Economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner are hitting the press circuit promoting their follow-up to
Freakonomics with (the unimaginatively titled)
Super Frekonomics. Their last book was notable for showing how economics and logic could be applied to explain social phenomenon. It also received much attention for positing the theory that lower crime is linked to more abortions. Morality aside, the argument seems logical -- less unwanted babies, less crime. Nevertheless Freakonomics managed to irritate both liberals and conservatives, and became a bestseller. Their latest aims to repeat this trend, taking on controversial topics like climate change, prostitution, and suicide bombers.
Since I have started working on a
documentary on the subject, Levitt's approach to climate change caught my attention. He sums up
his critique of carbon curtailment on The Daily Show:
Maybe he's not just stirring up controversy for the sake of selling more books. Once again, Dubner and Levitt are getting attacked from both sides. However, I applaud his critical approach: It's not that we should do nothing about climate change, rather, we should think harder about the cost/benefits. The effects of curtailing carbon may not be enough to reverse the looming dangers, and are very expensive. Though his ideas do sound a bit wacky, I think environmentalists should at least be open to the discussion instead of incorrectly dismissing the argument as anti-climate change bias. Check out
his blog for a heated discourse and response to critics.