OK, though there are people out there who wouldn't concede the point
at least we are agreed so far. I agree that there are some economic
policies which are dangerous.
I am unconvinced that economic analysis as typically performed is
especially useful in the matter of sustainability. I think
sustainability is a goal, and that economics is a potentially useful
tool.
Regarding the 2 C, my intuition says it is very risky from sea level
rise alone. (Ocean acidification, hydrology, food security issues also
matter.)
Other people's intuitions disagree. While I am not sure what to do
about it, I would like you to acknowledge that there is some number
not two orders bigger than 2 C that would be a billion year disaster,
ask you how you would estimate it, and given such a number what you
would do about it.
I don't buy Stern's reasoning, and I think the WG II process produced
a useless mess. Nevertheless we need a target.
I really wish more engineers would think about economics from a
control systems point of view. To me, the contemporary economic system
obviously has the character of a defective control system, but I don't
seem able to convey this analogy very well. There are missing
feedbacks. In order to stabilize the system, the desired state must be
part of the optimization algorithm.
We desperately need constraints, and 2 C is the most stringent one we
have a good shot at. I think that is the necessary and sufficient
reason for 2 C.
mt
On 5/15/07, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael Tobis wrote:
> > I find the idea that it is dangerous to interfere with the economic
> > system, an artifact, every bit as bizarre as the idea that it is *not*
> > dangerous to interfere with the biosphere, at the very least an
> > astonishing and rare accident of nature.
>
> The issue is not whether it IS dangerous to interfere with something
> that is itself a human construct - such a suggestion would probably be
> silly, since its mere existence is the result of much continuing
> "interference" (OTOH, any particular course of action will benefit some
> at the expense of others, so perhaps even this is dangerous interference
> to some, but that makes the term rather vacuous). The issue is whether
> it may be dangerous to interfere *in a particular manner*.
>
> I hope that the fact that economic factors may severely ("dangerously")
> impact on peoples' lives is not a matter for disagreement. Try going to
> central Africa and tell the people there that the difference between
> your life and theirs is just an artefact!
>
> James
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
