Dear All: Happy Wednesday. Thank you to Geoffrey for circulating the article and starting this thread. On first brush I have the same reaction as the others, especially its repetition of harmfully simplistic conceptions of cost-benefit analysis related to climate change. It largely overstate the costs, and woefully underestimates the many net positives, of reducing oil and cost use (e.g. environmental, political, security, economic, efficiently, and public health positives). It ignores the best and most recent thinking on the net, economy wide "costs" of carbon trading and carbon taxes. And it also essentially ignores (at least on a serious level), the very real possibility of huge costs associated with climate change. Like many of you, I interact on a regular basis with a variety of leading climate scientists. Even the most skeptical believe that large extreme impacts are at least possible (some believe probable) within the lifetimes of our children. How do you calculate the cost of 20 feet (or more) of sea level rise? Acidification of the ocean? More and more extreme weathe! r events? More parochially, I also take particular exception to the rather simplistic understanding of the Montreal Protocol, its history and the various positive and negative aspects of its implementation. I say this as someone who attended, usually working for UNEP, all the global negotiations between early 1990 and 1999 that expanded the ozone regime and set the rules for its implementation. I have other criticisms of his simplistic analysis of climate policy. I will post more detailed comments if this indeed is published. Although not central to the criticism, I will note here, that whatever their view of Kyoto as it stood when it was negotiated, the US based and international business communities are, in general, far more realistic than the White House with respect to the realties of climate change and what needs to be done to mitigate and adapt to it. Whoever wins the White House in 2008, I predict a sea change in policy. Many influential parts of the Chinese and India business and political communities are also increasingly realistic. Finally, on a slightly different point, the IPCC report to be released next year will bury most of the science debates. At the risk of preaching to the choir, IMHO, social scientists and policy analysts need to remind ourselves and others that: scientific consensus does not require unanimous agreement on all points; that there is no logical, historical, or policy reason that a lack of unanimity on all points should prevent prudent policy - even very strong prudent policy; and that there is an emerging consensus regarding a very real possibility that one or more tipping points exist in the global climate system. Going beyond these points could produce very large, very negative, and, for all practical purposes, nearly irreversible impacts. Thus, there is an unknown, and perhaps unknowable, deadline for global climate policy. I am not arguing for a particular policy outcome. I accept that some people might argue that we should do nothing about climate change. But it appears to! make intellectual sense to include these facts when evaluating climate-related policy proposals and policy analyses. Indeed, failing to do so appears somehow intellectually dishonest. I know I and others have made these points before (and I am working on several papers that touch on different aspect of these points) but when faced with change on such a scale, I think they deserve repeating. David Downie Director, Global Roundtable on Climate Change Associate Director, Graduate Program in Climate and Society Columbia University 212-854-5725; [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/westview/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0813343321
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith Sent: Wed 8/30/2006 1:28 PM To: 'GEP-Ed' Subject: RE: Montreal and Kyoto Compared I did write to Willett off-list and thank him for his comment. But just so everyone understands, here's what I said: "Thanks for the comments. But don't misunderstand. I circulated the article because I thought it would be interesting and, yes, even provocative, not because I thought its analysis was RIGHT. Sunstein, by the way, is not a political scientist. He's the Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School at the University of Chicago." I'm glad Paul chimed in, and perhaps others will, too. But the person who'd probably most like to hear from you -- and probably most needs to -- is Cass Sunstein. Geoffrey. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Craig Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:52 AM To: GEP-Ed Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared Willett-- Great comment! Right on. I found this paper absolutely fascinating. The reason is that it clearly articulates the kind of thinking that actually drove US policy. It was and is politically salient, while being scientifically and economically narrow and outdated to the point of seeming almost bogus. Amazing. The article seems a relic from the past. Yet it's forthcoming this year in a legitimate journal. So much for Harvard's review process. I also learned about the "Joint Center". AEI and Brookings working arm-in-arm to promote this kind of work. AEI I understand. But Brookings! I'd thought better of them. Scary! Paul Paul Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "willett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "GEP-Ed" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> Cc: "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "NICHOLAS WATTS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:54 PM Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared > > Ok, an interesting comparison of national benefits from national versus > global implementation. But otherwise, wow, a bizarre article. Perhaps > an example of how you cannot do good political science if you base it on > lousy climatology, old economic analysis, and pretend that there's no > such thing as technical innovation and change. If Nordhaus and Boyer's > estimates of the damages from climate change were remotely close to > correct, we wouldn't really be worried about this problem. Yes, George > Bush believes (or some of his advisors/donors believe) that the US would > be economicaly damaged by reductions in CO2. But he also believes that > evolution is unproven and seems to have difficulty distinguishing the > interests of the United States from the interests of the United States' > fossil fuel industry. The countries that are "foolishly" complying with > Kyoto are developing the technology of the 21st century. E.g. try > Googling: Siemens Wind Power, Vestas, REpower AG, Talisman Beatrice > Project, Shell Renewables, or, hey, even the US can do it -- Tesla > Motors. > > Willett Kempton > > > On 29 Aug 2006, at 14:38, Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith wrote: > >> I think this will be of widespread interest. >> >> G. >> ---------------------------------- >> Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith >> Emeritus Professor of Political Science >> University of California >> >> <MontrealKyoto.pdf> > >
