I expect these points to change with the evidence, but here is where I am right now...
1. It is by now pointless to deny that global warming is man-made to a considerable degree.
2. It is a very real problem. If you don’t believe me, go visit the deltas of East Bengal or Bangladesh and think about it again. Sweden I am not worried about and Greenland may become valuable, but where do we put the losers and no this isn’t just a few small islands in the Pacific.
3. I can imagine Manhattan and other major cities taking protective action against rising water levels, much as the Dutch do today. I recall reading that the Dutch spend about as a high a percentage of their gdp defending themselves from water as the U.S. does on national defense. That is quite a burden, but it is better than forsaking economic growth.
4. Like Arnold Kling, I do not much trust climate models. Perhaps I have spent too much time doing macro, and the experience carries over. Nonetheless uncertainty about final effects gives us more to worry about, not less. It is the worst-case scenarios for global warming which worry me, not the middling scenarios. Variance is our enemy in this matter.
5. I don’t have a good plan for what to do. Imagine passing and extending Kyoto and turning 2/3 of the U.S. energy supply into nuclear, wind, and solar power. Heroic achievements, to be sure. But if China and India continue to industrialize, global warming will likely continue and perhaps accelerate, as I understand current knowledge.
6. I have yet to see a real plan which recognizes three points: a) without continued economic growth the world will probably fall apart, b) the problem is real and significant, c) any good preventive solution would require an enormous amount of concerted action across both time and across nations.
7. How much does the framing of the problem contribute to our political views on the matter? How much would we spend, or how intensively would we organize global action, if a typhoon were headed right for Bangladesh? An earthquake? A war? A much slower set of changes, not fully our fault? An out-of-control American nuclear weapon? Should it matter?
8. If we could relocate all the losers-to-be into freer and richer countries, should we consider this a satisfactory solution? Or are we still massive and unjustified aggressors if they are crying to us: "Don’t let it happen, don’t let it happen!"?
← Previous Comments
From what I can gather,
1. Most climate scientists say that warming is real (1 degree C the last century), and will probably continue (2-4 degrees C the next century).
2. Most economists says the costs of this will almost certainly exceed the benefits (for humans). We have a tremendous “installed base”–like farms and coastal cities–that would have to change. They also say that the costs of the Kyoto treaty would substantially exceed the benefits.
So let’s drop Kyoto and instead talk seriously about developing laws and technologies whose benefits will exceed their costs.
“http://www.aceee.org/energy/effact.htm
More efficient cars, fridges, A/C, lighting… they say 3/4 of gains are real, vs. structural or fuel switching.”
You’re being disingenuous. I said a significant proportion of these changes (energy efficiency/intensification) were attributable to a switch in fuel types AFTER WWII, the ACEEE only talks about post 1973. You could safely argue that the great expansion of the world economy after WWII could not have occurred on the scale that it did if it was not for the explosive growth in transportation – particularly private land-based transportation, all fueled by the plentiful availability of cheaply produced regular oil. After 1973 the US was no longer world oil swing producer having peaked in c.1970. The oil crises of the 70′s with a more than ten-fold rise in the cost of a barrel of crude was largely a result of US inability to regulate the price of oil anymore by simply turning on the spigots, producing more oil, and therefore lowering the price. OPEC must have known this fact which is why its embargo had such a dramatic effect on the American and world economy. The subsequent contraction in supply forced a shift towards conservation and efficiency in many ways. For instance the US moved to increase the level of natural gas –fired electricity generation because the cost of energy (i.e. petroleum) needed to produce it was much lower.
Regards,
John
Found a reference for worldwide energy use/GDP. Note the 13% decrease between 1990 and 1999. Note that the world as a whole can’t export its energy use.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/ene_cou_840.pdf
“Greenland may become valuable”
I don’t think so, unless supplying a large dollop of fresh water to the North Atlantic is considered valuable. (Two effects would result: sea level rise, and slowing down of North Atlantic drift due to freshening of surface waters preventing deep water mixing, cooling off Europe’s climate).
Climate change is real, and the anthropogenic effects are significant. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are above levels seen in the last 650000 years. They cannot be explained in the context of Milankovich cycles. As such, we are forcing a non-linear system into a regime without historical precedent (during the time-frame for which we have data). Economists are used to the dramatic shifts that can occur in non-linear systems (market crashes are one example).
I see that, finally, many economists are acknowledging global warming. The majority still advocate only doing anything it if economic growth is not threatened.
Such economists need to befriend a climate scientist and go through the data. In particular, look at the CO2 ice core records. Then think about how you’d feel if you were in a country going into a regime with, say, unprecedented trade and budget deficits. How comfortable would you feel about economic prospects. Then transfer those feelings to the ocean-climate equilibrium that supports all life on Earth.
And can the world cooperate on such large projects as reducing greenhouse gas admissions. Yes, I think they can. It takes leadership and communication, but it can be done. (Although the Bush, Blair, Harper and Howard leaders of the English-speaking free world certainly aren’t going to help.)
“Found a reference for worldwide energy use/GDP. Note the 13% decrease between 1990 and 1999. Note that the world as a whole can’t export its energy use.”
This just shows that the level of energy consumed per unit of income. The price of oil was severely depressed during most of the 1990′s so it makes sense that you could buy more of it per unit of currency. What you neglect to mention is that on the chart marked “Energy Consumption by Source US 1971-1999″ the level of energy consumption in general, and of fossil fuels in particular rose steadily in that country during this time.
Regards,
John
It seems blatantly, pathetically obvious to me that the correct way to regard India and China’s ongoing modernization is to say, “Cool! We have vast potential markets for the new clean-energy tech we’re going to build. Let’s pump billions of dollars into research, as fast as they can be effectively absorbed, and get on top of this issue before the Japanese, Koreans, and Europeans, not to mention the South Africans, Australian, Indians, and Chinese, fill up the market and make it a low-profit area.”
“Well, if you do not trust computer model just look at the ‘stars’.
Venus for example, the “gold star” in Japanese. 96% of carbon dioxid. Huge greenhouse (and pressure) effect. 400°C-500°C.”
And then look at Mars…or Red Planet, in American:
Atmsospheric composition?—>95% CO2.
http://sciencepark.etacude.com/astronomy/mars.php
“Carbon dioxide (95.32%), nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%), oxygen (0.13%), carbon monoixde (0.07%)
“To think that our economic system is somehow exempt from physical laws and will, or can, keep growing in perpetuity, is simply wishful thinking.”
I predict the following world average per-capita GDPs (in year 2000 dollars…based on $7,200 in 2000):
2020: $13,000
2040: $31,000
2060: $100,000
2080: $1,000,000
2100: $10,000,000
Those predictions are based on historical technology and economic trends, projected into the future.
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/11/why_economic_gr.html
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/10/3rd_thoughts_on.html
What are your predictions? And what are your predictions based on?
A lot of people believe that global warming does not exist simply because the planet gradually gets warmer and cooler with time, but the fact lies within the word “gradually.” Gradually, not quickly. The rising and falling of earthly temperatures takes millions of years. An advancement in temperature of one degree celsius, in the past, took a thousand years. Since the 1950s, the temperature has risen several degrees. That’s only fifty years, if my mathmatical skills are functioning properly.
We need to do something about global warming.Some people don’t think it is an issue but it is. It is realy causing alot of problems and instead of just thinking about what it is doing we need to actually so something.
HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH I HELP GLOBAL WARMING.
Please read my report my space “global warming:the only solution” with additional links regards John
nothing we can do about global warming , in the last 70 years the earth has gotten 1,000,000 miles closer to the sun, thats why we are looking so closely at mars, so we can go there when the earth gets to hot, think about it, the sun is 93,000,000 miles from earth , and we can still see it, thats big, the gravational pull , is slowly pulls all the plantes , earth was at the perfect spot for life, next mars will be there, , mars is to cold now , and veneas(spelling) is too hot ,it is so simple, nobody says anything because they dont want the public to freak out , but thats what i feel is going to happen, when earth gets to hot we will be sending people to mars, thats why we spend so much time looking at mars, and not the other plantes closer to the sun, we forget about mercury, and venes,(pls excuse my spelling )thank you , it is just my thought
I love Christian Louboutin!I bought 2 pairs of shoes at the http://www.christianlouboutinhighheels.com.
Christian louboutin pumps feel so much more comfortable and are so much sexier than I would know. The salespeople of christian louboutin pumps on sale are very friendly. I live in CA but call to order often and Scott always helps me pick out the most perfect shoes. They do special orders of shoes from past seasons for a 30% upcharge as long as they still have the materials and free shipping!. These are adorable shoes.I get compliments every time I wear christian louboutin pumps uk. They fit well and are quite comfortable; I walked around downtown DC today at lunchtime w/no problems. Christian louboutin pumps sale is good on the website.I hope that I can share my happiness and good things with you!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.