Fighting Climate Change - Cost Benefit Analysis

[r3volution 3.0]

Most of the debate regarding global warming climate change revolves around the physical science.

...i.e. what exactly is happening or likely to happen with the climate.

The economic consequences of various emission-reduction plans get much less attention.

The paper linked below addresses that neglected area.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org...ysis-final.pdf

Excerpt from the conclusion:

Cost-benefit analyses conducted for this chapter and summarized in Figure 8.4.3.1 show the IPCC’s own cost and benefit estimates put the cost of restricting the use of fossil fuels at approximately 6.8 times greater than the benefits. Replacing the IPCC’s unrealistically low cost estimate with ones originally produced by Bezdek (2014, 2015) and updated for this chapter show reducing the use of fossil fuels costs between 32 and 48 times as much as the IPCC’s estimate of the benefits of a slightly cooler world. If renewable energy sources are unable to entirely replace fossil fuels, the cost could soar to 162 times the possible benefit. The ratio of Bezdek’s cost estimate per ton of CO2 eqand the SCC produced by the Interagency Working Groupin2015 is 73:1 for fossil fuel used in 2010 and 79:1 for fossil fuels used in 2050: the cost of stopping climate change by restricting the use of fossil fuels would be 73 to 79 times greater than the benefits, and this assumes there are benefits.

A particularly egregious example of inefficiency:

In the United States, the state of Maryland’s government decided that from 2011 to 2050 it would reduce its CO2 emissions by 90% at a discounted cost of $7.3tn, about three times the discounted cost of the rejected national cap-and-tax scheme over the same period. The reduction would have amounted to 1.5% of national emissions, which are 17% of global emissions. Therefore, the fraction of global emissions abated is 0.0025. The predicted business-as-usual CO2 concentration of 507.55 ppmv would fall to 507.25 ppmv. Radiative forcing abated is less than 0.003Wm−2, and warming abated is 0.001K. The unit mitigation cost is $7.3 quadrillion. The cost of abating the predicted 0.44K global warming over the period is $3 quadrillion, or $320,000 per head of global population, or well more than 500% of global GDP over the period. Attempted mitigation by measures as costly as Maryland’s scheme would be 1150 times costlier than inaction today and adaptation later.

In short, even if the warming narrative is more or less correct, the rational course of action is in fact to do nothing.

[Krugminator2]

Global warming exists. Man contributes to it. The US contributes a small amount. I am too lazy to use Google but I read China pollutes 5 to 10 times as much. Anything the US does is a drop in the ocean. India and other third world countries are getting wealthier and will pollute more in the coming years.

It is ridiculous for the US to have a lower standard of living and have no impact just to appease anti-capitalist zealots.

[oyarde]

No global warming here in our new , cooler rainforest habitat . The new cooling has cost me two years of fruit production and I could not plant corn this year due to rains to make whiskey to offset fruit loss . Global warming would be helpful but the leftists never invent anything helpful . So I will just grow bell peppers , onions , tomatos , beans and wheat in the new cooling habitat . No apples to make beer , so wheat beer it is .

[Danke]

Most of the debate regarding global warming climate change revolves around the physical science.

...i.e. what exactly is happening or likely to happen with the climate.

The economic consequences of various emission-reduction plans get much less attention.

The paper linked below addresses that neglected area.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org...ysis-final.pdf

Excerpt from the conclusion:



A particularly egregious example of inefficiency:



In short, even if the warming narrative is more or less correct, the rational course of action is in fact to do nothing.

Yes, I read such reports many years ago, but could not pull them up recently, censorship?

Anyway, +rep.

[Danke]

Global warming exists. Man contributes to it.

It exists ( for thousands of years now, with some cool downs and pauses), but prove man contributes to it.

[oyarde]

It exists ( for thousands of years now, with some cool downs and pauses), but prove man contributes to it.

Global cooling deniers here are burnt at the stake . Survivors will have their opinion considered by the Chief .

[EBounding]

Agreed. People arguing against the science just end up looking ridiculous. The low hanging fruit are the massive costs associated with proposals like the New Green Deal.

Climate change is expected to cost the US a 1.0 to 3.0% loss of annual national average GDP 80 years from now at a time when GDP will probably be triple from where it is today. Hardly annihilation the alarmists are screaming about.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...ref&siteid=sci

The costs of all climate change proposals that would actually reverse the problem would be devastating, especially to poor people. And we know poverty kills people.

[dannno]

Gen IV nuclear is probably going to make the entire debate obsolete.. just need to get the govt. out of the way.