Explain how scientific and economic arguments have influenced policy responses to climate change.

Scientific and economic arguments are crucial to political debates on what can be done in response to the ever-increasing issue of climate change. To solve such an issue requires an accurate diagnosis or policies will fail which is why scientific research and the voice of the scientific community is necessary for understanding the issues of climate change as well as their urgency. However, science isn’t the only influence on politics, and policies have to be economically viable and sustainable to reach agreement and implementation. Economic research, like the Stern Review (Johnson and Dawson, 2019) is therefore very important in why certain policies or scientific arguments will or won’t be accepted. Both scientific and economic arguments are vital though to finding policies that will be successful and efficient, as it requires a compromise between the two.

Scientific research is fundamental for policies regarding climate change because it’s inherently a scientific problem which requires understanding and deep analysis to tackle. Science was the key to realising that climate change is an issue which requires a solution, and therefore it will be key to that solution as well. The science of climate change though hasn’t always been respected and this is the cause of the delay on policy responses. There is a very active culture of climate denial, which thrives on the uncertain nature of climate research to lobby against policies responding to climate change, in fear that they may damage industry profits or accepted ways of living (Humphreys, 2019b). Nevertheless, scientific research continues, looking at potential issues and solutions. For example, carbon emissions contribute massively to the increasing temperature of the atmosphere (IPCC, 2014, p. 10) and this has lead to scientific technology like carbon capture systems (Humphreys, 2019). Techno-optimists believe technology advancements can solve climate issues, but many others would argue that regulation and adaptation through policy changes are vital (Humphreys, 2019a).

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a boundary organisation within the UN with an objective of providing scientific research, with all of its impacts and potential responses. It breaks down academic research and removes jargon to help politicians understand it and accept it as authoritative. It produces a report every few years, which has been edited with the permission of lead scientists to argue for realistic policy changes. It maintains scientific integrity whilst becoming more politically acceptable and understanding (Humphreys, 2019b). However, some like Wasdell (2007, as cited in Humphreys, 2019b) have criticised this method for allowing the “softening of any language that could suggest climate change is accelerating” (Humphreys, 2019b p. 75). Regardless, without acceptance of the science as authoritative by politicians, it will have no policy impact and this isn’t possible without their input. These reports heavily influence the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (Humphreys, 2019a). Reports by the UNFCCC led to the Kyoto Protocol which set emission targets for developed countries through international law and the 2015 Paris Agreement which focused on keeping the average temperature increase of the atmosphere below 2 degrees Celsius (Humphreys, 2019a). International harmony will be key to tackling climate change and this requires policy intervention, which in turn requires authoritative scientific consensus on the issues faced and the possible solutions.

The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement are based upon sound science but they are hard to ensure in practice because cutting emissions impacts upon businesses and accepted standards of living. Originally, the Kyoto Protocol called for a 15% reduction in emissions but as there wasn’t international agreement, and some only agreed to 8%, they all agreed to 8%. This was a result of the first-mover disadvantage, where if some states had reduced emissions to 15% they would have lost out economically to the other states who only had an 8% reduction because of their competitive advantage (Humphreys, 2019a). This phenomenon occurs a lot when it comes to environmental problems that require collective action as international harmony can be very difficult to achieve. The economics of certain policies can hold back action on climate change, but like science, it can also try and solve these problems. Neo-classical economics, which centres around the role of the market, is known as environmental economics when applied to environmental problems and following the liberal principle of neutrality searches for an equilibrium between environmental needs and economic needs. Environmental economists have therefore worked upon finding an optimum level of production which achieves the best balance between the interests of firms and the people who bear the impacts of emissions to maximise the welfare of society (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). This idea provides an economic incentive for action on climate change because it views it as a market failure with negative externalities that need to be corrected. When this occurs and markets fail, neoclassical economists argue that the state should intervene. Economist Stern looked at the negative externalities of climate change as pollution like acid rain and the damage they cause. In the 2007 Stern Review, he predicted that by 2100, damage from climate change would decrease the world economy value by up to 20%, this was with weighted acknowledgement of unequal distribution of climate impacts on undeveloped countries and discounting to factor in future generations and potential catastrophes. However, Stern argued that measures for avoiding this only cost 1% of the world economy value which gave a compelling economic case for policy response (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). The scientific arguments against climate change are often stifled by economic and political agendas and therefore an economic argument can give science a louder voice.

Placing a monetary value on climate change impacts and solutions isn’t easy though. Like science, the economics of future climate change is uncertain and at times this can hinder the effectiveness of the arguments. Stern in his review used discounting to account for future events that may not happen or may even be worse than initially believed but this method, and his specific rate, is controversial in the world of economics. Some view it as immoral and that it devalues future generations (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). Others like Weitzman (2007, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019) criticised him for using too low of a rate. Discounting is controversial for the difficulty that arises when trying to compare costs and benefits at different points in time (Broome, 1992, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019). The Stern Review (Stern, 2007) also used a British IAM, PAGE2002, which can be adapted for non-market impacts. The review concluded “that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever” (Stern, 2007, p. 6). He used non-market impacts like human health to create this figure and although it helped strengthen the urgency of his argument and addressed other areas that require policy changes. It also weakened his argument with criticism on the uncertainty of these impacts and some have dismissed them as “conjectural” (Byatt et al., 2006, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019). Economic arguments for policies addressing climate change have offered an economic incentive for action. This is important considering the resistance is often from those believing they would lose out economically from emissions reductions. However, even though economists have provided a reason why environmental action wouldn’t be an economic loss, they haven’t provided a method on how to do this or how to achieve agreement. Furthermore, the uncertainties and lack of objectivity that arguably comes with these monetary valuations can discredit the economic arguments so they have less political influence. It may also stifle the scientific arguments as well by creating the idea that there needs to be economic rewards for policy change. Some like Klein, would argue that economics shouldn’t be involved in policymaking because the scientific evidence is true and climate change is too urgent to weigh up other factors (Klein, 2014).

Regardless of the ethical implications of relying on economic incentives, economic arguments are influential in creating policies. There are four types of policy instruments (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). The first measure is a command and control policy and in the case of cutting emissions, the government would tell a polluter an emissions target and how to achieve it. This would require scientific contribution on a useful target but also possibly economic intervention and how industries could achieve it and the feasibility of certain targets. Setting technology-based standards is another instrument and will give polluters a specific method to use without a specific target; they could, therefore, enforce polluters to use a specific scientific method or economically viable technology. Neither of these measures have been used in climate change policy yet but could with the help of future scientific and economic discoveries and arguments. A third measure is voluntary agreements and it gives a specific target without a specific method. An example of this in combating climate change is the EU Cars Regulation which has demanded the average emissions of all new cars had to be 130 g/km by 2015 and 95 g/km by 2020 (European Commission, 2013, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019). Methods, however, were up to manufacturers and may have increased competition and therefore advancement in greener technology. Scientific research on the impact of car emissions and acceptable rates would have influenced the details of this policy.

The last instrument is market-based instruments which use subsidies and taxes, playing with market prices to achieve policy goals. For climate change policy, this includes moves such as energy and carbon taxes. Pigovian taxes like these though can be difficult to put on production where the impact stretches over time and space (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). The European Union (EU) therefore prefer the policy of carbon trading which is neo-liberal in nature and looks at the atmosphere as property that can be allocated or bought to then be used as owners like (Johnson and Dawson, 2019). This relates to Hardin’s (1968, as cited in Humphreys, 2019a) idea of the tragedy of commons which suggests collective areas require policy intervention to ensure they aren’t abused or exhausted unequally. With this economic theory in mind, the EU has created an Emissions Trading System (ETS) which covers 11,000 power states and industrial plants in 31 countries (European Commission, 2014, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019). A survey found that 43% of traders believed the EU ETS was expanding efforts of emissions reductions (Cuff, 2018, as cited in Johnson and Dawson, 2019). Therefore, neo-liberal economics has had a big impact on policies impacting climate change. The ETS still only covers 45% of total emissions of EU states (European Commission, 2018) and international agreement is still necessary for effective change but economic influences are evidentially necessary for policy change.

As Hardin (1968) recognised with his idea of the tragedy of the commons, we need international policies to handle such a large common area. Therefore, climate change, although a scientific problem, requires a social and political solution. This isn’t possible though without consensual and authoritative science and an understanding of the social and economic impacts solutions may have. This means that both scientific and economic arguments are crucial to deliberating policies. When it comes to climate change policy, science lays a foundation of what needs to be done and the timescale, economics provides a way to do it and these lead to the politics of implementing it.