Comments on: Climate Mitigation: Costs versus Benefits (reassessing Robert Frank’s call for policy action) http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/climate-mitigation-costs-versus-benefits/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: rmurphy http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/climate-mitigation-costs-versus-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-8150 rmurphy Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:10:56 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=7940#comment-8150 Great points, guys. Andrew you're right I probably should mention that point more often. It just cracks me up that even with their own numbers, and even if we assume that cap-and-trade would completely stop AGW, that it's not obvious it would be a net benefit. Great points, guys. Andrew you’re right I probably should mention that point more often. It just cracks me up that even with their own numbers, and even if we assume that cap-and-trade would completely stop AGW, that it’s not obvious it would be a net benefit.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/climate-mitigation-costs-versus-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-8140 Andrew Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:38:08 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=7940#comment-8140 The implication of comparing the potential damage from AGW to the costs of Waxman Markey is that M&W would eliminate those costs. In point of fact that's eronneous. Think more along the lines of this, the damages avoided are about 3% of the total, meaning that you have to add the cost of W&M to the total damages minus those "avoided" and compare that to doing nothing. It turns out that with W&M we lose about 5% of GDP and without it 1.5%. http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 The implication of comparing the potential damage from AGW to the costs of Waxman Markey is that M&W would eliminate those costs. In point of fact that’s eronneous. Think more along the lines of this, the damages avoided are about 3% of the total, meaning that you have to add the cost of W&M to the total damages minus those “avoided” and compare that to doing nothing. It turns out that with W&M we lose about 5% of GDP and without it 1.5%.

http://masterresource.org/?p=2355

]]> By: Robert Dammers http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/climate-mitigation-costs-versus-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-8133 Robert Dammers Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:35:59 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=7940#comment-8133 But this has always been Bjorn Lomborg's position - in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" he, as you have, assumes that the IPCC reports are entirely accurate, but then takes apart the policy prescriptions arising from the "settled science" using his own expertise in statistics. And for that agreement with the IPCC he was pilloried. That has become, for me, the shibboleth to determine the attitude to science of AGW proponents. If they could respect Lomborg, but disagree with him, then they were interested in science. If they attacked him, there was no point looking at their arguments about science, since they were clearly unable either to read or think. But this has always been Bjorn Lomborg’s position – in “The Skeptical Environmentalist” he, as you have, assumes that the IPCC reports are entirely accurate, but then takes apart the policy prescriptions arising from the “settled science” using his own expertise in statistics. And for that agreement with the IPCC he was pilloried. That has become, for me, the shibboleth to determine the attitude to science of AGW proponents. If they could respect Lomborg, but disagree with him, then they were interested in science. If they attacked him, there was no point looking at their arguments about science, since they were clearly unable either to read or think.

]]>