Posted on 11/02/2006 11:02:21 AM PST by The Raven
The report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.
Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.
The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure. The review is also one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change. Mr. Stern sees increasing hurricane damage in the U.S. as a powerful argument for carbon controls. However, hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The ecomonic models all assume little dynamic effects from global warming mitigation. The price of electricy and other carbon-based products will increase substantially, and decrease the world GNPby who knows how much. World recessions are not discussed but probable. Also the indivdual's behavior will change with higher prices and energy use will decline.
ping
I didn't know Howard was getting into economic news like this. I'm impressed.
A comparison of numbers that I would like to see is the cost a saving one persons life:
1. from malaria by using conventional techniques (medical care, draining swamps, indoor DDT use...) vs.
2. from any GW cause by reducing atmospheric CO2.
My guess is that the ratio (#2/#1) is well over one million.
This is a hoot. These guys are actually making GDP calculations 175 years out. Idiocy. That would be like the Andy Jackson administration getting together with King William IV of England to plan economic policy for today. It generally takes economists a year to figure out what really happened in the previous year, and somehow they expect us to take them seriously when the are throwing around predictions for an economy six generations in the future.
Well they got it half right. Once again, their basic premise is based upon junk science and still highly inaccurate models... and they move on from there.
PING!
BTTT.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
My FRiend, no one knows what it will be like 50 months, 50 weeks, 50 days, or 50 hours from now. The folks who think they do are called speculators. Some of them win, and some lose.
But it is absolutely ludicrous to project out 180 years. Imagine someone doing that in 1836. Where would they have made their bets... horses? Canal boats? Slaves?
God only knows the conditions and technologies our great grand children will be dealing with. It could be Startreck stuff, or it could be back to rocks and furs if we don't beat back this Islamofacist threat.
There would be several bets that would still be making money today. However Jackson and the southern political elites would probably put their money in one of two areas that had the bottom fall out; Slaves and horses. There is still money to be made in Canals, Rail (which was just getting started in 1836), Mining, Timber products, and Fishing.
None of those industries will make their investors larger profits than the market average in the near future. If you want to make a killing, invest in the alternative energy company whose technology will be in widespread use twenty years from now. Unfortunately not having a crystal ball that tells me the future, I cannot tell which company that will be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.