Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
IPCC Second Assessment Report
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Debate over value of a statistical life == {{See also|Economics of global warming}} One of the controversies of the Second Assessment Working Group III report is the economic valuation of human life, which is used in monetized (i.e., converted into US dollar values) estimates of [[effects of climate change|climate change impacts]].<ref>This has been documented in a number of sources: *{{cite journal |author=F. Pearce |title=Global Row over Value of Human Life |journal=New Scientist |page=7 |date=19 August 1995 }} *{{cite journal |author=E. Masood |title=Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact |journal=Nature |volume=376 |issue= 6539|page=374 |year=1995 | bibcode=1995Natur.376R.374M | doi=10.1038/376374b0 |doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal |author1=E. Masood |author2=A. Ochert |name-list-style=amp |title=UN Climate Change Report Turns up the Heat |journal=Nature |volume=378 |issue= 6553|page=119 |year=1995 | doi=10.1038/378119a0 |bibcode = 1995Natur.378..119M |doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal |author=A. Meyer |title=Economics of Climate Change |journal=Nature |volume=378 |issue= 6556|page=433 |year=1995 |doi=10.1038/378433a0 |bibcode = 1995Natur.378..433M |doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal |author=N. Sundaraman |title=Impact of Climate Change |journal=Nature |volume=377 |issue=6549 |page=472 |year=1995 |pmid=7566134 |doi=10.1038/377472c0 |bibcode = 1995Natur.377..472H |s2cid=4369732 |doi-access=free }} *{{cite journal |author=T. O'Riordan |title= Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension |journal=Environment |volume=39 |issue=9 |pages=34–39 |year=1997 |doi=10.1080/00139159709604768 }} </ref> Often in these monetized estimates, the [[health risks of climate change]] are valued so that they are "consistent" with valuations of other health risks.<ref name="pearce monetary value of human life"> {{Cite book | title=Ch. 6: The social costs of climate change: greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. Box 6.1 Attributing a monetary value to a statistical life | author=Pearce, D.W. |display-authors=etal}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC SAR WG3|1995|p=196}} (p.194 of PDF) </ref><ref name="ackerman cba">{{Cite web | author=Ackerman, F. | title=Priceless Benefits, Costly Mistakes: What's Wrong With Cost-Benefit Analysis? | work=Post-autistic economics review | issue=25 | date=18 May 2004 | pages=2–7 | url=http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue25/Ackerman25.htm | access-date=2 January 2014 | archive-date=6 June 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606030656/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue25/Ackerman25.htm | url-status=live }}</ref> There are a wide range of views on monetized estimates of climate change impacts.<ref> For example: *{{Cite book |author = Nordhaus, W.D. |year = 2008 |chapter = Summary for the Concerned Citizen |title = A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies |publisher = Yale University Press |location = New Haven, Connecticut, USA |isbn = 978-0-300-13748-4 |url = http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf <!-- Whole book --> |chapter-url = <!-- add if you find one --> |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080910214411/http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf |archive-date = 2008-09-10 }}, pp.4–19 *{{Cite web |author = Spash, C.L. |title = Climate change: Need for new economic thought |work = Economic and Political Weekly |date = 10 February 2007 |url = http://www.clivespash.org/Final_EPW_10Feb07.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070614024612/http://www.clivespash.org/Final_EPW_10Feb07.pdf |archive-date = 14 June 2007 }}, pp.485–486. *{{Cite book |title = Ch 6: Economic modelling of climate-change impacts. Sec 6.1: Introduction |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_6_Economic_modelling_of_climate-change_impacts.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130502230715/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_6_Economic_modelling_of_climate-change_impacts.pdf |archive-date = 2013-05-02 }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|pp=144–145}} *{{Cite book |title = Ch 2: Economics, Ethics and Climate Change. Sec 2.3: Ethics, welfare and economic policy |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_2_Economics_Ethics_and_Climate_Change.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130516151957/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_2_Economics_Ethics_and_Climate_Change.pdf |archive-date = 2013-05-16 }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|pp=28–31}} *{{Cite book |year = 2008 |chapter = Ch. 4: Effects of Global Change on Human Welfare: Sec 4.3 An economic approach to human welfare |title = Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research |publisher = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |pages = 124–128 |author = Sussman, F.G. |chapter-url = http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/final-report/ |display-authors = etal |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091130094759/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/final-report/ |archive-date = 2009-11-30 }} </ref> The strengths and weaknesses of monetized estimates are discussed in the SAR<ref>Chapter 5 of the SAR Working Group III report {{harv|IPCC SAR WG3|1995}} discusses how [[cost-benefit analysis]] (which extensively uses monetized estimates) can be applied to climate change. Other chapters (1–4, 6, and 10) also contain relevant information. </ref> and later IPCC assessments.<ref>For example: *{{Cite book | title=Ch 2. Methods and tools | author=Ahmad, Q.K.| at=[http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/093.htm Sec 2.5. Methods for Costing and Valuation] |display-authors=etal}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG2|2001|pp=120–126}}. *{{Cite book | title=Ch 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context | author=Fisher, B.S.| at=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-5-3-3.html Sec 3.5.3.3 Cost-benefit analysis, damage cost estimates and social costs of carbon] |display-authors=etal}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007|}} </ref> In the preparation of the SAR, disagreement arose over the Working Group III [[Summary for Policymakers]] (SPM).<ref name="grubb value of human life"/> The SPM is written by a group of IPCC authors, who then discuss the draft with government delegates from all of the UNFCCC Parties (i.e., delegates from most of the world's governments).<ref> {{cite book |year=2001 |chapter=Ch. 7: Assessing Progress in Climate Science |title=Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions |publisher=National Academy Press | location=Washington, D.C., USA |author=Committee on the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council |chapter-url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=23 |page=23 |isbn=0-309-07574-2 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110605132107/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1| archive-date= 5 June 2011| url-status= live|bibcode=2001ccsa.book.....N }} </ref> The economic valuation of human life (referred to by economists as the "value of statistical life")<ref name="pearce monetary value of human life"/> was viewed by some governments (such as India) as suggesting that people living in poor countries are worth less than people living in rich countries.<ref name="grubb value of human life"/> [[David Pearce (economist)|David Pearce]], who was a lead author of the relevant chapter of the SAR, officially dissented on the SPM. According to Pearce:<ref name=edvcbn> {{cite web |date=1 January 1996 |title=Correction on Global Warming Cost Benefit Conflict |publisher=Environmental Damage Valuation and Cost Benefit News |last=Pearce |first=D. |url=http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epalib/nwlet.nsf/434d5673ac53b154852564cd007a8a0d/716e9f1d6b29a006852564d600141f3a!OpenDocument |access-date=20 May 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080716203426/http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epalib/nwlet.nsf/434d5673ac53b154852564cd007a8a0d/716e9f1d6b29a006852564d600141f3a%21OpenDocument |archive-date=16 July 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> <blockquote>The relevant chapter [of the Report] values of statistical life based on actual studies in different countries ... What the authors of Chapter 6 did not accept, and still do not accept, was the call from a few [government] delegates for a common valuation based on the highest number for willingness to pay.</blockquote> In other words, a few government delegates wanted "statistical lives" in poor countries to be valued at the same level as "statistical lives" in rich countries. IPCC author Michael Grubb<ref> {{cite web |title = Michael Grubb: Other positions and activities |publisher = [[University of Cambridge]] Faculty of Economics website |author = Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/SelectAct.htm |access-date = 12 December 2012 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130703201045/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/SelectAct.htm |archive-date = 3 July 2013 }}</ref> later commented:<ref name="grubb value of human life"> {{cite web |date = September 2005 |title = Stick to the Target |publisher = Prospect Magazine |author = Grubb, M. |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130703200940/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf |archive-date = 2013-07-03 }}</ref> <blockquote>Many of us think that the governments were basically right. The metric [used by Pearce] makes sense for determining how a given government might make tradeoffs between its own internal projects. But the same logic fails when the issue is one of damage inflicted by some countries on others: why should the deaths inflicted by the big emitters—principally the industrialised countries—be valued differently according to the wealth of the victims' countries?</blockquote>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)