“I believe there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called ‘global warming,’ that wasn’t working, then it was called ‘climate change.’ Now it’s actually called ‘extreme weather,’ because with extreme weather you can’t miss.” (Donald Trump to Piers Morgan, “ITV Good Morning Britain Show,” June 5, 2019)
President Donald Trump deserves a prize from classical liberals for his position on climate change. In fact, I challenge any conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal to offer a better example of courage in the face of government activism and political correctness in recent times.
In terms of energy policy, despite negative international trade issues (see
(here, here, and here for my tariff misgivings), President Trump is arguably the most free-market energy President in U.S.…
Some economists have objected that conventional measures of the social cost of carbon (SCC) fail adequately to account for the possibility of catastrophic climate change. However, such criticisms are based on assumptions concerning the probability of catastrophe that have no empirical basis. A recent attempt to estimate the SCC by surveying experts to find out what they would be willing to pay to avert catastrophe is so riddled with defects as to be of no utility.
Editor note” In his underappreciated analysis, “Climate Change, Catastrophe, Regulation, and the Social Cost of Carbon” (Reason Foundation: March 2018), Julian Morris presented a major case against pricing or otherwise regulating the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).
In a 74-page painstaking study, Morris (pp. 49–53) dealt with the “fat tail” argument of MIT economist, Robert Pindyck, who sought to reframe the debate in terms of what experts thought to be the worst-case (“catastrophic”) outcome from the human influence on climate.…
Continue Reading“Weitzman’s fat tail, with 10% chance of climate sensitivities out beyond 10C are circa 2007 (AR5); these extreme values have been pretty much debunked by the AR5 (not to mention Nic Lewis’ recent work…. Jerry Taylor’s argument for a carbon tax doesn’t really hold up.” (Judith Curry, below)
In her May 2015 piece, “What Would It Take to Convince You About Global Warming?,” Judith Curry tackles the “fat tails” argument for pricing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. She also considers Jerry Taylor’s argument for his conversion. (Taylor said: “… as each rebuttal was issued to Weitzman, they were just shredded. And then Litterman comes along and marries that analysis to the financial markets…. So my position fundamentally switched at that point.”))
Curry works from the IPCC consensus to question fat-tails as a basis for policy activism.…
Continue Reading