"Such estimates, my critics said, were meaningless." Yep. Here's two very good reasons why:
1. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed," Dieter Helm, Nature 491, 663–665 (29 November 2012). "The main problem with the Kyoto approach is that it does not address the carbon footprint — carbon consumption. A country's (and an individual's) carbon footprint is best measured by looking at the carbon embedded in the goods and services that each consumes. Global warming takes no account of national boundaries. If a US consumer buys a car, it matters little whether the steel within it is made in the United States or China. "The difference between carbon production and carbon consumption is not trivial. Take the United Kingdom: from 1990 to 2005, its carbon production fell by around 15%. But carbon consumption went up by around 19% once the carbon embedded in imports is taken into account." 2. "Three persistent myths in the environmental debate," Roefie Hueting, Ecological Economics 18 (1996) 81-88 Abstract: "Throughout the last three decades of working on environmental and resource problems I have encountered three persistent myths: (1) environment conflicts with employment; (2) production must grow to create scope for financing environmental conservation; and (3) although society would like to save the environment, it is too expensive. Testing these three propositions, individually and mutually, leads to the conclusion that as long as they dominate the environmental debate, the world will drift ever further away from environmental sustainability." On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I should have put these links in my earlier post so you could follow > what I was > > addressing. > > > > Krugman opened the discussion with this, about the weirdness of the > present economy: > > > > > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/bubbles-regulation-and-secular-stagnation/ > > > > Dean Baker responded with this: > > > http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-on-bubbles-and-secular-stagnation > > > > And Krugman responded with this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com > > > > And I wanted to scream. > > > > Gene > > ====================== > > Happy screaming: > > > http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/the-cost-of-climate-change/ > > How much will climate change cost? > > Later this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will > issue its fourth report, aggregating what the latest science tells us > about how man-made greenhouse-gas emissions are warming the > environment. > > It is likely to present a dire picture. “The scientific evidence for > anthropogenic climate change has strengthened year by year,” said Qin > Dahe, a climatologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is > co-chairman of the working group preparing the panel’s report. The > accumulating evidence, he said, leaves “fewer uncertainties about the > serious consequences of inaction.” > > Nonetheless, the report will probably do little to address the most > fundamental question: how much should we spend on prevention? The best > answer, still, is that nobody has any idea. What’s more, science and > economics may have no better answer to provide. > > Consider my recent column about the Obama administration’s estimates > of how much we should pay to slow global warming. It ran into a storm > of criticism. > > The column focused mostly on different assumptions of how much current > spending was needed to pay for environmental damage in the distant > future. The critique, however, zeroed in on the estimates of such > future costs. > > Such estimates, my critics said, were meaningless. > > [snip] > > > How useful were the clergy after the plague? > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
