Pekka Pirila,
Where are we at? Summarising my thoughts, and thinking big picture this is my view:
• Using central values of climate sensitivity and damage function, GHG emissions are not catastrophic. Present estimates are that there is a small net cost.
• Using the best estimates of the ‘tail events’, Nordhaus in both 2008 and 2012 concludes there is no persuasive evidence of catastrophic consequences; he concludes:
we conclude that loaded gun of strong tail dominance has not been discovered to date.
• Nordhaus (2008) shows that by far the least cost way to reduce emissions is with a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels.
• Bjorn Lomborg has between saying for years that mitigation policies are a massive waste of money and will achieve next to nothing as Kyoto demonstrated). Lomborg recommends we focus on research to provide a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels.
• We have the most important part of that technology (nuclear Gen III). What is needed is to remove the impediments that are preventing it from being cost competitive with fossil fuels everywhere. Much of the impediments is imposed by governments, so they can be removed by governments too. And part is development and roll out of small modular Gen IV reactors. All this will take decades, but that is where the focus should be, not on another massive international agreement to price carbon.
• See expansion of this last point here: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/06/05/conservatives-who-think-seriously-about-the-planet/comment-page-4/#comment-111744
“Second-hand smoke is OK for kids to breath, because other things are bad for children’s health too!”
