One-third of Pakistan
In 2022, flooding submerged one-third of Pakistan. Thirty-three million displaced. Over 1,700 dead. Pakistan contributes less than 1 percent of global emissions. The nations most responsible sent aid packages. The aid was a fraction of the damage. The damage was a fraction of the loss.
Our position is the simplest claim in the debate: the people who did the least to cause this are suffering the most, and the people with resources to act are running cost-benefit analyses. That is not economics. That is a moral catastrophe with a spreadsheet.
The scientific consensus gives us the diagnosis and we are grateful. But the data has been communicated. Six IPCC reports, each clearer and more urgent. Each followed by emissions increases. Understanding the science does not create the moral obligation to act on it. You can know the house is on fire and still argue about the deductible.
The Nordhaus economists ask how much we are willing to spend. The question is structurally identical to asking how much we are willing to spend to not commit murder. Slavery was economically efficient. Child labor was economically efficient. When your production system requires destroying conditions that sustain human life, the system is wrong.
We notice who is absent from the models. A Bangladeshi farmer’s ancestral land, a Pacific Islander’s homeland, the 150 species going extinct daily. These are not externalities. They are the actual costs.
The adaptation realists are at least doing something. But adaptation without justice is triage without accountability.
Where we concede ground: Telling a West Texas oil worker her industry is immoral without offering a path forward is vanity.
What would change our mind: Climate-vulnerable nations collectively choosing fossil-fueled growth over mitigation through democratic processes free of coercion.
Read the full synthesis: Is climate change a science problem, an economics problem, a moral problem, or something else?