[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ultimate global warming wager may be an interesting potential
> solution:
>
> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad&p=1
>
> What do you think, James?
>
I think it's interesting in principle, although I doubt his numbers are
reasonable (that's based as much on my judgement of the author, as from
a quick eyeballing of the article). AIUI all of the reasonable economic
analyses suggest an initially modest carbon tax which ramps up over
time. Making this conditional on continued warming (assuming a sensible
smoothing/averaging) isn't really much of a condition in my view. As
I've tried to argue before, the important thing is to get this process
moving, rather than argue endlessly about such trivial as the "right"
stabilisation level in 2100 (as if our great-grandchildren are going to
care what their ignorant great-grandparents thought).
Actually, on a second glance there are lots of problems with the details
of the proposal, but perhaps the biggest one is that the whole idea
gives way too much attention to the denialist rump who are essentially
dead in the water anyway. I don't think a carbon tax needs Ross
McKitrick's approval.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
