Fairfax - Joseph Stiglitz
 |
Professor Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics and the winner of the 2018 Sydney Peace Prize.
|
A remarkable trial is set to begin in Eugene, Oregon, on November 19.
The Trump administration is being sued by 21 children on behalf of
themselves and future generations. The claim is that the administration,
through its climate change policies, is violating the children’s basic
rights.
It should be obvious that the threat of climate change is
putting at risk their future—it has been obvious for a long time. It’s
not just the increase in temperature and the rising sea level, it’s the
accompanying increase in extreme weather events, such as floods,
hurricanes and droughts that can also devastate harvests and cause
forest fires. The acidification of the ocean will destroy coral reefs,
including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. As habitats get destroyed, so
will species. Those in more temperate zones are already facing new
diseases.
 |
| Approaches to climate change are being scrutinised. Credit: Jonathan Carroll |
The
judge in the case has already ruled that the “right to a climate system
capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered
society”. As
The New York Times put it: "The young plaintiffs
have demanded, among other things, that the courts force the government
to implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil
fuel emissions" in an effort to "stabilise the climate system". The
courts could then supervise the government’s efforts.
Each of
these 21 children will be affected not just by the economic burdens
their generation will have to bear as cities relocate. One, Levi, lives
on an island off the coast of Florida, and his island will be submerged.
He will join millions of others around the world who will lose their
homes—South Pacific islanders whose countries will disappear and
Bangladeshis whose only asset, the land and house they own, will
disappear. Levi will be relatively lucky: he will be able to move
elsewhere in the US. But where will the millions of Bangladeshis go? Or
the millions in sub-Saharan Africa who face the opposite threat,
desertification of their lands?
These are not just ordinary “economic migrants”. Their right to a
livelihood has been taken away by those elsewhere — in the US, Europe
and China — whose greenhouse gas emissions, the result of unbridled
consumption, is the prime cause of this climate change. Their “right to
consume” is depriving others of the right to live.
Another
plaintiff in the case, Alex, is a student at my university, Columbia. He
lives on a farm in southern Oregon whose viability is undermined by
climate change and is now threatened by forest fires.
So
often when we see injustices like this, we say: “There ought to be a
law.” The US Declaration of Independence spoke of the rights of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These children’s rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being taken away because of
greenhouse gas emissions. Their future is in jeopardy so Americans today
can drive gas-guzzling cars. It seems unfair, and it is. It is a matter
of social justice — this time between different generations.
 |
| The Western Arctic is one of the fastest-warming regions in the world
and is seen as an early indicator of global climate change. Credit: AP |
In this case, there is a law and a
longstanding legal doctrine. The law is America’s Constitution, which
promises fair treatment and due process to all individuals. In the case
of these children, this is especially important because they don’t even
have the right to vote. They can’t express their concerns through the
electoral process. And that is why the doctrine of public interest
declares that the state (the sovereign) holds natural resources in trust
for future generations. (It’s a doctrine that, not surprisingly, goes
back centuries, included in the Justinian law and formally incorporated
into American civil law in the 19th century.)
I’m
an expert witness in this case. I chaired an international commission
that concluded that limiting temperature increases to 1.5C to 2CX, which
the international community agreed to in Paris and Copenhagen, is
achievable at a low cost, with a carbon price eventually rising to
perhaps $US100 ($138) a ton of carbon, which translates into about 88
cents per gallon (3.78 litres) of gasoline, accompanied by some other
regulatory measures.
Others have estimated that the increased
energy costs would likely be no higher than 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, and
eliminating the hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies
would actually save money. These costs pale in comparison to the
multiple episodes when energy costs have increased far more, and in each
of these instances our economy managed these increases. These numbers
also pale in comparison to the likely costs of not taking action.
Government
procedures for discounting future events mean that the wellbeing of
future generations is systematically being downplayed. The Trump
administration has been using a 7 per cent discount rate. That means
that a dollar today is viewed as 32 times as valuable as a dollar spent
50 years from now. In essence, the Trump administration is saying, as
are governments in some other countries, “Our children count for very
little, and our children’s children count for essentially nothing.”
Climate
change’s effects are long-lasting. Today’s pollution will affect our
children’s children. No just society can simply ignore this.
Conservative governments often make a big fuss over an increase in the
fiscal deficit, saying it would impose a burden on our children. They’re
wrong, at least if the money is well spent on investments in
infrastructure, technology or education. But they’re hypocrites if they
make such claims and do nothing about climate change.
It would be
one thing if there were some other planet we could migrate to if, as the
scientific evidence shows overwhelmingly, we ruin this planet with our
continuing carbon emissions. But Earth is our only home. We need to
cherish it, not destroy it.
Links
