Explain global warming and Kyoto

[El_Machinae]

The inflation would be immediate, and graded, instead of postponed. So yes, the economy would suffer, because prices will rise faster than we want. However, since the price will more closely reflect the true price of the good, this is not an 'evil'.

Right now, we're eating next year's grain, instead of planting it. Sure, you'll have less grain now if you don't eat next year's supply, but the price of the grain will more closely reflect the truth.

 

[betazed]

Actually, following conservation/environmental procedures will cause economic harm & recession is a very bad argument. It is so bad (and wrong on so many levels) that it is not even wrong (as a famous physicist would say). read on.

Firstly, it can be very well argued that following conservation/environmental procedures actually increases GDP. But let us set that aside. To all naysayers we should ask, how much do you think the economy hurts? 10 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion? Put a number.Lets take the worst case scenario. 1 trillion dollars. That is still less than 10% of US GDP. Not a very big number considering that you are talking about taking teh hit over years.

Secondly, assume all of the above is bullfeathers and you actually take the hit of 10% damage in a single year. Now let us ask ourselves, of this 1 trillion are all industries going to be equally hurt. Not really. For example, a industry based purely on services will be hurt much less. On the other hand a industry based primarily on manufacturing will be hurt more. Now since US as a developed economy has more services component to it a large section of the economy will be much less affected. Now, let us concentrate on a industry that will be hurt bad. Say something that is highly polluting & depends largely on fossil fuels. This industry will be badly hit and may even go out of business. But that is precisely what you want. Once it goes out of business what you are left with is a economy slightly less polluting and slightly less dependent on fossil fuels which actually now grows faster because it is more efficient. Since capitalism depends more on % growth than total size everyone will be better off.

Thirdly, assume the above is also bullfeathers and that we actually take 10% hit and we do not recover from it soon. So what is the cost? Simplistically thinking it would be the NPV (net present value) of 10% of the economy (the npv calculation done to eternity) . However, that it not entirely true. As said earlier, the 10% is distributed unevenly over different parts of the economy. So it is not till eternity. the npv calculation should be done till the lifetime of that part of the economy. I cannot imagine any sector of the present economy carrying on for more than 100 years. So the npv calculation should be done for 100 years (and that is a generous estimate). However, the environmental costs are also real. And this cost stays with us for eternity. A damaged river is a damaged river is a damaged river for all eternity. So there is a time in future when the npv of that 1 billion dollar river is more than the 1 trillion dollar loss (npv'ed over 100 years). So right now if we do not let go 1 trillion dollars to save the 1 billion dollar river there is a point in future when we will think 'darn we should have had' because it is more profitable to do so.

So any argument that conservation means economic loss is as sound as those intelligent design arguments.

 

[El_Machinae]

My argument is that conservation will lead to an increase in prices for goods and services. However, my second argument is that this increase in price will eventually be captured regardless (like, when we run out of environment), and amortizing inflation is the least painful way of incorporating inflation.

 

[betazed]

@El_Machinae: I understood your argument. my post was not arguing against yours specifically.

I basically, wanted to put an end to the line of argument that usually starts with 'what about the economic costs of Kyoto?'

Point is that there are zero economic costs of Kyoto (however badly implemented/designed it may be) whichever way you look at it.

 

[farting bob]

No, kyoto is slowing down global cooling. the day after tomorrow (that hollywood movie with absolutely flawless science of course... ) taught us that when the mid atlantic currents shut down we will live like neanderthals anyway. nice bit of hunter gathering, that's what will show those SUV driving middle class people and businesses all over the world.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@betazed

A couple of questions:
1. Do we have reliable informations, within adequate ranges of error to say what the human impact has been on the Earth's climate. For instance, if the goal is to lower global climate by 0.01 degrees, then we must be able to measure global temperatures with a lower margin. Can we do that?
2. Do we have such informations on the natural cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth, to be able to distinguish the natural trends from the artificial ones?
3. Do we have such informations on the damages Global Warming might cause, or if there might be a better way to solve it than bureocratic action?

And on the figure of 10%. A 10% decrease in GDP is actually equal to a serious recession. And if we are to talk about my little issue about growth compounding we're not in a very pleasant situation.

A damaged river is a damaged river is a damaged river for all eternity.

An ate cookie is an ate cookie for all eternity. I would think one like you would not fall so readily into the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[betazed]

1. Do we have reliable informations, within adequate ranges of error to say what the human impact has been on the Earth's climate.

I think there are although I am unable to provide you that, since I am no expert. But IIRC, Gothmog provided some excellent data on such things in earlier global warming threads. You may look that up.

For instance, if the goal is to lower global climate by 0.01 degrees, then we must be able to measure global temperatures with a lower margin. Can we do that?

That is a incorrect goal. The goal is not to raise/lower temperatures. The only goal that you should keep in mind is whether we can continue to live on this planet sustainably. That should be the goal. It should be more than evident to you that whatever we are doing now is not sustainable (with or without global warming)

2. Do we have such informations on the natural cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth, to be able to distinguish the natural trends from the artificial ones?

This one I can answer definitively. Yes. We have that data. And the data is unequivocal. There is no question that there is anthropogenic climate change.

3. Do we have such informations on the damages Global Warming might cause, or if there might be a better way to solve it than bureocratic action?

Well, if you are looking for exact damages I guess it would depend on the model. Damages range from changing climate affecting agricultural output, changing coastlines resulting in loss of land, to changing ocean currents etc. Once again I am no expert. Do a google search and you will find tons of papers on expected damages. Keep in mind the damages vary depending on time horizon.

As to how to solve it, I do not see how you can do it without at least some bureacracy. That said, IMHO it can be done with less burecracy that Kyoto. The capitalistic system as such will not solve it because environmental costs are not included in our existing balance sheets. But we can think of a minimal system where the free market can clean up our environment if we can make it profitable for them to do so. It would require a lot of legal changes and a huge number of economic incentives/disincentives but no central bureacracy.

And on the figure of 10%. A 10% decrease in GDP is actually equal to a serious recession. And if we are to talk about my little issue about growth compounding we're not in a very pleasant situation.

That was an extreme case I took. In any case, in the long run how does it matter whether we have a recession for a few years? As John put it so well...

Frankly, I could not care less if the economy tanked straight into the ground. I would rather be alive and healthy rather than have two cars in the garage.

And if you are talking about being serious, I can say that Hawaii islands getting wiped out because of rising ocean levels is also serious. Won't you agree? Now which one would you choose, 10% less GDP growth for a few years or no Hawaii? Both are worst case scenarios.

An ate cookie is an ate cookie for all eternity. I would think one like you would not fall so readily into the naturalistic fallacy.

Where is the fallacy? A cookie which you eat gives you energy, which hopefully you utilize for better benefit than just keeping the cookie around (if you do not then you are better off not eating the cookie right now). Similarly, a flowing river provides a quantifiable economic output. If you damage it, it gets damaged for all eternity. So there is a economic loss. And we can NPV that economic loss. In this NPV calculation the NPV has to be calculated for all eternity. So my statement was no empty naturalistic fallacy. It was cold hard economics.

 

[Colonel_here]

Overall through out history there have been periods of global watrming and global cooling. These periods are believed to be a contributors to human evolution. It is not clear whether it is just a natural warming or we accelerated it has not been proven. The hockey stick graph that shows rise in temeperatures have been critisised because of the statstical errors comitted during its creation. However the Kyoto protocal is still a good thing since it will make the air and envieronment overall cleaner for us.