BY JONATHAN EMONT

In print | Published November 6, 2008

Last Thursday, alum Michael Greenstone ’91 presented a lecture entitled “The Consequences of Climate Change on Mortality in the United States and India.” His presentation came as this year’s Bernard Saffran Memorial Lecture. Bernard Saffran was one of Swarthmore’s most prominent economics professors until his unexpected death in 2004. Greenstone began the lecture by revisiting his experience studying under Saffran over eighteen years ago. He described his former professor as a father figure and said that it was “quite an honor” to be the keynote speaker at an
event held in memory of his former mentor, whom he fondly referred to as “Bernie.” Greenstone said that it was Saffran who convinced him to pursue a graduate degree in economics, a decision that led to his career as a member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

After concluding his remarks on Saffran’s Swarthmore career, Greenstone discussed his research on the impact of climate change on mortality rates in the United States and India. He used these numbers and a few other indicators to predict the extent to which “business-as-usual” levels of climate change would result in mortality increases in India and the U.S. He concluded that in the year 2100, there would be a “relatively minor” two to three percent increase in the mortality rate of the U.S. India, however, would exhibit a more extreme increase. One of his models indicated that India’s increase in mortality could be as high as 36 percent.

Greenstone began his lecture by describing why an analysis such as his is useful and, in fact, necessary. “Evidence on the magnitude of these impacts is necessary for the design of optimal policy,” he said. Greenstone proceeded to describe the methodology behind his results. By calculating the extent to which past mortality rates have increased due to high temperatures, Mr. Greenstone predicted the amount of “very hot” days there would be in 2100, and combined the two figures to determine the rate of mortality increase in both India and the U.S. Before conducting the study, Greenstone had considered that a reduction in the number of very cold days (and the associated public health risks) could mitigate the increase in mortality resulting from the very hot ones. As a result of the study, however, he determined that the impact of a reduction in dangerously cold days was negligible. “The truth is the hottest days are the worst days,” Greenstone said.

Greenstone explained the large disparity between American and Indian increases in mortality rates by suggesting that it was the high rate of poverty which made climate change affect Indians so much. He said, “If you need a measure of why it’s good to be rich, here’s a measure.” He argued that people with less money would be less able to adapt to the changing climate, and also suggested that the heat would lower the Indian rural agricultural wage by as much as 29 percent, as the climate would become much less conducive to agriculture.

“The costs of climate change are unlikely to be spread evenly across the globe … This has not-so-hot implications for ever producing a worldwide climate change policy.” Greenstone said during his lecture. He acknowledged, however, that his study was only designed to produce rough predictions of the impact of anticipated climate change. In such a broad study, there were many variables to take into account. Greenstone acknowledged the possibility that his study may have “overestimated the costs” associated with climate change, because his data did not take into account adaptations that would be developed by people as a result of climate change. Greenstone’s estimations additionally varied widely depending on the models he used to assess the changes in temperature resulting from climate change.

According to Visiting Professor of Economics Ted Crone, Greenstone’s analysis “didn’t deal with all the costs, or, therefore, benefits of reduction of carbon emissions, but did illustrate how difficult it is to do cost-benefit analysis for real world externalities.”

Students generally found the lecture to be informative and timely. “I really enjoyed the lecture. We always learn about climate change from a scientific standpoint, so it was new to hear about it from an economic standpoint, as well,” said Tania Doles ’12.

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »