El mal uso del argumento de la inacción

SAN JOSÉ, COSTA RICA – Un argumento que se repite comúnmente para hacer algo sobre el cambio climático suena convincente, pero resulta ser casi fraudulento. Se basa en comparar el costo de la acción con el costo de la inacción, y casi todos los políticos prominentes del mundo lo utilizan.

El presidente de la Comisión Europea, José Manuel Barroso, por ejemplo, utilizó este argumento cuando presentó la propuesta de la Unión Europea para abordar el cambio climático a principios de este año. La UE prometió reducir sus emisiones de CO2 en un 20% para 2020, a un costo que las propias estimaciones de la Comisión ubicaron en alrededor del 0,5% del PBI, o aproximadamente 60.000 millones de euros por año. Se trata, obviamente, de un valor importante –al menos un incremento del 50% en el costo total de la UE- y probablemente sea mucho mayor (la Comisión previamente estimó que el costo duplicaría su estimación actual).

Pero la frase de remate de Barroso fue que “el costo es bajo comprador con el alto precio de la inacción”. Por cierto, pronosticó que el precio de no hacer nada “podría incluso rondar el 20% del PBI”. (No importa que esta estimación de costo quizás esté excesivamente sobreestimada –la mayoría de los modelos arrojan daños de aproximadamente el 3%).

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.


Log in

  1. An employee works at a chemical fiber weaving company VCG/Getty Images

    China in the Lead?

    For four decades, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth under a centralized, authoritarian political system, far outpacing growth in the Western liberal democracies. So, is Chinese President Xi Jinping right to double down on authoritarianism, and is the “China model” truly a viable rival to Western-style democratic capitalism?

  2. The assembly line at Ford Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    Whither the Multilateral Trading System?

    The global economy today is dominated by three major players – China, the EU, and the US – with roughly equal trading volumes and limited incentive to fight for the rules-based global trading system. With cooperation unlikely, the world should prepare itself for the erosion of the World Trade Organization.

  3. Donald Trump Saul Loeb/Getty Images

    The Globalization of Our Discontent

    Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US has shown. The challenge is to minimize the risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.

  4. A general view of the Corn Market in the City of Manchester Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    A Better British Story

    Despite all of the doom and gloom over the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union, key manufacturing indicators are at their highest levels in four years, and the mood for investment may be improving. While parts of the UK are certainly weakening economically, others may finally be overcoming longstanding challenges.

  5. UK supermarket Waring Abbott/Getty Images

    The UK’s Multilateral Trade Future

    With Brexit looming, the UK has no choice but to redesign its future trading relationships. As a major producer of sophisticated components, its long-term trade strategy should focus on gaining deep and unfettered access to integrated cross-border supply chains – and that means adopting a multilateral approach.

  6. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now