I had been posting for a number of years that economic modelling on the cost of climate change seemed dubious at best, and a complete crock at worst. I was puzzled that Pindyck's criticisms didn't have more publicity.
I think this view has finally spread more widely, not only amongst science exaggerating political movements such as Extinction Rebellion, but more broadly into mainstream opinion.
I hadn't realised that controversial Australian economist Steven Keen had thrown his commentary into the mix too. Now, I know a lot of people attack him for exaggerated attacks on various economic issues (house price bubbles especially, I think), but if he is right in his criticisms in this post, and in the video following, it does seem remarkable that it has taken this long for people to say "this can't be right".
I also note that last month And Then There's Physics had a post and thread about the related topic of Integrated Assessment Models. Many good comments about them are to be found there.
Just to let you know Pindyk is a leading econometric and co-wrote a book on the subject way back when I was studying economics.
ReplyDeleteA model anywhere is only as good as its assumptions.