We Reduce the Value of Human Life in the Future

The carbon footprint each of us leaves helps to change the climate. As the climate changes it brings bigger floods, hurricanes, droughts and heat. More people die in the wake of it all. It is reasonable to project increasing death and destruction as more carbon does its thing. 

In economics there is a behavioral observation that humans discount future benefits compared to current benefits. For example, on two busy streets adjacent to my building crazy motorcycle riders speed beyond belief while with their front wheel far off the ground. One died recently when he could not stop. 

Most motorcycle riders do not do this because the value of their lives is greater than the thrill of the stunt. But what if the death from accidents was always far off into the future, five or ten years? The calculation would be different. Many riders might decide the value of their lives off into the future is less and would take more risk. The same calculation applies to reward. How much would you pay to receive $1,000 in return? You would not pay $1,100. Would be pay $999? You would if it were instantaneous and risk free. But if the $1,000 plus $1 would not be paid to you for 10 years from now the $1 profit would be of less or no value to you.

We in the U.S. and people around the world are the crazy motorcycle riders when it comes to global warming. We know there is some risk today but we decide our energy/carbon consequences are off somewhere in the distance. This makes them seem less important, the coming damage seems lower. The lives lost off in the future, especially after we are dead, have no value to us. 

There is a subfield in economics that tries to put a dollar figure on the future damage including loss of life. It tries to objectively calculate the cost of doing nothing about global warming and the value received of preventing it.  President Obama established a working group called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) to work on a cost estimate of one ton of carbon put into the atmosphere. This cost includes higher prices and loss of life.

Political factors introduce different assumptions. The Trump administration's estimated of the cost of one ton of carbon put into the atmosphere was $1.00. Biden's administration trying to be realistic has adopted the number $51.00. The working number arrived at by the SCC task force is $258.00.

All of these numbers are reduced to near zero by we in the public because they involve deaths and a lower standard of living after we ourselves are dead. The $258.00 involves some complex calculations but the cost is not hypothetical, it is real. But, again, it is out there in the future.

Each year there is a little more acceptance of global warming and its consequences because the costs are coming closer to us now living on earth. The costs of droughts, floods and hurricanes in real time and the benefits of avoiding them apparent right now. Several lives have been lost this summer from terrible weather.

A scientist cousin of mine in California told be of a conversation with a colleague in atmospheric science. My cousin asked him when this cycle of bad weather will be over. The reply was not in our lifetime. It is permanent and may get even worse. 

To lower our carbon footprint and improve life in future generations requires a type of thinking we are not familiar with. It requires a commitment to preserving the planet for people far into the future. We, on the other hand, focus on besting our political and business competition this month.

It seems to me now is the time to start thinking in a way different than we have done before.