Robert Constanza has examined related economic scenarios and published in science. You might like to contact him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This group has extensive access to good predictions about the changes in the climate. http://www.climateprediction.net/download/license.php There is a Professor from the International Institute for Systems Analysis that claims he has a plan for the earth to suppport one trillion people. I think he is nutz, and even if he is not nutz I do not think many of us would like to live in his world. I have a reference to his program but at the monent I am unable to locate it. If anyone is interested I will make the effort to find it. I believe that if we developed the RFH energy system we could end the threat from the worst of global warming by the year 2050. Unfortunately it would take a big effort and maybe some small sacrifice from the citizens of the advanced nations. On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Fiddaman, using just CO2 and ignoring ocean acidification, > > suggests ... a discount rate of 1--2%. > > The difference between a one year CO2 pulse and addition over 70 years > is interesting, but I am not sure how he relates it to discount rates. > > I've got a big logical problem with using discount rates to work out > how much should be spent today to save future generations some costly > damage, as I've alluded to in my previous post. A discount rate above > 0 discounts far future generations to nothing, but a discount rate of > 0 means a small annual damage incurred by a huge number of future > generations would justify spending all our resources today, leaving > our own generation nothing to live on. > > Surely how much deprivation the spending means today has to figure > somehow? > > Put differently, I am happy to put money I don't need into an account > that pays 0% interest. But even 100% interest isn't going to interest > me, if I am asked to deposit the money I need to buy food to survive. > > ------------------------ > > Climate change economics boils down in practise to considerations like > "I'll buy a smaller car and I'll have done my bit to save those cute > polar bears." > > And that's the way it should be I suppose, we compare in simple terms > what we give up for our climate change investment and what we get > back, and then judge whether the sacrifice is worth it. It's just that > when I look at climate change economics, I do it with some awe for the > real power of compound interest, and with a belief that there are many > real investment opportunities with huge returns today. > > Do you see what I am driving at? Just because some people use discount > rates in silly ways doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the > bath water and deny that there are real investment opportunities with > returns well above zero and powerful compounding opportunities, and > that this needs to figure in our decision making. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
