foarp
mattsteinglass
Filed under: Environment
Jim Manzi writes:
The expected impacts of human-induced climate change are marginal as compared either to the sloppy, sentimental and self-righteous rhetoric that surrounds this issue…
There will be no snow left on Kilimanjaro within a few years. The economic cost of that change to US GDP is zero. There will be no year-round snow left in the Himalayas in 100 years. The economic cost of that change to US GDP is tiny. There will be no Everglades in 100 years. The economic cost of that change to US GDP is marginal. There will be no Venice in 100 years. The economic cost of that change to US GDP is tiny. There will be no New Orleans in 100 years. The economic cost of that change to US GDP is extremely small.
There are two issues here. First, GDP measures income, not wealth. If your house burns down, it will most likely not change your income. Does that mean you should spend nothing to protect your house from burning down? Second, GDP only measures things that can be measured in money. But the worth of many precious things cannot be measured in money: Yellowstone National Park, the independence of one’s country from foreign rule, the existence of elephants and polar bears, clean air, the ruins of the city of Ur, the fact that humans have traveled to the moon, etc.
As far as I know, the only reasonable way to measure the worth of these things is to find out how much people are willing to pay to preserve or get them. The economic value of clean air in 1965, before the passage of the Clean Air Act, was zero. How much is the cleaner air we have today worth? You could say it’s worth nothing, since we breathe it for free; and indeed it doesn’t really show up in GDP figures. But if you’ve ever lived in a city without any pollution controls, you know that in fact its value is immense, and probably the best way to measure how much clean air is worth would be to measure how much the American people have been willing to spend over the past 40 years to get it. And the only way to find out how much it’s worth to keep snow on Mt. Everest, keep Florida above water, keep polar bears in existence, and so forth, is to find out how much Americans are willing to spend on these things. I would bet it’s actually far more than $50 a year per person for the next 100 years.
31 Comments so far
Leave a comment
ACCUMULATING PERIPHERALS 
Hi, Matt.
You may want to re-think the first sentence, using Mt. Kilimanjaro as a wake-up call to the dangers of global warming. This connection is extremely tenuous, I’m afraid. The loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is due to lower percipitation, and is almost certainly not connected to man-made temperature changes.
There has been research done to show this the last few years; a quick Google search will bear this out.
But I do like how you connect things that can’t be measured in wealth to our response to global warming. It’s an important point. Also important, in my mind, is that the risks you state to make your case are likely ones.
To point out just one more example, it will be fairly easy, over the next 90 or so years, to “keep Florida above water.” The most likely scenario from the IPCC report is that sea-level rise will be about a foot. That’s about the same we’ve had for the last 150 years. I’m pretty sure Florida can handle it, even without the slight offset (1-2%?) a very expensive cap-and-trade” bill would offer.
Cheers,
Ted
Comment by Ted June 27, 2009 @ 4:03 pmI’m fairly sure that IPCC “most likely” estimate is out of date. A more recent study from MIT show that the last IPCC “high” estimate of closer to 1 meter rise by 2100 should now be considered the “most likely” estimate. A 1-meter rise takes out the Everglades; in Vietnam, where I live, it takes out the entirety of the Mekong Delta, which is the area that makes Vietnam the world’s second-leading rice exporter. (The impact of sea level rise on rice production is severe. Rice is mainly grown on coastal plains and river deltas.) A secondary factor is the reversibility issue. It may be true that it will take longer than 100 years for Florida to go underwater; but the scientific consensus is that once you get past 450 ppm, its doom is sealed.
Comment by mattsteinglass June 27, 2009 @ 4:21 pm“I’m afraid. The loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is due to lower percipitation, and is almost certainly not connected to man-made temperature changes.”
And why has precipitation dropped? How do you know that’s not linked in some way to man-made temperature changes? Perhaps air temperatures over the summit are high enough that air can pass over the mountain without dropping as much of its moisture.
Or perhaps temperature rises have changed air patterns, leading to drier air passing over the mountain than before.
Comment by Jon H June 29, 2009 @ 10:40 pmHi, Matt. Thanks for your response.
I just looked at the MIT study and, while I find it difficult to understand in places, it seems that they have updated this model by taking into account natural forcings during the 20th century temperature record – such as volcanic activity. According to their report, this necessitates a stronger temperature/GHG sensitivity, and less ocean heat uptake, in order for the model to “match” the historic temperature record.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. However, I could not find any data in the report regarding how well the model does match the historic record. So I can’t judge how successful it was in doing so. Furthermore, it seems that the results for the 21st century do not include any cooling volcanic activity, or other natural forcings, which seems unlikely. (I’m not sure about this … as I said, I’ve just read it once, and it’s difficult to follow.)
Finally, the model results do clearly state a prediction of sea-level rise … between 12 and 24 inches by 2100, (with 50-75% of this increase due to thermal expansion). So I’m not sure where “close to 1 meter rise” comes from. Perhaps you were quoting a different source?
Note also that this rise in sea level prediction is a very smooth, exponential line throughout the 21st century. Again, given the 30 (or so) year cycles of warming and cooling periods during the 20th century, this seems unlikely to me.
Anyway, if my understanding of this model is incorrect, I would welcome a response. I do look forward to seeing others report their response and analysis of it in the near future (since it is so new, and probably no one has yet to reproduce their results).
Thanks,
Ted
Comment by Ted June 27, 2009 @ 7:55 pmHi Ted,
yes, you’re right, I had confused sources. The MIT study was the one that said the median prediction for global temperature rise should be 5.2 degrees Celsius, double earlier predictions. I was thinking of this “Science” study from Sept. 2008 which placed the “most likely” sea level rise at between 0.8 and 2 meters by 2100:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5894/1340
…and this December USGS report that sea level rise will “substantially exceed” the IPCC estimates:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm#finalreport
…and Joe Romm’s summation of the current consensus: sea level rise of 5 to 7 feet by 2100.
Comment by mattsteinglass June 27, 2009 @ 9:06 pmhttp://climateprogress.org/2009/04/13/american-thinker-marc-sheppard-global-warming-denier-joe-romm-projected-temperature-rise-sea-level-permanent-dust-bowl/
Hi, Matt.
I do appreciate the back-and-forth. Really, I do. But these claims are getting more and more eccentric. The Science article you cite first doesn’t actually say the most likely scenario is between 0.8 and 2.0 meters. From their abstract:
“We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter.”
So, the 0.8 meters is “more plausible” than 2 meters, but still highly unlikely (as it requires “accelerated conditions” to achieve this in their model). This paper is not meant to be a prediction of future SLR, but rather a constraint on the more exaggerated claims that one tends to find.
Joe Romm cites three sources for his ‘consensus’ statement: The Science study from 2008 mentioned above, another Science study (Rahmstorf) from 2007, and a Nature Geoscience article (Rohling, et. al) from 2008.
The Rahmstorf piece is interesting, but really takes the long view. He uses a millennial scale to determine the rate of sea level increase per unit Celsius (*C). Basically, he looks at the high sea level of 3 million years ago (2-3 *C higher, and 25 – 35 meters higher sea level than today), and the low of 20,000 years ago (4-7 *C lower, 120 meters lower than today) to calculate a change of sea-level of 10 – 30 meters per *C.
See any problems with that so far? Anyway, he then uses these numbers to calculate a change in sea level per *C, per year, above a baseline (equilibrium), and gets about 3.4 mm/*C/year. According to his analysis, if the temperature increases *stop* right now, we will still get 38 cm SLR by 2100 (starting at 1990 levels). That’s about 15 inches. He then uses the range of predicted temperature increases to say “a rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios (emphasis added) cannot be ruled out.” So presumably, the majority component for the less strong warming scenarios will be due to warming we’ve already seen, i.e. – they cannot be prevented with *any* CO cap strategy. He then goes on to emphasize the need for better adaptation and mitigation efforts. Since even a robust (and expensive) world-wide cap-and-trade mechanism wouldn’t reverse CO2 growth by much, it seems that funding adaptation efforts is a better use of trillions of dollars, which I think undermines your support for cap-and-trade.
Romm’s third source – the Nature Geoscience article – simply says we’ve seen dramatic SLR in the recent past, during the last interglacial period 120,000 years ago. That period also had higher temperatures, about 2-3 *C above today’s levels, and a mean sea-level 4-6 m higher.
The article doesn’t say it, but I think the strongest message here is: this has happened before. In other words, it seriously undermines the idea that the current warming is anthropogenic in nature, and that we can stop this warming by reducing CO2. It therefore is another powerful argument to use our wealth for adaptation, rather than cap-and-trade.
Finally, I’m not sure what to say about the USGS report. Yes, it says it is “likely” (>65%) that sea level rise will “substantially exceed” the IPCC estimates of 7 – 23 inches. Note that the high value from the IPCC already “substantially exceeds” the low value, so I’m not sure how much higher this report is suggesting. It doesn’t specify a level, so I don’t think this really supports the 39 inches you were talking about.
Note also that this projection is based on ice-sheets in Antarctica and glaciers in Greenland melting. Particularly stunning is the idea that loss of ice in Antarctica is contributing to this weak projection, since it is well know – via both evidence and models – that Antarctica is *gaining* ice, and will continue to gain ice, due to higher percipitation rates. (This is not, as far as I know, a controversial position.)
Look, Matt … here’s the take-away: I’m trying to allow for new evidence that says I should be worried about global warming. But every time I look into these things, I find it’s nowhere near as “settled” or as bad as the author is making out.
I’m just tired of having to dig deep in these papers and reports and citations, in order to find out that the evidence presented almost never matches the hyperbole that people talk about. I want to know what is real, what is known. But it seems like every time I dig into these things – Antarctica is melting, polar bears are dying, Florida and Viet Nam are going under water – I inevitably find that the claims are simply not supported by the evidence as presented in the papers used as reference for these claims.
I do get the sense that you are not purposefully trying to deceive; I really do. So I’m trying to give thoughtful responses by taking the time to read the things you cite.
But I also feel – now – that you are simply overly worried about these various scenarios, and have been caught up in the ceaseless flow of scary news that one finds on these things.
Have I been unfair in my analysis of these reports? I don’t think so. I’m simply trying to understand what’s going on, and I find – time and again – that I can’t trust most of what I read on the subject.
Anyway, let me know if you think my take is wrong, or you find more reliable results in other studies. I do appreciate the exchange.
Cheers,
Ted
Comment by Ted June 28, 2009 @ 7:02 amTed: I’m going to say something unacceptable, which is that I don’t have time to respond to this. I’m about to leave on vacation for 3 weeks. I think you are involved in a logical sinkhole of the form: the problem isn’t so bad, and besides it’s so awful that there’s nothing we can do about it. I will have to get back to you later in a more substantive fashion. Sorry to wimp out of a good discussion in this fashion.
Comment by mattsteinglass June 28, 2009 @ 12:09 pmTed:
There’s a lot of unreliable information out there, and I’m afraid you’re (inadvertently) propagating it. Just a couple of examples for now. You write:
“Particularly stunning is the idea that loss of ice in Antarctica is contributing to this weak projection, since it is well know – via both evidence and models – that Antarctica is *gaining* ice, and will continue to gain ice, due to higher percipitation rates. (This is not, as far as I know, a controversial position.)”
Actually, there’s a lot of evidence that Antarctica is losing ice mass. A year ago, Shum, Kuo, and Guo reviewed the literature on this for a paper in Polar Science and found that estimates of net Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise ranged from -0.12 to +0.17 mm/yr for studies using interferometric radar or radar altimetry, and +0.14 to +0.52 mm/year for more recent studies using gravity measurements from GRACE. In other words, most studies now show that Antarctica *is* losing ice mass already, a process likely to accelerate in the future. Far from being “non-controversial”, the claim you make is probably not supportable at all.
Likewise, your comment that “The loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is due to lower percipitation, and is almost certainly not connected to man-made temperature changes” is far too strongly stated. One paper by Kaser et al. (2004) suggested this, but there is plenty of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Eric Steig wrote a nice summary of the uncertainties about Kilimanjaro a few years ago, summing it up thusly:
“The Kilimanjaro glacier has waxed and waned since the time of its inception about 11,000 years ago. An unusually wet decade around 1880 put the glacier into strongly positive mass balance, bulking up its mass. Early 20th century explorers found the glacier recovering towards equilibrium from this anomalous state. However, rather than finding a new equilibrium in the 20th century, the glacier has continued to retreat, and is now on the brink of disappearing. Though air temperature has so far remained below freezing, melting has begun to occur, and the glacier is suffering net ablation over its entire surface. Air temperature increases similar to those observed aloft since 1960, amplified by associated increases in humidity, account for a significant portion of the enhanced ablation leading to this strongly negative mass balance, but the exact proportion is highly uncertain because of the short span of energy and mass balance observations.” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/).
With both these examples, I see you repeating claims that have been bouncing around the, ah, “contrarian” side of the debate for years. The first one (net gain of ice in Antarctica) is almost certainly false and the second one (Kilimanjaro melting not anthropogenic) is debatable at best.
Comment by J June 30, 2009 @ 12:42 amHi, Matt. Wow – that was a short vacation.
Well, unfortunately I can’t access the Shum, et. al, paper electronically, so I can’t comment on it specifically. Online, I’ve found data going both ways, and even wikipedia doesn’t say one way or the other (not a perfect source, but usually a pretty good indication of the “consensus”).
Still, I can’t help but notice we’re quibbling about a small amount. A very, very small amount. Even if we take your high end of 0.52mm/year, that’s only about 2 inches of SLR over 100 years. Quite a bit short of the 1-2 meters mentioned previously.
I suppose the rate could speed up over time, and that’s the danger you are referring to. But global warming is also supposed to increase percipitation over Antarctica, which would add ice. And since the decades-long studies have shown Antarctica ice to be steadily increasing, I’m not sure this is something we have to worry about.
As for Mt. Kilimanjaro, I wouldn’t hold too much stock in those RealClimate guys. They’re notorious for ignoring science they don’t like, or just muddying it up beyond recognition. Try reading their take on the 900 year lag between ice core temperature and CO2 levels, and then try to tell me how that makes any kind of sense. I think it’s telling that the link you provided is from 2005, while the latest research on Kilimanjaro is focused on why percipitation levels are decreasing, not *if* they are. (The current theory, I believe, is that it’s due to deforestation around the base.)
Anyway, you may be right about the “not that bad / too bad to do anything about it” thing. Well, in as much as that only partially describes my position.
It’s “not that bad” in terms of human-caused warming through GHG. I think the models that use GHG as the major forcing for warming have a terrible track record, and it’s likely that radiative forcings are much more important. (These models tend to get the 30 years cycles much better, and also successfully predicted the current cooling trend we’ve just started.)
But let’s say you are right … let me grant that CO2 is the major forcing, and we could see 5 *C increase in the next 100 years due to CO2 increases. Then why would I say “there’s nothing we can do about it?” Because slight decreases in CO2 output for huge sums of money is a terrible waste of resources. There are tons of better ways to spend that money.
To name just one: why not commit research dollars to using rockets to shoot particulates into the air, much like a volcano? When Krakatoa blew 125 years ago, temperatures decreased world-wide by over 1 *C … an effect that lasted up to five years. And that was just one volcano. We could spend millions on rockets instead of trillions to very little practical effect.
Surely we can come up with ways to reduce global temperatures by any amount we want. (And once all the nations of the world have a debate as to the “ideal” temperature, my bet is that most will say “a few degrees higher than today.”)
Anyway, I didn’t mean to go off on a rant. I certainly do take the “contrarian” side, but I try to keep an open mind. Once you start looking for it, though, it becomes easy to spot bias … particularly what Franklin described as the media’s “lazy” bias. It drives me nuts how even rigorous science is so often badly portrayed in the press. And Al Gore’s hyperbole certainly hasn’t helped in that regard.
Anyway, Matt, enjoy the rest of your vacation. Sorry for the length.
Cheers.
Comment by Ted June 30, 2009 @ 5:50 pmTed:
That comment was from me (“J”), not Matt.
You seem a bit confused about some other things, too. For example:
“Even if we take your high end of 0.52mm/year, that’s only about 2 inches of SLR over 100 years.”
First, that’s just the contribution from melting ice in Antarctica, there’s more SLR from thermal expansion and melting ice elsewhere.
Second, as you yourself note, that’s the *current* contribution from Antarctica, but you can’t project that linearly to 2100, due to probable increases in both precipitation and ice sheet discharge rates.
Figuring out *how* much ice mass Antarctica is going to lose by 2100 is not easy. My point wasn’t to get into the weeds on this; I’m merely showing that your original claim (“Antarctica is *gaining* ice, and will continue to gain ice … This is not, as far as I know, a controversial position.”) is certainly “controversial” at best, and more likely it’s simply incorrect.
Then, you write: “As for Mt. Kilimanjaro, I wouldn’t hold too much stock in those RealClimate guys. They’re notorious for ignoring science they don’t like, or just muddying it up beyond recognition.”
I strongly disagree with this. The viewpoints expressed at realclimate are broadly representative of the positions of most people working in this field (not surprising, since it’s a group blog with contributions from a large number of actual climate scientists).
“Try reading their take on the 900 year lag between ice core temperature and CO2 levels, and then try to tell me how that makes any kind of sense.”
Huh? I assume you’re referring to this post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
It’s very clearly written; I’m not sure why you’d find it confusing in any way. To summarize:
(1) There is a radiative forcing from CO2 such that if CO2 rises (or falls), temperature (T) also rises (or falls).
(2) At the same time, there are also some biogeochemical feedbacks from T, such that if T rises (or falls), CO2 will rise (or fall).
(3) In the current context, we’re artificially pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, so CO2 increases first and T follows.
(4) In the pre-historic era (say, up to the development of agriculture) changes in T were driven by the earth’s Milankovich orbital cycles, so T increased (or decreased) first and CO2 followed.
(5) Because of this, during the glacial/interglacial cycles, we think of CO2 as a feedback which amplified the externally-driven changes in temperature. (This feedback accounts for much of the total amplitude of the swing in T). In contrast, today CO2 is a driver, not just a feedback.
Is that really difficult to understand? I find it pretty straightforward. Certainly, it’s not even remotely controversial in climate science. This is actually pretty basic.
Regards,
Comment by J June 30, 2009 @ 8:42 pmJ.
One more point. Ted writes: “why not commit research dollars to using rockets to shoot particulates into the air, much like a volcano? When Krakatoa blew 125 years ago, temperatures decreased world-wide by over 1 *C … an effect that lasted up to five years.”
The elevated pulse of CO2 in the atmosphere will be with us for millennia, but stratospheric aerosols wash out after just a couple of years. You’d need to keep injecting aerosols into the stratosphere every year for thousands of years — if you stopped, you’d immediately get hit with the full magnitude of CO2-driven warming as the aerosols that were masking it disappeared.
Then there are the other impacts from CO2 that wouldn’t be fixed by this … for example, it would do nothing whatsoever to stop ocean acidification (bye-bye, coral reefs!)
Instead of constructing some kind of geo-engineered Rube Goldberg machine to keep the climate livable while still burning all the coal we want, why not make the transition away from coal now. We’ll have to anyway, at some point!
Comment by J June 30, 2009 @ 8:49 pmNo Worries. Have a good vacation.
-Ted
Comment by Ted June 28, 2009 @ 12:22 pmMatt, very well put. Should I care about my grandkids never eating Vermont maple syrup or drinking Virginia wine? I’ll have to stop by the temple and ask the GDP idol.
Comment by TheGreenMiles June 29, 2009 @ 11:18 pm[…] Steinglass, my vote for undervalued blogger of the moment, lands a few solid punches against […]
Pingback by How Much Are Venice, The Everglades, And New Orleans Worth? · Iranian Election Coverage June 29, 2009 @ 11:52 pmMaybe in 100 yrs the Everglades will be gone, but there will be a new swamp somewhere else. There will still be river deltas and coastal plains on which to grow rice even if the sea level rises – they may just be in a different location. Over the next 100 yrs, perhaps 10% of the Mekong Delta population will have to move inland each decade if your assertions are correct. Detroit emptied out faster.
Comment by tompain June 30, 2009 @ 12:00 amTom Pain points out the obvious…people will adapt. Buy your “ocean front” property ten miles inland…future generations will enjoy your foresight! Are you serious?
Millions of acres of fertile soil lost to rising sea levels aren’t replaced by moving inland. People may move, but fertile soil doesn’t (ask Arabs). Moving future rice production to the location of future river deltas or coastal plains simply displaces existing economic endeavors.
Industries and manufacturers can migrate to take advantage of cheaper labor, and the scar they leave behind on communities should not be dismissed so flippantly. If you believe creation of economic refugees is a sound policy goal, then acknowledge it.
Comment by Cadmus June 30, 2009 @ 3:54 amGreenmiles, I would say, no, you shouldn’t care about your grandkids never eating maple syrup or drinking Virginia wine. Do you use much snuff? No? Would your great grandparents care?
Comment by tompain June 30, 2009 @ 12:03 am“Second, GDP only measures things that can be measured in money. But the worth of many precious things cannot be measured in money.”
Good luck getting right-wingers to comprehend that.
Comment by new June 30, 2009 @ 12:10 amThe price we pay for clean air is a great example of not being able to safely put a price tag on the commons problem. What about heathcare costs associated with polluted air? You may not want to pay for clean air if a tax is required in the short term, but you alomst certainly won’t want to pay the hospital bills after being exposed to filthy air for 30 years. These costs may not directly factor into government and individual spending, but they exist nonetheless.
Comment by Col. Klink June 30, 2009 @ 12:12 amI lived in New Delhi for half a year. I was very rarely homesick except for a constant longing for the “fresh” air of my home in New Jersey. Many Americans would scoff at the notion of New Jersey’s clean air. But unless you hung your head over the top of a smoke stack in Elizabeth, there is no air even half as polluted as Delhi’s in this state (or any other at this point). It sucked energy from you. Gave me resperatory problems that continue to this day, and generally made living in the city much much less pleasant than it would have been otherwise.
People who think these pollution controls are a waste of money, probably have never been to a developing industrial country. If they have, my guess is they never left the confines of their hotel room / air conditioned car.
Comment by NM June 30, 2009 @ 12:23 am[…] vs. actual value Why GDP is not the end-all be-all of how we should value the world and its resources: There will be no snow left on Kilimanjaro […]
Pingback by GDP vs. actual value « tangents and digressions June 30, 2009 @ 12:24 amMatt explains, “A 1-meter rise takes out the Everglades; in Vietnam, where I live, it takes out the entirety of the Mekong Delta, which is the area that makes Vietnam the world’s second-leading rice exporter.”
Ted counters with a dated IPCC that, “…the model results do clearly state a prediction of sea-level rise … between 12 and 24 inches by 2100.”
Sciencemag.com discusses conditions that could bring about 0.8 meter SLR.
Over 10 million people live in Dhaka, Bangladesh — elevation 4 meters. Well over half the land and population of the Netherlands is less than 30 feet above sea level. Venice, Italy is reportedly at 20 feet, though I have stood in water above my ankles in San Marcos Square.
So, whether it is 24 inches, or 1 meter, or heaven forbid 2 meters…whatever educated guess one can cite, are we really quibling over $50 per family? I’m headed to Aptos, California, in five days…and the beachfront houses average value is $6MM, cliff top homes are more like $3MM. Do you think anyone there, or in La Jolla, or Hermosa, or San Clemente, or Malibu, Laguna Beach, or Newport, or Santa Barbara, etc. would object to $500 or $1,000 annually to protect their properties, and the economic well being of their communities? If $50 bucks a year means my family (and future grandchildren) can enjoy the Monterey Bay 4-5 times a year, eat oysters from Bodega Bay, dive for abalone in Mendocino…I am not sure I understand the dilemma. Add to that the threats to the Everglades, New Orleans, Venice, Dhaka, the Netherlands’ Zuiderzee and the Mekong Delta, then why dispute the margin of error. Like the Clean Air Act, would anyone invite the alternative?
Comment by Cadmus June 30, 2009 @ 12:59 amWhen’s the last time someone, even scientists, predicted correctly what will happen in 100 years? Answer: probably never. Question: in 5 years, if there’s still snow on kilimangaro are you going to write an apology for being wrong? It’s ludicrous for us to put in place massive taxes (ie cap & trade) for a program that, at scientist’s best estimates will lower temps by one tenth of one degree in a hundred years! I’m a big believer in science, I hate religion, but if there’s one thing that’s true – HISTERICS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG!
Comment by Adam June 30, 2009 @ 5:29 amActually, you have this backwards. Science has a pretty good record of predictions here, it’s the economic doomsayers who turn out to be wrong again and again.
Look at the predicted costs from virtually any previous regulation on industry (the clean water act, the clean air act, the montreal protocol, you name it). The actual costs always turn out to be way, way lower than the predicted costs.
It will be exactly the same with reducing CO2. We’ll innovate, and become more efficient, and the costs will drop.
Comment by J June 30, 2009 @ 8:54 pm[…] like to admit, though I seriously don’t know how to hurdle these objections. I really like this entry by Matt Steinglass listing some thing not covered by GDP measurements. Possibly related posts: […]
Pingback by Non-GDP Costs from Global Warming « Rortybomb June 30, 2009 @ 5:51 am[…] The problem with measuring climate change impact in GDP « ACCUMULATING PERIPHERALS – "First, GDP measures income, not wealth. If your house burns down, it will most likely not change your income. Does that mean you should spend nothing to protect your house from burning down?" […]
Pingback by Green Tee Readings » Links for June 28th through June 29th June 30, 2009 @ 6:21 am“HISTERICS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG!”
Comment by Janus Daniels June 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pmComment by Adam June 30, 2009
and people who use USE CAPS AND MISSPELL ARE ALMOST…?
[…] ~ June 30th, 2009 Educated people in developed countries are typically aghast when anyone suggests that you might want to risk destruction of entire nations just to save a […]
Pingback by In Defense of Money « Modeled Behavior July 1, 2009 @ 2:03 am[…] Home, News. Photo by delgaudm via Flickr (Creative Commons) Andrew Sullivan points the way to a Matt Steinglass post about the limits of measuring climate change damage in economic terms: There will be no Everglades […]
Pingback by ‘How Much are Venice, the Everglades, and New Orleans Worth?’ : Green Clean Travel July 3, 2009 @ 2:10 am[…] Sullivan points the way to a Matt Steinglass post about the limits of measuring climate change damage in economic terms: There will be no Everglades […]
Pingback by ‘How Much are Venice, the Everglades, and New Orleans Worth?’ - Travel July 3, 2009 @ 5:24 amThank you in assist of receiving the time to talk about this, I presume strongly about that and adore learning much more on this topic. If achievable, while you acquire expertise, would you brain updating your blog site with further information? It is actually tremendously pretty helpful.
Comment by Handyman Sacramento February 5, 2011 @ 2:33 am