Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

The Latest Nobel Winner Has a Different Approach to Solving Climate Change

Daron Acemoglu and William Nordhaus have some disagreements.

Daron Acemoglu.
Heatmap Illustration/Wikimedia Commons-MeJudice1, Getty Images

This year’s Economics Nobel is not a climate prize — that happened in 2018, when Yale economist William Nordhaus won the prize for his work on modeling the effects of climate change and economic growth together, providing the intellectual basis for carbon taxation and more generally for regulating greenhouse gas emissions because of the “social cost” they impose on everyone.

Instead, this year’s prize, awarded to MIT’s Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson and University of Chicago’s James Robinson is for their work demonstrating “the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity,” i.e. why some countries are rich and others are poor. To do so, the trio looked at the history of those countries’ institutions — laws, modes of government, relationship between the state and individuals — and drew out which are conducive to wealth and which lead to poverty.

Long story short, “extractive” institutions set up to reward a narrow elite tend to hurt economic development over time, as in much of Africa, which was colonized by Europeans who didn’t actually live there. “Inclusive” institutions, by contrast, arose in the United States and Canada, where there was significantly more European migration, thus incentivizing the ruling elite to set up institutions that benefitted a broader range of (again, European) residents.

While this research rests heavily on the climate (the reason Europeans avoided African colonies was because of the high rate of disease in tropical climates), it does not touch on climate change specifically. But Acemoglu especially is an incredibly wide-ranging scholar and has devoted some time to the specific questions of climate change — and in so doing has been a direct critic of Nordhaus, Stockholm’s preferred climate economist.

“Existing approaches in economics still do not provide the right framework for managing the problems that will confront us over the next several decades,” Acemoglu wrote in a 2021 essay titled “What Climate Change Requires of Economics,” referring directly to Nordhaus’s Nobel-winning work. “Although the economics discipline has evolved over time to acknowledge environmental risks and costs, it has yet to rise to the challenge of climate change. A problem as massive as this one will require a fundamental reconsideration of some of the field's most deeply held assumptions.”

His criticisms included that Nordhaus’s more gradualistic approach — the latest version of his model spits out that a 1.5 degree Celsius warming target is “infeasible,” and the “cost vs. benefit optimal” amount of warming as 2.6 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels with a carbon price that rises to $115 per ton by 2050 — ignores both the best way to reduce emissions and the risk of not doing so fast enough.

Acemoglu is far more optimistic about how policy can direct technological development and less sanguine about additional warming over and above the Paris Agreement limits. He argues that the possibility of theoretical “tipping points,” where exceeding certain climate thresholds by even a small amount may cause dramatic damages, make the risk of such overshoot far too great.

He also took issue with the discount rate applied to spending later vs. spending now in Nordhaus’s models. The basic idea is that a dollar spent today to mitigate the effects of climate change is more valuable than one spent in 2050. But the rates Nordhaus uses — which he derives from real-world investment returns — implies that in order for spending now to be worth it later, the benefits in 2050 or 2100 must be very, very large.

“There is a plausible economic (and philosophical) case to be made for why future essential public goods should be valued differently than private goods or other types of public consumption,” Acemoglu wrote in 2021, arguing that discount rates derived from investment returns, like the ones Nordhaus uses, might not be the best guide to public policy.

So what does the latest Nobel laureate want instead? Well, something like what the United States has been doing the past few years.

Accounting for the economic benefits of domestic or “endogenous” technological development, Acemoglu’s research finds that "the transition to cleaner energy is much more important than simply reducing energy consumption, and that technological interventions need to be redirected far more aggressively than they have been.” He explored how this process could work in papers he wrote over more than a decade, developing a model for this kind of directed technological change and applying it to the United States, starting as far back as 2012.

Across all his work on climate change, Acemoglu argues that a focus on pricing the “externalities” of carbon emissions — the harm emissions impose on everyone that isn’t reflected in the prices of fossil fuels — is myopic. Instead, the challenge is both restricting emissions and fostering clean technologies that can take the place of dirty ones, which have had a remarkable head start in investment.

In “The Environment and Directed Technical Change,” published in 2012 and co-written with Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn, and David Hemous, Acemoglu argues that a mixture of carbon taxes and research subsides could “redirect technical change and avoid an environmental disaster” by imposing a cost on dirty technology and boosting clean technology.

Such an approach would probably rest heavily on positive subsidies and encouraging clean technology and less on a carbon tax, the four write (although a carbon tax would still help to “discourage research” into polluting technologies). It would also need to happen soon.

“Directed technical change also calls for immediate and decisive action in contrast to the implications of several exogenous technology models used in previous economic analyses.”

This framework does not precisely match United States policy — we have no carbon tax — but it does somewhat approximate it. The Biden administration’s approach to climate policy centers on large-scale investments in clean technologies, whether they’re tax credits for non-carbon-emitting electricity production or financing for clean energy projects from the Loan Programs Office, combined with a suite of Environmental Protection Agency rules that are intended to reduce pollution from fossil fuel power plants (along with an actual direct fee on methane emissions).

This approach is embedded within an overall industrial policy that’s supposed to make the economy more productive — a counter-argument to the idea that climate spending is an economic drag that trades off with environmental harms in the future. Acemoglu, too, questions the idea that there’s a tradeoff between economic growth and spending to combat climate change. Not only could renewables be cheaper than fossil fuels, “an energy transition can improve productive capacity and thus lead to an expansion of output, because transition to cleaner technologies can boost investment and the rate of technological progress,” he and his co-authors write.

Acemoglu has also weighed in on one the more controversial questions in climate policy and economics: the shale gas boom. In a 2023 paper written, again with Aghion, Hemous, and Lint Barrage, he weighed the effects of dramatic increase of domestically extracted natural gas, focusing on the importance of technological development. The Environmental Protection Agency attributes the decline in US greenhouse gas emissions since 2010 in part to “the growing use of natural gas and renewables to generate electricity in place of more carbon-intensive fuels,” due to natural gas replacing coal electricity generation. While this logic has come under fire from some activists and researchers who say the government’s models underestimate methane leakage from natural gas operations, Acemoglu took a different tack.

Yes, natural gas substituting for coal reduces short-run emissions, he and his co-authors concluded, but also, “the natural gas boom discourages innovation directed at clean energy, which delays and can even permanently prevent the energy transition to zero carbon.” They backed up this assertion by pointing to a decline in the total share of patents rewarded to renewable energy innovation between 2009 and 2016.

The way out is that same mix of carbon prices and technology subsidies Acemoglu has been recommending in some form since Kelly Clarkson was last on top of the charts, which “enables emission reductions in the short run, while optimal policy would ensure that the long-run green transition is not disrupted.”

If the Biden Administration’s climate policy works out, it will look something like that, and the prize will be far greater than anything given out in Stockholm.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate

AM Briefing: The Greenpeace Verdict

On Energy Transfer’s legal win, battery storage, and the Cybertruck

The Greenpeace Verdict Is In
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Red flag warnings are in place for much of Florida • Spain is bracing for extreme rainfall from Storm Martinho, the fourth named storm in less than two weeks • Today marks the vernal equinox, or the first day of spring.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Jury sides with pipeline company in Greenpeace lawsuit

A jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to one of the country’s largest fossil fuel infrastructure companies after finding the environmental group liable for defamation, conspiracy, and physical damages at the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace participated in large protests, some violent and disruptive, at the pipeline in 2016, though it has maintained that its involvement was insignificant and came at the request of the local Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The project eventually went ahead and is operational today, but Texas-based Energy Transfer sued the environmental organization, accusing it of inciting the uprising and encouraging violence. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA. The group said it plans to appeal.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Fusion.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Thea Energy

Thea Energy, one of the newer entrants into the red-hot fusion energy space, raised $20 million last year as investors took a bet on the physics behind the company’s novel approach to creating magnetic fields. Today, in a paper being submitted for peer review, Thea announced that its theoretical science actually works in the real world. The company’s CEO, Brian Berzin, told me that Thea achieved this milestone “quicker and for less capital than we thought,” something that’s rare in an industry long-mocked for perpetually being 30 years away.

Thea is building a stellarator fusion reactor, which typically looks like a twisted version of the more common donut-shaped tokamak. But as Berzin explained to me, Thea’s stellarator is designed to be simpler to manufacture than the industry standard. “We don’t like high tech stuff,” Berzin told me — a statement that sounds equally anathema to industry norms as the idea of a fusion project running ahead of schedule. “We like stuff that can be stamped and forged and have simple manufacturing processes.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Electric Vehicles

Why BYD Keeps Shocking the World

The Chinese carmaker says it can charge EVs in 5 minutes. Can America ever catch up?

The BYD logo as a rabbit.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Chinese automaker BYD might have cracked one of the toughest problems in electric cars.

On Tuesday, BYD unveiled its new “Super e-Platform,” a new standard electronic base for its vehicles that it says will allow incredibly fast charging — enabling its vehicles to add as much as 249 miles of range in just five minutes. That’s made possible because of a 1,000-volt architecture and what BYD describes as matching charging capability, which could theoretically add nearly one mile of range every second.

Keep reading...Show less