The article is structured well, beginning with "Environmental Econ 101", then looking at current doubts cast on climate change science itself in "Climate of Doubt", examining "The Cost of Action", studying globalization and the difficulties of coordinating action in "The China Syndrome", warning of "The Costs of Inaction", looking at different ways in which to adopt climate change-countering policies in "The Ramp versus the Big Bang", and finally examining the all-important "Political Atmosphere" which, sadly, dominates and poisons most public discourse.
Ultimately, Krugman's rationale for why we should pursue economic and social practices that will reduce carbon emissions is something I fully agree with:
As Harvard’s Martin Weitzman has argued in several influential papers, if there is a significant chance of utter catastrophe, that chance — rather than what is most likely to happen — should dominate cost-benefit calculations. And utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility, even if it is not the most likely outcome.Weitzman argues — and I agree — that this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible — it’s tempting to say criminally irresponsible — not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.
I wonder if the desacralization of nature that has taken place over the last three hundred years has had anything to do with our blindness to what may lie ahead. (Seemingly trivial counter-example: the Ganges, the most sacred and the most polluted river in India.) I don't know if it could have prevented what happened, but I suspect a more sacralized view of nature as Nature would have made it easier for us, culturally, to respond to the crisis once we became aware of it.
