systems that operate without human intervention (e.g. oceans, wildlife environments, hurricanes, forest fires, etc.).
He notes that in some areas the effects are not significant in the short run, but will burgeon later. For example, he deals intelligently with “tipping points” which, when reached and passed, can result in very radical changes afterwards. He analyzes the effect of coal, oil and gas as energy sources, and notes their different impacts on the environment.
When all is said and done, the author’s conclusion is that climate change poses serious risk to the world economy, and that the economics of climate change come down to the effects of carbon dioxide emissions in the environment.
The key to understanding the author’s solution to the climate change problem lies in his use of the economic concept of “externalities,” which are the eventual costs of economic activity but which lie outside the immediate pressure of the supply and demand.
An example is overfishing in a river; the fisherman knows the cost of fishing (cost of his boat, gear, fuel, etc.) and he adjusts the prices of his fish in order to provide revenue to cover his costs and generate a profit, always within the framework of the supply of fish for sale and consumer demand for them. What the fisherman does NOT factor into the economic equation is the eventual depletion of fish in the river later on. Yet, that too is a cost, for which everyone will eventually pay albeit later in the game. Such a cost, which does not immediately affect producer and consumer, is, then, an “externality.”
The point of this book is that economic activities involving carbon emissions (such as carbon-generated electricity, air travel, automobile travel. etc.) do not take into consideration the “externalities” thereof. Yet these “externalities” generate the great cost of eventual climate change which are not immediately apparent.
The author notes that it is possible to fix the absence of such “externalities” from the immediate supply-and-demand calculus of carbon energy consumption. Governments, through taxation, simply must ensure that the public, in its economic transactions, pay for the full eventual cost of carbon emissions. Such costs can be quantified by the models and statistics outlined throughout the book. The author notes that everyone everywhere, now and indefinitely, consumers simply must face prices that actually reflect the later social and environmental costs of their economic activities. Such prices would then discourage deleterious economic activity involving excessive carbon emissions.
The author is aware that the economic drives towards growth varies in countries that are at different levels of development, and tend to mitigate the attempts of other countries to discourage energy use that yields carbon emissions. Therefore, the effort must be through international cooperation. Countries that will not cooperate must be brought to heel by such means as tariffs, and embargoes.
November 20, 2016
I think Prof. Nordhaus has given us a remarkable achievement: a solid, sobering, stimulating, scientific, scary book on human-caused global climate change, that leaves no room for doubt about the prospect that climate change deniers are going to sweat more, like the rest of us, in coming decades.
This is not a book about Apocalypse. If anything, the Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University writes with an even temper and drily matter-of-fact language that is a teensy bit annoying, given the massively dangerous, initial impacts of climate change and global warming that are already unavoidable.
I think the principal value of The Climate Casino is that Nordhaus lays out the economic (cost/benefit) framework of policy considerations and possible remedial steps that the nations of the world, and mankind, can take to deal with the fact that we’re putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In simplest terms, he says there are many things we can do to mitigate global warming….some are more costly than others and some are very expensive….some folks and some companies and some countries will have to pay more of the costs than others.
I was surprised to read his conclusion that humans can likely survive the initial moderate impacts of global climate change/warming without substantial social and economic disruption, if we start seriously working on it now—there is a big pricetag, but we can tolerate it.
(I mention, for the record, that Nordhaus carefully discusses the unpredictable, and more than trivially possible, catastrophic “tipping points” in climate disruption that might occur regardless of what we do or don’t do—think Dennis Quaid and “The Day After Tomorrow”).
We’re going to have to stop using coal around the world, or figure out how to burn it cleanly. And more generally, we’re going to have to figure out how to require companies and individuals to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels, that is, the present and future cost of the damage those fuels cause to our environment and to our grandchildren’s prospects for survival.
It was remotely heartening to read Nordhaus’ estimate that we have a reasonable chance of dealing with global warming if we get the ball rolling now, and make sure everyone pays the price.
This is the only planet our grandchildren will have to live on. We must do the right thing for them.
More reviews on my website:
http://richardsubber.com/
This is not a book about Apocalypse. If anything, the Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University writes with an even temper and drily matter-of-fact language that is a teensy bit annoying, given the massively dangerous, initial impacts of climate change and global warming that are already unavoidable.
I think the principal value of The Climate Casino is that Nordhaus lays out the economic (cost/benefit) framework of policy considerations and possible remedial steps that the nations of the world, and mankind, can take to deal with the fact that we’re putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In simplest terms, he says there are many things we can do to mitigate global warming….some are more costly than others and some are very expensive….some folks and some companies and some countries will have to pay more of the costs than others.
I was surprised to read his conclusion that humans can likely survive the initial moderate impacts of global climate change/warming without substantial social and economic disruption, if we start seriously working on it now—there is a big pricetag, but we can tolerate it.
(I mention, for the record, that Nordhaus carefully discusses the unpredictable, and more than trivially possible, catastrophic “tipping points” in climate disruption that might occur regardless of what we do or don’t do—think Dennis Quaid and “The Day After Tomorrow”).
We’re going to have to stop using coal around the world, or figure out how to burn it cleanly. And more generally, we’re going to have to figure out how to require companies and individuals to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels, that is, the present and future cost of the damage those fuels cause to our environment and to our grandchildren’s prospects for survival.
It was remotely heartening to read Nordhaus’ estimate that we have a reasonable chance of dealing with global warming if we get the ball rolling now, and make sure everyone pays the price.
This is the only planet our grandchildren will have to live on. We must do the right thing for them.
More reviews on my website:
http://richardsubber.com/
August 31, 2019
With this rich book, the Nobel Laureate introduces the general public to the economics underlying the gravest threat confronting the world in the 21st century. The informative and compelling narrative is easy to follow, and equips the reader with a useful set of tools to frame the threat and the policy challenge of climate change. For the interested, technical reader, the author’s academic papers and on-line resources are cited for further study..
Climate change deniers should be forced to read the book!!
Climate change deniers should be forced to read the book!!
December 4, 2018
Climate change is to be the defining issue of our time. Although scientists have been issuing warnings concerning the dangers of unmitigated carbon dioxide emissions for several decades now, to date little to no substantial action has taken place. As the world delays, the situation grows more dire, and the scale by which society must undergo dramatic readjustments becomes ever greater. How, then, have we landed in such a situation? Why have the warnings of climate scientists not been acted upon?
This, essentially, is the question that William Nordhaus’s 2013 book, The Climate Casino, seeks to explain. The answer, as one may have guessed, lies not in the realm of natural sciences, but in politics and economics. Having received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018 for his work in this field, if anyone should be writing a book on the subject, it seems Nordhaus is well-qualified.
What results is a rather slim book written for the layman that sets out the case for making climate policy based on sound economics – namely to adequately price carbon emissions. In clear, easy to digest prose it lays out the science behind why carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases lead to a warming climate; the resulting impacts and uncertainties of a warming climate; what options are available to us to address climate change; what good climate policy should look like; and, finally, why politics has gotten in the way of necessary action.
It’s a lot to cover, and finishing the book may not leave one an expert in any or all of the various topics, but certainly you should be able to pick up some new insights and leave with a more cohesive understanding of the climate change problem. It should be required reading in all high schools.
This, essentially, is the question that William Nordhaus’s 2013 book, The Climate Casino, seeks to explain. The answer, as one may have guessed, lies not in the realm of natural sciences, but in politics and economics. Having received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018 for his work in this field, if anyone should be writing a book on the subject, it seems Nordhaus is well-qualified.
What results is a rather slim book written for the layman that sets out the case for making climate policy based on sound economics – namely to adequately price carbon emissions. In clear, easy to digest prose it lays out the science behind why carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases lead to a warming climate; the resulting impacts and uncertainties of a warming climate; what options are available to us to address climate change; what good climate policy should look like; and, finally, why politics has gotten in the way of necessary action.
It’s a lot to cover, and finishing the book may not leave one an expert in any or all of the various topics, but certainly you should be able to pick up some new insights and leave with a more cohesive understanding of the climate change problem. It should be required reading in all high schools.
January 7, 2017
Really more like 2.5.
I was really disappointed. The idea for the book seemed interesting: not really to talk about the science of Global Warming/Climate Change, but rather to take a economist's point of view, to see how to deal with it, how to mitigate it, and how to avoid it. (He does accept that GW/CC is happening, is caused my human activity. But I don't think that matters much in what he's trying to do in the book.)
So there's stuff about whether regulation works, how Carbon taxes would work, how to get new technologies on line. There's also stuff about what the effects of GW/CC are (more about ocean acidification than I had really thought about) and what kind of economic effects they would have. He explained tipping points pretty well.
But.
There was so much glossing over of details. And repetition. And poorly described math-y stuff. And mysteriously labeled graphs. And, well, the writing is pretty bad in general. He seems obsessed with how we teach 8th graders to write: say what you're gonna say, say it, re-cap what you said. The prose is clumsy.
Maybe if I didn't have such high expectations (it's William frickin' Nordhaus!) I would have been more satisfied.
I was really disappointed. The idea for the book seemed interesting: not really to talk about the science of Global Warming/Climate Change, but rather to take a economist's point of view, to see how to deal with it, how to mitigate it, and how to avoid it. (He does accept that GW/CC is happening, is caused my human activity. But I don't think that matters much in what he's trying to do in the book.)
So there's stuff about whether regulation works, how Carbon taxes would work, how to get new technologies on line. There's also stuff about what the effects of GW/CC are (more about ocean acidification than I had really thought about) and what kind of economic effects they would have. He explained tipping points pretty well.
But.
There was so much glossing over of details. And repetition. And poorly described math-y stuff. And mysteriously labeled graphs. And, well, the writing is pretty bad in general. He seems obsessed with how we teach 8th graders to write: say what you're gonna say, say it, re-cap what you said. The prose is clumsy.
Maybe if I didn't have such high expectations (it's William frickin' Nordhaus!) I would have been more satisfied.
May 14, 2019
A must read for any non-economist feeling concerned by the current state of our planet. Non-dogmatic, saying things many people won't like, certainly on the climate change denial/realist side but also on the climate change aware side, certainly because it's an economist's take on the issue, and among those who accept climate change as a fact and a problem, unfortunately an irrational/emotional attitude towards economics as a science is far too common. It takes quite some concentration to follow the reasoning at certain moments, but it's worth the effort. It's sometimes a little depressing to read, as one gets the feeling at certain moments it's all unsolvable, but that is not his point. His point *is* that is solvable. But I guess enough people will have to be convinced. Some issues that are being presented in the press and political world, are actually far more easy to solve according to him (and the scientists he's citing and refering to). Anyway, anyone who likes to challenge his/her own prejudices or current opinions/views or just wants some serious arguments to counter misinformation/ignorance/prejudices on climate change, this is a must read. I'm not going into the details. Just read it!!
September 10, 2017
This is an excellent book—well worth reading, especially if you consider yourself a skeptic about climate change, but even otherwise. The author does an excellent and fair job of walking through the science on anthropogenic global warming—both the certainty that it is happening and the distinct lack of certainty about the impacts. For example, in one of the more reassuring parts of the book, he explains that the highly publicized 2C target is determined less by the science than by the optics or marketing of global warming. A 3C target might make more economic and environmental sense.
Indeed, one of the strongest features of the book is that the author integrates the economics of combating climate change throughout his discussion of the science. In particular, I found his treatment of the reasons to apply discounting in analyzing costs and benefits valuable, as well as his discussion of the merits of cap-and-trade schemes versus a straight carbon tax. If you seek a discussion of global warming that goes beyond the canned debates and virtue signalling that makes up most of the public treatment of the topic, this is your book.
Indeed, one of the strongest features of the book is that the author integrates the economics of combating climate change throughout his discussion of the science. In particular, I found his treatment of the reasons to apply discounting in analyzing costs and benefits valuable, as well as his discussion of the merits of cap-and-trade schemes versus a straight carbon tax. If you seek a discussion of global warming that goes beyond the canned debates and virtue signalling that makes up most of the public treatment of the topic, this is your book.
February 10, 2015
Sober analysis looking at data as economist and scientist is what is promised and delivered. The analogy of a casino is apt as he explains that there is still uncertainty in many elements of the the science and economics. What becomes very clear in this logical approach is that we're "throwing the dice" if we do nothing or not. But if we want the odds to be more in our favor, we better be looking very seriously at taxing carbon--like now.
I've read half a dozen books on climate change, this one is the one I chose for my book group, since it is clear, not idealogical and practical.
One part I liked: He explains how there have been many dis-information campaigns in the past, such as with the tobacco industry denying that smoking caused cancer. He shows the challenge we face now is much more immense, since the window for preventing much more costly adaptations is closing rapidly.
This book provides me the knowledge and language to speak out to my legislators and neighbors without sounding like an ideologue.
I've read half a dozen books on climate change, this one is the one I chose for my book group, since it is clear, not idealogical and practical.
One part I liked: He explains how there have been many dis-information campaigns in the past, such as with the tobacco industry denying that smoking caused cancer. He shows the challenge we face now is much more immense, since the window for preventing much more costly adaptations is closing rapidly.
This book provides me the knowledge and language to speak out to my legislators and neighbors without sounding like an ideologue.
July 12, 2018
This book provides a great overview of the science behind climate change and the imperative to respond through economic means like a carbon tax. There is a lot that is still unknown about climate change. For example there are going to be tipping points where higher temperatures create dangerous feedback loops and accelerate the process. However no one is sure at what point those tipping points will occur. Unfortunately even the two things that are considered a scientific consensus (that the Earth is getting warmer, and that humans are accelerating the process by adding greenhouse gases to the air) are considered highly debatable. Americans are more split on those two statements than they were 20 years ago and it is largely the result of the politicization of a scientific question. Many of the things Nordhaus proposes to raise the price of carbon through a tax or cap and trade seem like logical responses, but they feel almost unattainable anytime soon.
September 24, 2019
William Nordhaus has won the Nobel Prize of Economics in 2018, making him a trust worthy source on the subject.
My take away from this book is that although there is much uncertainty in the science concerning climate change, the trend is clear, as is the need for action. Studies show that a global, concerted action would make the cost relatively low (1 to 2 percent of global GDP). However, the failure Kyoto protocol demonstrate this isn't feasible in practice.
Still, the solution recommended by the author is quite simple: carbon tax (starting price advocated by the author is $25 per tonne of CO2). (It's still quite complicated to apply, but at least much simpler than other approaches.) The author advocates tariffs on non-complying countries. Regulations from large consumer market like the EU or the US were shown to have impacts far beyond their borders. One notable recent example is the EU GDPR which forced many IT firms to respect its privacy requirements, even outside the EU.
My take away from this book is that although there is much uncertainty in the science concerning climate change, the trend is clear, as is the need for action. Studies show that a global, concerted action would make the cost relatively low (1 to 2 percent of global GDP). However, the failure Kyoto protocol demonstrate this isn't feasible in practice.
Still, the solution recommended by the author is quite simple: carbon tax (starting price advocated by the author is $25 per tonne of CO2). (It's still quite complicated to apply, but at least much simpler than other approaches.) The author advocates tariffs on non-complying countries. Regulations from large consumer market like the EU or the US were shown to have impacts far beyond their borders. One notable recent example is the EU GDPR which forced many IT firms to respect its privacy requirements, even outside the EU.
March 12, 2014
I can recommend it for the general reader who is interested in
how a number of ingredients come together
to inform the consensus view of what needs to happen to address climate
change: climate science, assessment of the impacts of climate change,
scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, options for reducing
emissions, public opinion, policy, and politics. It's a pretty
comprehensive treatment of these and other topics from a fairly
mainstream point of view, by someone who's been active in the field for
decades.
Some of the details that Nordhaus leaves out are important. Probably most
notably, many people even in the mainstream (me included) think that
there are important pieces of policy that need to go along with
Nordhaus's "just get the price of carbon right" approach.
how a number of ingredients come together
to inform the consensus view of what needs to happen to address climate
change: climate science, assessment of the impacts of climate change,
scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, options for reducing
emissions, public opinion, policy, and politics. It's a pretty
comprehensive treatment of these and other topics from a fairly
mainstream point of view, by someone who's been active in the field for
decades.
Some of the details that Nordhaus leaves out are important. Probably most
notably, many people even in the mainstream (me included) think that
there are important pieces of policy that need to go along with
Nordhaus's "just get the price of carbon right" approach.
March 26, 2017
A good summary of the science and economics of climate change. It is very clear, to the point of being a bit repetitive, but no prior knowledge of either subject is required. It is also not in the vein of causing maximum alarm - although the author is worried about climate change, he goes through several possible impacts of climate change that people highlight that he says aren't very important. Similarly, he is skeptical of environmental regulations. So it seems to be a fairly objective take, rather than one designed to overstate the case.
The trouble is, for me, it was just pretty boring. I found the science section (most of the book) just quite slow and dull. That is perhaps my fault, not Nordhaus's, but that's why it gets 3 stars for me rather than more.
The trouble is, for me, it was just pretty boring. I found the science section (most of the book) just quite slow and dull. That is perhaps my fault, not Nordhaus's, but that's why it gets 3 stars for me rather than more.
April 4, 2019
Excellent primer on climate economics from one of the founders, as well as most distinguished researcher in this field of economics. Nordhaus explains even the most fundamental concepts of economics (eg. discount rate, cost-benefit, opportunity cost) in order to make sure that everyone is able to follow his reasoning on finding the most efficient tax regime for reducing GHG emissions.
Its 20 years since I first read books citing Nordhaus' DICE model for calculating the net costs of climate (in-)action. After he received a Nobel price in economics for his work on the DICE model, I felt it was time to read this own pop.science book on his research field, instead of relying on other authors praise or his (often unfair) criticism from his opponents.
Its 20 years since I first read books citing Nordhaus' DICE model for calculating the net costs of climate (in-)action. After he received a Nobel price in economics for his work on the DICE model, I felt it was time to read this own pop.science book on his research field, instead of relying on other authors praise or his (often unfair) criticism from his opponents.
November 11, 2019
Even though I do not totally agree with the author this is the best text on climate change
This far and away the best text on climate change. Unlike most, this book is written by an economist and offers solutions that have an economic basis. One take away is if you hear politicians saying that they will eliminate natural gas or are 100% opposed to nuclear they do not have an understanding of the steps that need to be taken to arrest temperature rise. In fact I would say that if a politician says that climate change is a hoax or if the say that they will immediately eliminate natural gas and nuclear plants they are totally ill informed and should be ignored.
This far and away the best text on climate change. Unlike most, this book is written by an economist and offers solutions that have an economic basis. One take away is if you hear politicians saying that they will eliminate natural gas or are 100% opposed to nuclear they do not have an understanding of the steps that need to be taken to arrest temperature rise. In fact I would say that if a politician says that climate change is a hoax or if the say that they will immediately eliminate natural gas and nuclear plants they are totally ill informed and should be ignored.
March 7, 2022
A very good book on climate change, not for the casual reader though. It's more about the economic impacts/risks (hence the casino analogy) and solidly based on good research models, which I liked. Much of it is from the Yale models, so I don't know how good those are, generally a variety of models is better. But it's a very readable book, and the view of things worth working on and things that are a waste of time/money was good. The author is a big proponent of carbon tax as the best way to deal with CO2 emissions, he makes a good case for them.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews