How to tackle global warming - and how not to

2014-01-08 Will we be living better in 2050 than our predecessors did in 1900? The discussion over the state of the world, and whether things are getting better or worse, is not new. Scientists and philosophers have debated the topic for centuries. From Malthus to The Limits to Growth, pessimists have built their case for a future blighted by overpopulation, starvation, and depleted resources as optimists have tried to assure them that everything would be OK.

My peer-reviewed research paper sparked an emotional response from environmentalist Joe Romm. His complaint is that I am overly pessimistic about Paris. In his customary style of ad hominem attacks and fervid language, he calls me a "widely debunked confusionist", labels my research "nonsense", a "lie" and "intellectually indefensible", and suggests his supporters use social media to go after the journal that published it.

Setting aside Mr. Romm's insults and attempts at provocation, I'd like to respond to the actual assertions.

The world is waking up to the fact the climate-policy goal of achieving “net-zero” CO2 emissions brings crippling economic pain.