On May 21, 10:20 pm, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William M Connolley wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2007, Michael Tobis wrote:
> >>> Some people argue that there can't be an economics driven catastrophe,
> >>> because renewables and efficiency are cheap enough already that a
> >>> switch over a few decades would only mean slower growth.
> >> I don't think many people argue that.
>
> > John Quiggin does:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/help_me_here_defining_dangerou....
>
> > ----
> > "Could we rule out the risk of economic collapse if we restricted out CO2
> > emissions (this is, I think, from JA)."
>
> > Absolutely. Here's an easy way of getting an upper bound on the costs.
>
> First, although I can't find the original, I'm pretty sure that when I
> originally posed that question I quite deliberately used exactly the
> same language as had been used to talk about the risk of harm due to
> climate change. Eg, when people talk about how we cannot "rule out" a
> particular level of (economic) damage from AGW, I was asking if we could
> "rule out" a similar level of economic harm from mitigation required to
> avoid the AGW damage.
>
> William's use of "economic collapse" perhaps a little out of context
> gave JQ the opportunity to address a straw man, rather than the real
> question. His "upper bound" is right at (I think most would say beyond)
> the very top end of plausible estimates of the cost of AGW.
>
> Secondly, his answer seems rather simplistic to me, with its explicit
> assumption that no (economic) action could possibly have consequences
> greater than the immediate direct financial cost.
>
> Don't forget, I'm not talking about the expected cost, or likely cost,
> but the _possibility_ of a high cost.
>
> There are those who would argue that we shouldn't be talking purely
> about cost. There is undoubtedly some validity to that point, but it's
> not directly relevant to the one I was trying to make.
>
> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Suppose we had a world legal system that determined the cost and
responsibility for each molecule of GHG emitted. That is, you are
responsible in perpetuity for the cost of your own net GHG emmissions.
You'd have to put in a deposit in escrow to cover estimated cost of
your past and (at least) your current emmissions. And you would share
some responsibility for past emissions that cannot be assigned to a
currently living person.
The problem with talk about generic cost and benefits is that it
ignores the justice issue. My costs are often your benefits.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
