The jimmy-maxie school of economics:
The revenue from a potato tax could be used to stimulate or reward growth in private industry related to needed new technologies. Hell, tax everything and stimulate private industry, until their a$$es fall off.
Nobel prize is in the mail.
Max, yes, GDP economic growth is not an even measure against GDP damage. Damage may amount to a small GDP, but it is distributed among the poorest countries where GDP per capita is about 5% of that in wealthy countries, so many people are affected for that GDP amount. Growth is mostly among the wealthy countries and saying that mitigation costs a year of growth has great uncertainty anyway, because the annualized cost is only about a tenth of the natural variability of GDP. In fact, by 2100, global GDP could vary by several hundred percent due to all the other factors, and impacting it by a year is almost meaningless. Given the more certain effects of damage on large numbers of people versus a GDP cost of mitigation within the noise, my choice would be mitigation.
jim2 said on December 27, 2014 at 11:42 am
“As one with nasal allergies and asthma, and having worked around heavy diesel powered equipment, I can tell you that the biggest respiratory problem around is tree pollen and mold. I can be around diesel engines all day – no problem.”
_______
jim2 I hope your lungs aren’t all black
Joshua | December 26, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Reply
“There are logical and scientific reasons for thinking that the current rate of climate change might be unprecedented.”
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!! Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10°C within a timescale of a few years.[6] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C on Greenland 11,270 years ago[7] or the abrupt +6 °C warming 22 000 years ago on Antarctica.
There are hysterical and ideological reasons for thinking that the current rate of climate change might be unprecedented.
Fixed that for ya!
Tonyb, hurricanes of the late 13th century are one major reason there was no Mongol Japan. Of course, I’m not daring to imply there was “climate change” way back then, but the end of the MWP may have had a surprise or two for Asia. (Some think Kublai Khan’s wrecked invasion fleet of 1381 was the biggest such force till Normandy ’44. Mind you, it wouldn’t have been so bad for the Mongols but for the sea walls the Japanese built after the first divine wind, which made a mess of both sides seven years before. New Yorkers should show such resilience or adaptability or whatever we are calling commonsense this month.)
From Lucifer’s chart, nuclear looks like a bargain compared to solar and wind.
The claims that reducing CO2 pollution will harm ecomic growth are counter to reality. Since the US and China agreed to curb CO2 pollution, the Dow has reached record highs and the cost of gas energy has dropped.
Are Rud and jim2 in La La Land?
Another Fukushima or two and nuclear power will be headed for the dust bin of antiquated technologies.
I wouldn’t place any bets on China’s nuclear power ambitions. Given China’s record of disregard for public safety, the demise of nuclear power may be just around the corner.
Scotland actually. James Watt is the reason.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26131/26131-h/26131-h.htm
James Watt
By Andrew Carnegie
New York
Doubleday, Page & Company
1905
Even if CAGW turns out to be totally correct environmentalist and eco-loons are the last people on earth we should put in charge of trying to control earth’s climate.
Of course, 1381 should read 1281. In 1381 the Mongols had other problems, but who can say for sure that the decline of Yuan and rise of Ming were accelerated by the rotten weather and famines of the mid 14th century? Since it can’t be proven like an equation, best to ignore and treat climate change as a post-1980s thing, like personal computing or coloured cricket clothes.
Not true Max, I’ve been to Oklahoma.
280 ppm … Lowest in 500,000,000 years.
“Personally, I oppose using taxes to change behavior, on principle. Taxes should only fund necessary government operations, not be used to do social engineering (which so far as I can tell has no basis in economics).”
I personally don’t mind that folks want to tax cigarettes. the savings in health care costs far outstrip the cost of the tax which I dont mind paying.
They will also sell you a windmill and a solar panel.
This viewpoint ignores the fact the 280 PPM is a crazy level for CO2, only a step up from the starvation level of 200, and isn’t optimum for anything.
It’s pretty close to optimum for C4 grasses, when you factor in competition from less effective CO2 extractors. As well as for the entire ecosystems built around them.
Climate Change Science is isolated from the world! Is worse than we thought!
Top News Stories of 2014:
1. Global warming hiatus mystery
2. Warming pause outbreak
3. Leftist killing of the free enterprise economy
4. Obama administration scandals
5, Climate science is anti-scientific method
6. Global warming alarmists not very liberal
7. Eurocommunism in turmoil
8. Saudis save economy by lowing gas prices
9. N. Korea dictates US theater policy
10. Plants found that love CO2
David Wojick
Coal generated electricity had already declined in the US from about 51% of total in 2003 to about 44% in 2009; before CO2 became a factor. Some analysts say the cause was the increased natural gas competition and existing EPA regulations already in place.
Read an article recently that oil companies often squeeze extra oil from their wells by pumping in CO2, but they are limited by the cost of CO2; the article suggested that a new market may be available for coal.
Keep warm
Richard
dont mind PA, AK, he’s got some settled science.
gotta love those skeptics who think skepticism is restricted to things they dont believe rather than the things they do believe.
half a skeptic
