When the entire world is gearing up to discuss and understand and limit impact of climate change, there are some who think contradictory. All this is welcome as then only we will have a healthy debate
Robert Mendelsohn of Yale is one such contrarian. In this paper he covers a vast literature to show the impact of climate change on eco growth is at best limited. He covers the research on impact of climate change on various eco variables- agriculture, water, forest, recreation etc. He also says chances of catastrophic events is very rare. He says mitigation costs are overstated. According to him the biggest threat of climate change is:
The biggest threat climate change poses to economic growth, however, is not from climate damages or efficient mitigation policies, but rather from immediate, aggressive, and inefficient mitigation policies. Immediate aggressive mitigation policies could lead to mitigation costs equal to $28 trillion (Stern 2006). This is 14 times higher than the mitigation costs of an optimal policy. If these policies were no more efficient than current policies, the costs could easily rise to $56 trillion. These misguided mitigation programs pose a serious threat to economic growth. They would impose heavy additional costs on the global economy that cannot be justified by the limited reductions in climate risk that they offer.
:-). He points that in short run, mitigation costs functions are price inelastic and will be very expensive.
An inelastic short‐run marginal cost function implies that large reductions of emissions in the short run will be very expensive. There simply is no inexpensive way to reduce emissions sharply in the short run. Renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity have largely been exhausted. Solar and wind power are expensive except in ideal locations and circumstances. Other strategies such as shifting from coal to natural gas can work only in the short run as they cause more rapid depletion of natural gas supplies.
In the short run, a rushed public policy is likely to be inefficient. It will likely exempt major polluters as Europe now does with coal. Very few national mitigation programs regulate every source of emission. Most countries have sought to reduce emissions in only a narrow sector of the national economy. Rushed programs will likely invest in specific technologies that are ineffective, such as the United States has done with ethanol. Ethanol produces as much greenhouse gas as gasoline. The inelasticity of the marginal cost function implies that mitigation programs that are not applied universally will be very wasteful. Regulated polluters will spend a lot to eliminate a single ton while unregulated polluters will spend nothing.
He also says for mitigation to work, international participation is needed (a point Nordhaus makes). Without it, again it will be inefficient and costly. So, overall we are just heading towards making more wasteful policies.
Come to think of it, he is trying to make the right points. There is a sudden rush to do everything about climate change. It is the hot thing and big time in fashion. Yes, we need to be aware and even if changes are expected say 40-50 years from now, we need to start working on them gradually. We all should be aware and educated about this issue. But just to glamorize it and do some short term policies and ignore it later, will not work. We need to debate this issue with more seriousness minus all the jazz.
See Mendelsohn’s number of paperson Climate change. It is just amazing. The research culture in US Univs just leaves you short of breath. They devote so much time to it. And there are so many econs who are completely unknown but have done amazing work.
Mostly Economics 
