Question

Frank Ackerman (Real World Micro, 11.7) makes four arguments for aggressive action to stop global warming.  Evaluate each of his arguments from the perspective of a young person, an elderly person without children, and a middle-aged person with children.  Which arguments might each find persuasive? Which arguments might each dismiss?  

Answer 1

The arguments are discussed as per them made by Frank Ackerman, who is an economist in the environmental economics. According to him the four arguments are as follows:

Your grandchildren's life is important: In this argument Ackerman talks about how long run implications has to be addressed by the people around the world, and specially by those who have already aged with convenience. As a young person I do believe that resources are not a legacy from the past but a gift from the future. At the same time when it is about an elderly person without children I would rather be peaceful yet be judicious in further use. As a middle aged person with children, I agree firmly with this aspect that we need to take care of the future of my children.

We need to buy insurance for the planet: The argument discusses the fact that with increasing sea levels and also the possibility (it is also very certain) that the condition for the planet will be worse, there is a need for the safety nets to save this world.  Investing in the planet insurance policy might be easy for an elderly person who is without children, however for a young youth and a middle aged man, it is an additional cost that they will have to bear.

Climate damages are too costly to have prices : According to  Ackerman the cost that is spent to save lives has no limit and value. It is therefore that damages made by the climate change are too costly to have prices tagged to it.

Some costs are better than others: According to this argument the distortion and exaggeration of costs occurs across a range of time scales. In the short run, bottom-up studies of energy use and carbon emissions repeatedly find significant opportunities for emissions reduction at zero or negative net cost the so-called ‘no regrets’options.

Among these the most persuasive argument for all three population mentioned is the first one which does not include cost that have to borne by any of them. The one that might be dismissive is the last argument of comparing the cost where it has to be borne by the mentioned section of the society.