Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future

by Matthew E. Kahn

"Climatopolis documents the thinking of a first-rate economist on one of the most pressing issues of our time" -- Nature We have released the genie from the climate change is coming, and there's no stopping it. The question, according to environmental economist Matthew E. Kahn, is not how we're going to avoid a hotter future but how we're going to adapt to it. In Climatopolis, Kahn argues that cities and regions will adapt to rising temperatures over time, slowly transforming our everyday lives as we change our behaviors and our surroundings. Taking the reader on a tour of the world's cities- from New York to Beijing to Mumbai -- Kahn's clear-eyed, engaging, and optimistic message presents a positive yet realistic picture of what our urban future will look like.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Economics, Nature

284 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 7, 2010

Reviews

[Max · Rating 2 out of 5]

Grabbed this one from the thrift shop, the cover seemed interesting. At home I found out it was written by an economist. I didn't really expect that, and to be honest, also wasn't hoping for that.

I found the book narrow-minded, one-sighted and really lacking in what will be truly different in cities in the future. I really don't believe there is a place for a mainly growing economy in the climate crisis. This book does not really consider the poor and the people who can't choose where to live.

The author is a privileged man, and he could do better to recognize that and incorporate the problems for the whole world. I understand there is no clear cut solution, but this book could make you think there is, based on oversimplified theories. Back to the thrift shop with this one!

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here is an interesting take (from my point of view) on climate change. How will cities adapt to climate change? This is the fundamental question the author, an economist, seeks to answer. Kahn explains what climate change may do to cities in the future, although he tends to take the worst case scenario in most cases to illustrate the problems cities may face. While alarmist at best, this does paint a picture of what may happen.

My main gripe with this book is Kahn's releiance on the free market as an agent of climate mitigation for cities. Unfortunately, one of Kahn's main arguments, that people will "vote with their feet", moving from cities that are at a higher risk to climate change anomalies, is probably a flawed assumption at best. Yes, a free market does create an incentive for living in an area that is low cost and high benefit for the person, but at the same time, cities that are less at risk to climate change events do not necessarily have high employment prospects. The free market cannot be the only thing to mitigate climate change, as we will need some government regulation to prevent the market from driving underpriviledged populations from any habitable living sites.

[Jim Rossi · Rating 5 out of 5]

We read this in a graduate seminar at UNLV by Dr. Robert Futrell called "The Social Dilemmas of Climate Change." "Climatopolis" formed part of a syllabus that included a wide range of work, including the IPCC. Fascinating, concise book by a UCLA economist. I've seen Joe Romm's "de-bunking" and don't think much of it. People lose sight of the idea that a great book is supposed to challenge your mind: I agree with much of what Kahn says, disagree with quite a bit, and on a great deal more remain unsure. But this book really got me thinking - and made me a smarter person - and for that I thank the writer and give Climatopolis 5 stars.

[Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is asinine book written in 2010 by an economist who truly believes that the invisible hand of the market will not only solve all the problems of global warming magically, but is even optimistic that things might be better. There’s a great deal of skepticism that climate models will be true as well.

I will waste no more words on the topic beyond to say that this book has an absolute garbage perspective that the invisible hand of the market will
magically invent fixes to all our climate woes and even that destroyed cities will bounce back. Against regular climate related catastrophes? I think not.

[ND · Rating 1 out of 5]

"If we as a society declare that our only goal is to maximize our average household income, then climate change is unlikely to be a major future threat" (239).

Utterly insipid oversimplification of the issues facing urban development and industrial economy in the face of climate change, should the prevailing models prove correct. (The author takes it for granted that mainstream predictions are likely to occur, on the simple but logical basis of, "why not?, [241-2]).

The book proceeds on several undefended assumptions, primarily that technology will inevitably develop to mitigate the effects of climate change due to increased market incentives to produce such technologies. The author concludes that this result is inevitable as "billions of educated, ambitious individuals" will launch "a billion mutinies against climate change" and that the best results of this "will be pretty good" (243). This trust in the inevitability of market incentives producing desired results in the face of the physical environment, as if by magic, is economic hubris at its most insipid.

[Fidelis Eka Satriastanti · Rating 3 out of 5]

From hundreds of pages, the gist of the book is "[...] I am willing to name some cities that I would not advise buying property in : Dhaka, Jakarta, Manila, and Calcutta."

No comment! -_____-'

[Cyrus Samii · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book was too much of back of the envelope level analysis. Rather than contending with real data it often uses contrived examples of hypothetical trade offs for complex policy problems. Occasionally solid studies are referenced but usually the lessons from those studies offer little direct evidence on climate-related urban challenges and therefore simply provide the basis for the book to make speculations. It was quaint to hear about the urbanization trends prior to COVID though.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the conversational style of the author. Well thought out and presented perspective on what could likely happen. I appreciate that he has strong opinions and then also shares what the counter thoughts/ actions are.

[R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essentially it is a catalogue of the various ways markets will foster adaptation techniques if we fail to reverse climate change, and a strong reminder to not meddle by fiat in the price system for things like home insurance and many more.

[Jo Matey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Outdated stats by now but still has some relevance with various scenarios both likely and probable. Somewhat naive hodgepodge of statements pertaining mostly to less developed areas, and other claims implicating irresponsible governments.

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of what's been written about climate change seems to have focused on mitigation: that is, what (if anything) should be done to prevent climate change. (I include denialist literature in this category, since its purpose is usually to argue that nothing should be done).

But this book takes a different tack: it focuses on adaptation- that is, assuming climate change is inevitable, what can cities and nations do about it? This sort of book really has a pretty limited market; the far Left won't like it because they will reject the assumption that human civilization can survive climate change, and the far Right won't like it because they don't want to believe that any unwelcome climate change could ever possibly occur.

Kahn's assumptions, of course, are quite different. He assumes that climate change will not be lethal enough to bring us back to the Dark Ages, but will still cause quite a few natural disasters, enough to influence where we will want to live.

Given those assumptions, Kahn believes some places will do better than others. Big winners (at least compared to the rest of the U.S.) will be cold inland cities like Buffalo; warmer weather will help them, and they won't suffer from rising sea levels.

He devotes a chapter each to Los Angeles and New York. Places with warm weather (like Los Angeles) will be big losers as warm weather becomes unpleasantly hot weather. Kahn also suggests that Los Angeles may face an increased risk of forest fires if climate change reduces rainfall, and that cities may wish to reduce development in "fire zones" near forests (or at least allow insurance premiums to rise in those areas). On the other hand, the city may wish to allow increased development near the coast, because increased heat may lead to increased smog inland. (I don't quite understand why Kahn doesn't think rising sea levels will afflict coastal California).

By contrast, Kahn writes that New York's major problem is rising sea levels. According to Kahn, climate models suggest that New York's ickily humid summers won't get much worse. But because Manhattan is surrounded by water, it has a high risk of flooding from hurricanes. Kahn writes that zoning should discourage development in flood zones near the water, or at least that insurance premiums should be allowed to rise in those zones. He also urges municipal spending in adaptation strategies such as sea walls.

The last few chapters are weaker than the first; Kahn discusses the possibility of higher energy prices caused by carbon taxes or other environmentalist-inspired limits on high-pollution energy sources. But given the general anti-tax, anti-regulation mood in the United States, there is no reason to believe such policies will ever be implemented.

[Blake Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun book to read and to argue with. His reliance on people being able to make individual choices to adapt to or escape from cities that are likely to be susceptible to climate change and the private sector innovating us out of danger may be overly optimistic for most of the poorer population.

He presents his reasoning behind how/why certain acts of government intervention can lead to worse outcomes when climate change hits, but makes to attempt to explain the ways in which government assistance could be useful.

All in all, I enjoyed reading the book, since it gives the perspective of a free-market economist explaining how he believes our cities will adapt to climate change.

[Ilya Gerner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Almost bipolar writing: on the one hand, good examples of government policies that make it difficult to adjust to climate change (non-market pricing for water, bad zoning, low gas taxes) and an understanding that the poor will suffer the overwhelming brunt of climate-related disasters; on the other hand, a blithe belief in the power of the price mechanism to incentivize a response to global warming and save us all. Will need to write a review.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A free market economist thinks Capitalism (the cause of environmental crises) will solve the environmental crisis. The book was fun to read, though, and was good for reinforcing why I don't agree with him.

[Maryum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written thoughts on climate change's effects on major cities (mostly U.S. focus). The book addresses policies, human behavior and economic incentives. I loved the clips of humor and references. Kahn wrote so that it was an easy and enjoyable read.

[Mike Dettinger]

So *that's* why conservatives don't care about climate change. Worth the read (it's surprisingly quick) but remarkably selfish and unconvincing