>The moral of the story? Tetris piggies need to fork over enough capital to
>build 4,000 nuclear power plants if they want to enjoy the benefits of
>electricity without overflowing the carbon sink.
I think this is probably simplifying it a bit too much, but I don't
think we can underestimate the predictive power, and effective
management tools of modern economics for this kind of policy-making.
The long time-scales are just as much a moral hazard problem in climate
science as they are in economics (It is much easier to convincingly
exagerrate results with long time scales, and everyone will be dead
when they realise you've done it). But say in the medium term (10 to 20
years), market-driven policies coupled with constant oversight of the
underlying climate statistics is the key. The economic illiteracy of
environmental activist crowd is a serious problem. The world is likely
to squander trillions in poorly thought out or executed carbon
mitigation policies. A dollar each way in cost-effective mitigation and
adaptation strategies will be a good investment anyway.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
