Climate change - the U.S. has to do something, anything

[PJABBER]

While I am not personally convinced that there is a pressing problem with anthropogenic climate change, I am extremely worried that the most commonly proposed solutions to this questionable problem will bring extraordinary hardships to people here in the United States and throughout the world.

As a humanitarian, an environmentalist and practical economist, I would like to see more emphasis in discussion placed on cost effectiveness and practical result than pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

Right now in the U.S. we have the prospect of devastating cap-and-trade taxation, we have government intercession in heavy industry, particularly in the automotive industry, we have an Environmental Protection Agency that is pursuing political agendas rather than practical solutions. We also have a striking lack of scientific consensus as to what the actual dangers of anthropogenic climate change are and what, if anything, can be done to influence a redirection of causative human and natural activity.

The direct and indirect price tags under discussion are staggering. One of the research papers referenced below show that "even a highly efficient global CO2 tax aimed at fulfilling the ambitious goal of keeping temperature increases below 2C would reduce annual world GDP by 12.9 per cent, or $40 trillion, in 2100. The total cost would be 50 times that of the avoided climate damage. And if politicians choose less efficient, less co-ordinated cap-and-trade policies, the costs could escalate a further 10 to 100 times."

If we approach a problem we should do so with great deliberation and a full understanding of the consequences of the actions and the results that might transpire. In watching the debate over cap-and-trade it was obvious there was no serious cost/benefit analysis and even less understanding of the unintended consequences of passing economically devastating legislation.

Again, while I believe the scientific jury on ACC is still out, the political imperative is for the U.S. to do something, anything. And since politics trumps reason, let us consider what would cause the least harm in doing the most good.

I have referenced the Copenhagen Consensus Center's Climate Change Project previously. I like their attempt to deeply involve economic considerations along with practical approaches to address ACC. They have come up with a prioritized listing of what they believe will work best and cause the least amount of human suffering.

The first link is to the parent site, the second to the actual project results.

Drilling down into the proposed solutions you will find each has a primary Analysis Paper, then one or two Perspective Papers that provide a peer review. Analysis Papers, written by scientific experts in this field, provide a comprehensive exploration of the costs and benefits of one solution to climate change. Perspective Papers provide a critique of the assumptions and calculations used in the Analysis Paper, and provide another expert opinion on this solution to climate change. If you take the time to read each analysis and counterpoint paper, you will have a much better understanding of how we might rationally address the issues of an economically developing world.

Fix The Climate

Copenhagen Consensus on Climate: Findings of the Expert Panel

Copenhagen Consensus on Climate: Findings of the Expert Panel

The goal of Copenhagen Consensus on Climate was to evaluate and rank feasible ways to reduce adverse consequences from global warming.

Individual proposals that would achieve this were examined under the eight solution headings of: Climate Engineering, Carbon Cuts, Forestry, Black Carbon Cuts, Methane Cuts, Adaptation, Energy Technology, Technology Transfers.

A panel of economic experts, comprising five of the world?s most distinguished economists, was invited to consider these proposals and identify the proposals where investments would be most effective. The members are:

? Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia University
? Finn Kydland, University of California, Santa Barbara (Nobel Laureate)
? Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland (Nobel Laureate)
? Vernon Smith, Chapman University (Nobel Laureate)
? Nancy Stokey, University of Chicago

The panel was asked to answer the question:

If the global community wants to spend up to $250 billion per year over the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate changes, and to do the most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?

The sum of up to $250 billion per year was chosen by the Center because it is in the order of magnitude of spending that world leaders could commit to in the Copenhagen COP-15 negotiations, and is consistent with the relevant economic literature on the expected costs of dealing with global warming.

The basis for the Expert Panel?s discussions and ranking were the 21 Analysis and Perspective Papers: new research commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each policy area.

The Analysis Papers review the existing frontier academic literature and present the economic costs and benefits of one or more relevant policy responses to global warming, as well as outlining the strengths and weaknesses in the applied methodology.

To ensure complete information on each category of solutions, all Analysis Papers are balanced by at least one Perspective Paper, providing a critique of the assumptions and calculations used in the Analysis Paper.

During a roundtable meeting at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, the Expert Panel appraised the research in great depth, and engaged with the Analysis Paper and Perspective Paper authors, whose names are overleaf.

Based on this work, the panel ranked the proposals, in descending order of desirability, as follows:

RATING - SOLUTION - CATEGORY

?Very Good?

1 Marine Cloud Whitening Research - Climate Engineering
2 Energy R&D - Technology
3 Stratospheric Aerosol Insertion Research - Climate Engineering
4 Carbon Storage Research - Technology

?Good?

5 Planning for Adaptation - Adaptation
6 Research into Air Capture - Climate Engineering

?Fair?

7 Technology Transfers - Technology Transfers
8 Expand and Protect Forests - Forestry
9 Stoves in Developing Nations - Cut Black Carbon

?Poor?

10 Methane Reduction Portfolio - Cut Methane
11 Diesel Vehicle Emissions - Cut Black Carbon
12 $20 OECD Carbon Tax - Cut Carbon

?Very Poor?

13 $0.50 Global CO2 Tax - Cut Carbon
14 $3 Global CO2 Tax - Cut Carbon
15 $68 Global CO2 Tax - Cut Carbon

In ordering the proposals, the panel was guided predominantly by consideration of economic costs and benefits. The panel acknowledged the difficulties that cost-benefit analysis must overcome, both in principle and as a practical matter, but agreed that the cost-benefit approach was an indispensable organizing method.

In setting priorities, the panel took account of the strengths and weaknesses of the specific cost-benefit appraisals under review.

For some proposals, the panel found that information was too sparse to allow a judgment to be made. These proposals, some of which may prove after further study to be valuable, were therefore excluded from the ranking.

Each expert assigned his or her own ranking to the proposals. The panel?s ranking was calculated by taking the median of individual rankings. The panel jointly endorses the median ordering as representing their agreed view.

If one calculates the total cost of the ?Very Good? and ?Good? solutions, the expenditure proposed by the Copenhagen Consensus runs to around $110 billion a year from 2010-2020.

 

[piasabird]

Where is the proof that any of this will do any good?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Where is the proof that any of this will do any good?

"We're from the Government and we're here to help"?

 

[Ornery Platypus]

Hmmm...

If a bunch of climatologists proposed solutions to the current economic crisis, based on their reading of "new research commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each policy area", would we also call their conclusions the "Findings of the Expert Panel"?

 

[jonks]

We are doing something. GOP Sen. James Inhofe is going to speak at Copenhagen Global Warming conference to tell them all about how Global Warming is a myth.

 

[DaveSimmons]

, we have government intercession in heavy industry, particularly in the automotive industry,

Increasing MPG and reducing emissions has beneficial side effects besides reducing climate change:
- less emissions means less sickness from breathing polluted air, less environmental damage when the pollution reaches the land and water
- less consumption of oil reduces the hold on the US of foreign oil exporters, delays the depletion of resources, and reduces pollution from extracting, transporting and refining the oil.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Where is the proof that any of this will do any good?

I doubt if anything will do any good as I do not buy into the religion of anthropogenic climate change to begin with. But I do know that imposing highly onerous taxation and further government intervention into the private sector will devastate the economy here in the U.S. and it will also cause significant damage to the developing nations around the world that are suppliers to the U.S. and consumers of U.S. goods.

The question is, if you actually buy into ACC, what will work and what will not, with the minimal economic impact on those least able to afford economic impacts.

You have to actually read the referenced Analyses and the Perspective Papers to see the demonstration of effect and an extrapolation of effectiveness if broadly implemented.

Interestingly enough, the study claims that just going forward with one of the first options, Marine Cloud Whitening, will suffice to affect climate. Using Stratospheric Aerosol Insertion will also be effective and carry a minimal price tag.

 

[mect]

Wait, I don't get it. You make the claim that you feel we should reduce our CO2 output, but you think that cap and trade will devastate the economy. Do you think we should just trust industry to do the right thing? The goal of industry is to make a profit. If the environment stands in the way of that profit, then the environment loses. This is the reason we have caps on all kinds of things. For example, gold mines can only have so much cyanide in their water. Do you think it is good for the government to limit this? I do. I don't think its a good idea to just trust businesses to do the right thing. Similarly, if we feel it would be in our best interest to limit the amount of CO2 we're emitting, then it seems like it would be a similarly good idea to not just trust industry to do the right thing. That means we need to cap it. Now, it makes no sense at all to just cap straight across and tell every company that they can only emit a fixed share of the pie. It makes much more sense to tell industry, here is the size of the pie, here is each groups allocation, now if you want to trade these amongst yourselves to best distribute this pie, then go ahead. This is cap and trade. It will have a much smaller impact on the economy then just a straight cap. I'm still baffled as to why republicans are opposed to cap and trade. It is capitalism applied to an environmental problem. I can understand those who are of the perspective that CO2 has no influence on the environment being opposed to cap and trade, but otherwise, it seems like the way to go.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: mect
Wait, I don't get it. You make the claim that you feel we should reduce our CO2 output, but you think that cap and trade will devastate the economy. Do you think we should just trust industry to do the right thing? The goal of industry is to make a profit. If the environment stands in the way of that profit, then the environment loses. This is the reason we have caps on all kinds of things. For example, gold mines can only have so much cyanide in their water. Do you think it is good for the government to limit this? I do. I don't think its a good idea to just trust businesses to do the right thing. Similarly, if we feel it would be in our best interest to limit the amount of CO2 we're emitting, then it seems like it would be a similarly good idea to not just trust industry to do the right thing. That means we need to cap it. Now, it makes no sense at all to just cap straight across and tell every company that they can only emit a fixed share of the pie. It makes much more sense to tell industry, here is the size of the pie, here is each groups allocation, now if you want to trade these amongst yourselves to best distribute this pie, then go ahead. This is cap and trade. It will have a much smaller impact on the economy then just a straight cap. I'm still baffled as to why republicans are opposed to cap and trade. It is capitalism applied to an environmental problem. I can understand those who are of the perspective that CO2 has no influence on the environment being opposed to cap and trade, but otherwise, it seems like the way to go.

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

The basis for cap-and-trade is not the actual reduction of free carbon, it is a government funding scheme that will be used to pay off select constituencies (insure support in future elections) and impose an additional cost burden on those who are not part of these privileged few - and that includes all consumers in the form of higher cost of goods.

Remember the single most important idea of taxation - companies do not pay taxes, people do. Maybe a company will eat a little bit less margin, until it makes no sense to continue to operate without profit (the reason business exists,) but the cost of taxation is in almost all cases passed on with price adjustment that is paid by the consumer.

There is a direct effect. If you price goods and services artificially higher (taxing energy automatically affects all goods production and service industries), less will be purchased. Less demand means less will be made. Less manufacturing and fewer service providers means fewer jobs.

But what about necessary goods and not luxury goods? These will still be made, but not here in the U.S. Jobs will move rapidly overseas as other countries are not likely to put equivalent artificial burdens on their manufacturing. Sure, U.S. tariffs are proposed to also tax goods coming from countries without carbon taxes. Guess what that does to free trade as counter tariffs are applied? It represents protectionism at its best and it will cost you.

Let us also consider the political appeal to the current Democrat Administration. The cost of goods will now be higher, more people will not be able to afford this price increase as they are already reeling from the cost of mandatory health insurance, increased taxation on productive classes to "pay down the debt" and the financial support of the increasing ranks of unemployed.

If the Democrats hit some electoral "sweet spot" by trading off increasingly negative employment numbers with the payoffs of new "free" benefits to key voting blocks, they can take the next step.

The economic shock will "require" the government to increase intervention - take over more industries, likely the energy companies this next go-around, maybe agriculture afterward. The goal is more government and less private sector. In other words, a centrally planned economy.

Sound good yet?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

The basis for cap-and-trade is not the actual reduction of free carbon, it is a government funding scheme that will be used to pay off select constituencies (insure support in future elections) and impose an additional cost burden on those who are not part of these privileged few - and that includes all consumers in the form of higher cost of goods.

Remember the single most important idea of taxation - companies do not pay taxes, people do. Maybe a company will eat a little bit less margin, until it makes no sense to continue to operate without profit (the reason business exists,) but the cost of taxation is in almost all cases passed on with price adjustment that is paid by the consumer.

There is a direct effect. If you price goods artificially higher, less will be purchased. Less demand means less will be made. Less manufacturing means fewer jobs.

But what about necessary goods and not luxury goods? These will still be made, but not here in the U.S. Jobs will move rapidly overseas as other countries are not likely to put equivalent artificial burdens on their manufacturing.

Let us also consider the political appeal to the current government. The cost of goods will now be higher, more people are not able to afford this price increase as they are already reeling from the cost of mandatory health insurance, increased taxation on productive classes to "pay down the debt" and support the increasing ranks of unemployed.

The economic shock "requires" the government to increase intervention - take over more industries, maybe the energy companies this time, maybe agriculture afterward. The goal is more government and less private sector. In other words, a centrally planned economy.

Sound good yet?

Nope, cap and trade is not a government funding scheme. It is a scheme that allows those that can cheaply reduce CO2 output to do so to a greater extent than those for which it would be more expensive. Basically, it removes the one size fits all approach to government regulation. It allows companies that would not be profitable if they had to reduce their carbon output to meet regulations to do so by buying shares from companies that can reduce their output even more than the regulations demand. Government doesn't even need to be involved other than in distributing the initial shares, and making sure that everyone is emitting at or below their share level. Buying and selling of shares can take place between private companies. There is no need for the government to profit at all based off of such a program.

Edited to remove embedded quotes

 

[PJABBER]

Have you taken the time to read the linked studies in the OP that relate directly to the various implementations of cap-and-trade before making your remark? You might have a different opinion once you have a better understanding of what carbon taxing in a variety of forms really delivers.

There is a separate thread, kind of hijacked by the typical ad hominem BS, that addresses some concerns related directly to HR 2454 (Waxman-Markey) cap-and-trade -

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

You might want to post your support of cap-and-trade there.

 

[shadow9d9]

Any guess what this shill's talking point list for the day is?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Have you taken the time to read the linked studies in the OP that relate directly to the various implementations of cap-and-trade before making your remark? You might have a different opinion once you have a better understanding of what carbon taxing in a variety of forms really delivers.

There is a separate thread, kind of hijacked by the typical ad hominem BS, that addresses some concerns related directly to HR 2454 (Waxman-Markey) cap-and-trade -

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

You might want to post your support of cap-and-trade there.

That is specifically addressing specific corrupt implementations of it. It is the best policy if implemented correctly. That is the problem. People read about corrupt applications and assume it is a bad policy, but they don't understand what it fundamentally is. Fundamentally, it is setting a cap, which is necessary for environmental regulation, and then telling companies they can divide up that pie as they want, the total just has to remain below this cap. This is far better than dividing up the pie equally and telling each company that they have to eat their share of the pie. It is a much better fit than a one size fits all policy. I have no problem if people are against legislators adding additional features in to cap that make it problematic. But attack those specifics, not cap and trade itself. Don't argue not to use cap and trade, but argue for cap and trade to be set up as it should be, which is the optimal method of distributing a limited resource between interested parties, in this case CO2 emissions.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

The basis for cap-and-trade is not the actual reduction of free carbon, it is a government funding scheme that will be used to pay off select constituencies (insure support in future elections) and impose an additional cost burden on those who are not part of these privileged few - and that includes all consumers in the form of higher cost of goods.

Remember the single most important idea of taxation - companies do not pay taxes, people do. Maybe a company will eat a little bit less margin, until it makes no sense to continue to operate without profit (the reason business exists,) but the cost of taxation is in almost all cases passed on with price adjustment that is paid by the consumer.

There is a direct effect. If you price goods artificially higher, less will be purchased. Less demand means less will be made. Less manufacturing means fewer jobs.

But what about necessary goods and not luxury goods? These will still be made, but not here in the U.S. Jobs will move rapidly overseas as other countries are not likely to put equivalent artificial burdens on their manufacturing.

Let us also consider the political appeal to the current government. The cost of goods will now be higher, more people are not able to afford this price increase as they are already reeling from the cost of mandatory health insurance, increased taxation on productive classes to "pay down the debt" and support the increasing ranks of unemployed.

The economic shock "requires" the government to increase intervention - take over more industries, maybe the energy companies this time, maybe agriculture afterward. The goal is more government and less private sector. In other words, a centrally planned economy.

Sound good yet?

Nope, cap and trade is not a government funding scheme. It is a scheme that allows those that can cheaply reduce CO2 output to do so to a greater extent than those for which it would be more expensive. Basically, it removes the one size fits all approach to government regulation. It allows companies that would not be profitable if they had to reduce their carbon output to meet regulations to do so by buying shares from companies that can reduce their output even more than the regulations demand. Government doesn't even need to be involved other than in distributing the initial shares, and making sure that everyone is emitting at or below their share level. Buying and selling of shares can take place between private companies. There is no need for the government to profit at all based off of such a program.

Edited to remove embedded quotes

All it is is bullshit to make Al Gore money. Carbon credits are a scam. Making money from nothing.
As we have seen, there is a market for going green thus there is an opportunity for industry to utilize that market to make money and thus self regulation.

 

[DealMonkey]

So let me get this straight. A team of 5 economists, as distinguished in their field as they may be, is going to tell us the most effective way to combat global climate change?

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Have you taken the time to read the linked studies in the OP that relate directly to the various implementations of cap-and-trade before making your remark? You might have a different opinion once you have a better understanding of what carbon taxing in a variety of forms really delivers.

There is a separate thread, kind of hijacked by the typical ad hominem BS, that addresses some concerns related directly to HR 2454 (Waxman-Markey) cap-and-trade -

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

You might want to post your support of cap-and-trade there.

That is specifically addressing specific corrupt implementations of it. It is the best policy if implemented correctly. That is the problem. People read about corrupt applications and assume it is a bad policy, but they don't understand what it fundamentally is. Fundamentally, it is setting a cap, which is necessary for environmental regulation, and then telling companies they can divide up that pie as they want, the total just has to remain below this cap. This is far better than dividing up the pie equally and telling each company that they have to eat their share of the pie. It is a much better fit than a one size fits all policy. I have no problem if people are against legislators adding additional features in to cap that make it problematic. But attack those specifics, not cap and trade itself. Don't argue not to use cap and trade, but argue for cap and trade to be set up as it should be, which is the optimal method of distributing a limited resource between interested parties, in this case CO2 emissions.

Yup. The OP in this thread addresses "perfect" carbon taxing schemes, the other thread deals with the unfortunate reality of what is actually being considered today in the U.S. Congress.

I am glad to see you advocate for a "perfect" solution, but the solution you specifically advocate is pretty far down the list for effect and at the bottom of the referenced list for economic viability. Aren't you the slightest bit curious as to why that might be so?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
All it is is bullshit to make Al Gore money. Carbon credits are a scam. Making money from nothing.
As we have seen, there is a market for going green thus there is an opportunity for industry to utilize that market to make money and thus self regulation.

Cap and Trade is completely different from carbon credits. With carbon credits, you pay money that essentially goes towards green programs. In cap and trade, one company pays another company for the right to emit more while the other company emits less. That is what cap and trade is.

 

[ElFenix]

global warming is an engineering problem. though certainly global warming isn't the only issue stemming from our reliance on dino-juice. sending money to putin, immadinnerjacket, and castro jr. is a more concrete issue.

Originally posted by: mect

Cap and Trade is completely different from carbon credits. With carbon credits, you pay money that essentially goes towards green programs. In cap and trade, one company pays another company for the right to emit more while the other company emits less. That is what cap and trade is.

different, but not separate. carbon credits are essentially pollution permits waiting to be sold.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Where is the proof that any of this will do any good?

Why don't we get goldman sachs to run the program?
They run everything else!

For mine, reforestation and water shed quality
aren't high enough on that bullshit list.
It all anti-fear to answer the CC fear mongering.
Local ecology should be the focus as even if CC is bullshit, you end up with a positive return to the country in both quality of life for the citizen and the long term economy.
Ecological repairs of privately owned or leased mining, industrial, fishery and agricultural exploitation will on get more costly with the annual CPI.
EPA standards need to be applied for the long term success of all ventures.
You dont need to eat shit, you just have to smell it to know it's shit!

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Have you taken the time to read the linked studies in the OP that relate directly to the various implementations of cap-and-trade before making your remark? You might have a different opinion once you have a better understanding of what carbon taxing in a variety of forms really delivers.

There is a separate thread, kind of hijacked by the typical ad hominem BS, that addresses some concerns related directly to HR 2454 (Waxman-Markey) cap-and-trade -

Apparently a Less-Warm Planet Requires Loads of Pork, Red Tape, and Union Favoritism

You might want to post your support of cap-and-trade there.

That is specifically addressing specific corrupt implementations of it. It is the best policy if implemented correctly. That is the problem. People read about corrupt applications and assume it is a bad policy, but they don't understand what it fundamentally is. Fundamentally, it is setting a cap, which is necessary for environmental regulation, and then telling companies they can divide up that pie as they want, the total just has to remain below this cap. This is far better than dividing up the pie equally and telling each company that they have to eat their share of the pie. It is a much better fit than a one size fits all policy. I have no problem if people are against legislators adding additional features in to cap that make it problematic. But attack those specifics, not cap and trade itself. Don't argue not to use cap and trade, but argue for cap and trade to be set up as it should be, which is the optimal method of distributing a limited resource between interested parties, in this case CO2 emissions.

Yup. The OP in this thread addresses "perfect" carbon taxing schemes, the other thread deals with the unfortunate reality of what is actually being considered today in the U.S. Congress.

I am glad to see you advocate for a "perfect" solution, but the solution you specifically advocate is pretty far down the list for effect and at the bottom of the referenced list for economic viability. Aren't you the slightest bit curious as to why that might be so?

What I don't like is the demonizing of the term cap and trade. In its proper form, it is something that conservatives should stand behind. If there are taxes built into the legislation, lets argue for removing them, and implementing a proper form of cap and trade. The only time the government should get money is if a company emits beyond their shares. Otherwise, it should all be negotiations between companies to divide up the pie. This is what conservatives should be fighting for, not to throw out cap and trade completely.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So let me get this straight. A team of 5 economists, as distinguished in their field as they may be, is going to tell us the most effective way to combat global climate change?

The OP references 21 Analysis and Perspective Papers, each with scientific as well as economic aspects considered. The final selection was prioritized by a cost-benefit analysis by the five identified world-class economists, including three Nobel Laureates (in Economics, not Peace, so maybe they actually know something useful.)

From Wiki -

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Current economic models developed out of the broader field of political economy in the late 19th century, owing to a desire to use an empirical approach more akin to the physical sciences...

A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.

To me that sounds like the right discipline for rational decision taking in this matter.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

You should learn some plant physiology. Look up photorespiration, it's a phenomena in which plants actually respire (that is release CO2) due to high levels of CO2. The main photosynthesis enzyme, Rubisco, is inhibited at higher CO2 concentrations. IIRC, around 400ppm CO2, photosynthesis in a large number of plants completely shuts down.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: piasabird
Where is the proof that any of this will do any good?

I doubt if anything will do any good as I do not buy into the religion of anthropogenic climate change to begin with. But I do know that imposing highly onerous taxation and further government intervention into the private sector will devastate the economy here in the U.S. and it will also cause significant damage to the developing nations around the world that are suppliers to the U.S. and consumers of U.S. goods.

The question is, if you actually buy into ACC, what will work and what will not, with the minimal economic impact on those least able to afford economic impacts.

You have to actually read the referenced Analyses and the Perspective Papers to see the demonstration of effect and an extrapolation of effectiveness if broadly implemented.

Interestingly enough, the study claims that just going forward with one of the first options, Marine Cloud Whitening, will suffice to affect climate. Using Stratospheric Aerosol Insertion will also be effective and carry a minimal price tag.

The only "goods" the developing nations consume is your dollar, which is heading down the toilet already.
Maybe you can't stop CC, but you can't stop the USA's love of credit either, the only way is down from there.
the end is nigh anyhow, so don't think you have the answer fool!
CC could be more useful to as a protectionist tool then you might well imagine.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So let me get this straight. A team of 5 economists, as distinguished in their field as they may be, is going to tell us the most effective way to combat global climate change?

The OP references 21 Analysis and Perspective Papers, each with scientific as well as economic aspects considered. The final selection was prioritized by a cost-benefit analysis by the five identified world-class economists, including three Nobel Laureates (in Economics, not Peace, so maybe they actually know something useful.)

From Wiki -

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Current economic models developed out of the broader field of political economy in the late 19th century, owing to a desire to use an empirical approach more akin to the physical sciences...

A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.

To me that sounds like the right discipline for rational decision taking in this matter.

Not to me it doesn't. Where did these 21 papers come from? Who authored them? How can I be sure there's no inherent bias in the selection process?

There's been quite a bit of criticism and claims of bias against the Copenhagen Consensus.

See the Wiki:

Approach and alleged bias

The report, especially its conclusion regarding climate change was subsequently criticised from a variety of perspectives. The general approach adopted to set priorities was criticised by Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and advocate of both the Kyoto protocol [10] and increased development aid, who argued that the analytical framework was inappropriate and biased and that the project "failed to mobilize an expert group that could credibly identify and communicate a true consensus of expert knowledge on the range of issues under consideration." [11].

Tom Burke, a former director of Friends of the Earth, repudiated the entire approach of the project, arguing that applying cost-benefit analysis in the way the Copenhagen panel did was "junk economics". [12]

John Quiggin, an Australian economics professor, commented that the project is a mix of "a substantial contribution to our understanding of important issues facing the world" and an "exercises in political propaganda" and argued that the selection of the panel members was slanted towards the conclusions previously supported by Lomborg [13]. Quiggin observed that Lomborg had argued in his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist that resources allocated to mitigating global warming would be better spent on improving water quality and sanitation, and was therefore seen as having prejudged the issues.

Under the heading "Wrong Question", Sachs further argued that: "The panel that drew up the Copenhagen Consensus was asked to allocate an additional US$50 billion in spending by wealthy countries, distributed over five years, to address the world?s biggest problems. This was a poor basis for decision-making and for informing the public. By choosing such a low sum ? a tiny fraction of global income ? the project inherently favoured specific low-cost schemes over bolder, larger projects. It is therefore no surprise that the huge and complex challenge of long-term climate change was ranked last, and that scaling up health services in poor countries was ranked lower than interventions against specific diseases, despite warnings in the background papers that such interventions require broader improvements in health services."

In response Lomborg argued that $50 billion was "an optimistic but realistic example of actual spending." "Experience shows that pledges and actual spending are two different things. In 1970 the UN set itself the task of doubling development assistance. Since then the percentage has actually been dropping". "But even if Sachs or others could gather much more than $50 billion over the next 4 years, the Copenhagen Consensus priority list would still show us where it should be invested first." [14]

One of the Copenhagen Consensus panel experts later distanced himself from the way in which the Consensus results have been interpreted in the wider debate. Thomas Schelling now thinks that it was misleading to put climate change at the bottom of the priority list. The Consensus panel members were presented with a dramatic proposal for handling climate change. If given the opportunity, Schelling would have put a more modest proposal higher on the list. The Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn was the official critic of the proposal for climate change during the Consensus. He thought the proposal was way out of the mainstream and could only be rejected. Mendelsohn worries that climate change was set up to fail. [15]

Michael Grubb, an economist and lead author for several IPCC reports, commented on the Copenhagen Consensus, writing:[16]

To try and define climate policy as a trade-off against foreign aid is thus a forced choice that bears no relationship to reality. No government is proposing that the marginal costs associated with, for example, an emissions trading system, should be deducted from its foreign aid budget. This way of posing the question is both morally inappropriate and irrelevant to the determination of real climate mitigation policy.

Panel membership

Quiggin argued that the members of the panel, selected by Lomborg, were, "generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated views, to be opponents of Kyoto." [13]. Sachs also noted that the panel members had not previously been much involved in issues of development economics, and were unlikely to reach useful conclusions in the time available to them [11]. Commenting on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, climatologist and IPCC author Stephen Schneider criticised Lomborg for only inviting economists to participate:[17]

In order to achieve a true consensus, I think Lomborg would've had to invite ecologists, social scientists concerned with justice and how climate change impacts and policies are often inequitably distributed, philosophers who could challenge the economic paradigm of "one dollar, one vote" implicit in cost-benefit analyses promoted by economists, and climate scientists who could easily show that Lomborg's claim that climate change will have only minimal effects is not sound science.

Lomborg countered criticism of the panel membership by stating that "Sachs disparaged the Consensus ?dream team? because it only consisted of economists. But that was the very point of the project. Economists have expertise in economic prioritization. It is they and not climatologists or malaria experts who can prioritize between battling global warming or communicable disease," [14]

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Based on my review of the technical studies, I do believe CO2 to be of minimal environmental impact, unless it is maybe of positive benefit in supporting the growth of plant life, the basis of all life on this planet. Maybe methane and NO have more of an injurious impact, in my reading the jury is still out on those as well.

You should learn some plant physiology. Look up photorespiration, it's a phenomena in which plants actually respire (that is release CO2) due to high levels of CO2. The main photosynthesis enzyme, Rubisco, is inhibited at higher CO2 concentrations. IIRC, around 400ppm CO2, photosynthesis in a large number of plants completely shuts down.

Those are laboratory conditions and far, far, far from existing and forecast levels even under the absolute worst case scenarios.

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

For example, the last three years measurements of CO2 PPM -

Mauna Loa, Hawaii

2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

Sea Level - Global Mean

2006 1.77
2007 2.12
2008 1.79