You keep assuming that there are benefits, which is a mistake. It is costs in direct proportion to the degree of climate change.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by thomaswfuller2
aplanning engineer, The Konsensus hates Lomborg, but it’s easy to see why. Lomborg was right. Unforgiveable sin…
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Costs are for adaptation. Less adaptation means less cost. Less climate change means less adaptation. It is not that hard to understand.
Your statement is wrong it contains no quantification. It’s not to difficult to understand that huge net costs for mitigation that make little change to the climate will not make any significant change to the costs of adaptation. That is not too hard to understand.
Economically rational adaptation (i.e. the benefits exceed the costs) is good.
Mitigation policies where the costs will exceed the benefits are not sustainable and not justified. That is the case with the policies that have been advocated to date. Mitigation is not economically rational with the policies proposed to date.
Ir’s not that hard to understand.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Gees, Jim D, I thought you had more understanding of climate policy than you do. Benefits are climate damages avoided. Mitigation is intended to reduce climate damages (and reduce the amount of expenditure on adaptation). That’s the expected benefit of mitigation. Clearly you haven’t read anything on the policy aspects. Here’s a primer for you:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf
Here’s lesson 2:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Jim D,
Peter Lang, the poll in support stands at 72% in the US.
That’s an irrelevant poll. It does not address what I said. In case you didn’t read that far (first two and a half lines) I’ll repeat it for you:
You wouldn’t get 1% of the world’s population to support “an international treaty on climate stabilization” if it is going to damage their economy.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Jim D
More climate change is more costly than less climate change. That is for sure. Reducing climate change is not actually that costly according to WG3, as I have mentioned before. We have to move off fossil fuels anyway, and the sooner the better. Also you have to examine how you evaluate costs because GDP does not quantify the true human cost, since it devalues those in poor countries in proportion to GDP per capita. You could lose the whole of Africa for only a 3% global GDP loss, for example. Think about how you judge costs.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by genghiscunn
The Conservative-led UK coalition government undertook a faster path to restoring its fiscal position post-GFC, a choice of “austerity measures” which was widely condemned by other leaders and international institutions. Result: economic and employment growth in the UK is well ahead of other Western countries, and, to the great surprise of almost everybody, the Conservatives have won a clear majority at the election rather than losing power to a Labour-led coalition. A day later, Leftists were protesting against austerity measures. Ah, well.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Willard
> $4 million would be well spent
With $4 million, one could either fund the Lomborg Collective Climate Consensus Climate Schtick, or help these guys:
Over half a million Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in Australia. Despite their pre-eminence as our continent’s first inhabitants – or ‘first Australians’ – too many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples live with ongoing and extensive injustices and poverty. Caritas Australia is working in partnership with our First Australians to support self-determination and foster Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander led solutions.
http://www.caritas.org.au/learn/countries/australia
What should we do?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jorgietom
At least someone commented….
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Jim D,
More climate change is more costly than less climate change. That is for sure. Reducing climate change is not actually that costly according to WG3, as I have mentioned before.
Unfortunately, you don’t understand what you are talking about. You’ve just demonstrated – with your comment about, in effect, there are no benefits of mitigation – you haven’t any understanding of what you are reading. Why don’t you read the two links I gave you instead of blogging away in ignorance?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Sorry to be avoiding the threading, but you said less climate change is better than more climate change.
So it’s better that the climate of California stays as it is at the moment, or do you want other areas to stay drought ridden instead? The good folks of Siberia or the Sahara might appreciate a fair degree of climate change. Have you asked them?
Its a bit late to stop the Antarctic becoming a frozen arid desert, but I suppose you’ll just blame that on Nature. Why do you think restoring the biodiversity of Antarctica is worse than leaving it as it is?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
JimD,
WG3 projects abatement costs and benefits out hundreds of years, calculates the discounted net benefit-cost per period (e.g. year, decade, etc), and sums that to estimate the discounted net benefit-cost of the abatement policy in today’s dollars. Note that it is summing projections out hundreds of years. The assumptions used in making the projections have much greater uncertainty than the projections of GHG emissions and temperature changes.
People will not support policies that damage their economies over periods as short as one or two election cycles. And there will always be international conflicts and opt-outs by counties where the pain exceeds the gain. So, it is unrealistic to believe that any policy can be sustainable if it will damage countries’ economies in the short term.
Clearly, over the short term, mitigation policies proposed to date are very high cost. Nordhaus’s DICE 2013 and RICE 2010 (the regional version) show that mitigation policies would be highly damaging throughout this century.
So, the WG3 analysis is highly misleading. It is theoretical and based on assumptions with huge uncertainty and summing the projections for hundreds of years. Instead, look at the red line in the chart in my previous comment which shows the discounted net benefit-cost per 5 years. The net benefit is hugely negative throughout all this century. No policy options is positive for 75 years, let alone 5 years (which is the absolute maximum you could sustain the CAGW rhetoric given the obvious to everyone economic impacts of the policy).
Therefore, mitigation policies that are a net cost over the short and medium term have negligible chance of succeeding. It is not rational to advocate for them. If you want to advocate for mitigation, you should be advocating for policies that have a high probability of being widely supported. To be supported sustainable, they must be economically beneficial for all countries over short and medium term.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by fernandoleanme
I like to use a bang for the buck method to make investment decisions. When I think about this, I see improved mass transportation, urban design, and investments in third world
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by climatereason
JimD
What climate do you consider ‘normal’ and how does each region of the world attain that nirvana of a climate that suits them best?
Most of us here in the UK would welcome a warmer climate-something from the warmer years of the MWP would be nice. Those in California might prefer the wetter years of the mid 20th Century. Parts of Africa might like varying periods from the past that were less extreme than now (a green Sahara anyone?) whilst Australia might decide its highly variable climate might be best drawn from short intervals from the last two hundred years which most favoured European settlers.
So, what is ‘normal’ climate and can we set a universal date as to when it was ever achieved ‘globally?’ Or should we set a variable timescale according to the ‘best for us climate’ experienced over the last thousand years, which is likely to vary wildly according to where in the world you live?
Which is the normal’ year you want to set the clock back to for your part of the world? Perhaps others here might like to give their own preferred dates for best ever climate?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by fernandoleanme
Renewables such as the Congo River super dam to be more effective solutions.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
As Steven Mosher pointed out, you have to change history in order to predict the future.
Yes, he did use the word “predict”.
It’s really pretty simple. Once you have decided the future, you adjust the past to ensure it happens. Hopefully.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by mosomoso
Not that I’m a coolist or Coming Ice Age theorist, but it amazes me that people think a global cooling, even a slight one, wouldn’t bring grave problems to eg Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The belief that a warming world is a drier world is hard to budge. Believers find a drought in SoCal or Australia and think the world will have April Showers once the naughty warming stops. Doesn’t work like that.
Egypt’s Old Kingdom dried up due to cooling; the end of Late Bronze Age cultures and the disruptive migration period AD were coolings. The LIA whacked China and the Ming around for centuries. It’s not an automatic thing, and life goes on anyway, but coolings have been unfavourable overall to civilisations.
Just cop the climate you’ve got, people. There’s mostly bad news about the other.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics
I have. And I have survived. Treasure your limited experience. You don’t believe that devil really exists.
I stand corrected. I do think, however, that anyone who is apparently critical of the work of Stephan Lewandowsky should really avoid telling others what they believe, or what they’ve experienced. You know as little of me as I know of you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172
So you believe that those records reflect actual temperature?
That being the case, it should be easy to point out on the graph when the highest (and lowest) temperatures ever recorded occurred.
No?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by beththeserf
Re Philip Tetlock’s study of expert predictions. To
that long list of failed predictions, from the Reverend
Mr Malthus, Club of Rome, Joseph Steiglitz, Stephen
Shneider, Jim Hanson et Al, now add the UK Elections
pundits. Will these failed predictors, in view of their errors,
be less confident in future? I hesitate ter predict …
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
