From MIT’s campus newspaper, The Tech:
Not worth the fight huh? Them’s fightin’ words to some people.
Opinion: Global warming not worth the fight
The United States would gain little in trying to forestall climate change
Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?
Very little, if anything at all.
As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x, the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.
H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change.
Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, carbon emissions are a negative externality, and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a global public good. These types of problems have been well-studied by economists, and solutions to them are known. Unfortunately, these solutions require a sovereign power to enact them, and in this world there is no global power to enforce economically optimal solutions, no benevolent dictator, no organ of international government capable of superceding national sovereignty and its attendant self-interest. The international system is not cooperative — it is best defined as anarchic and follows the Thucydidean maxim: the strong do as they can… the weak suffer as they must.
Instead of thinking as economists, we should think as international relations realists. In the realist school of thought, a man comports with another’s will only in proportion to the cudgel wielded over his head. We will not, solely through moral suasion, convince others to act against their own national interests.
Countless man-hours of scientists and economists have gone into trying to estimate the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation. Yet the real question is not whether y is greater than x, but rather whether it is greater than x + z, where z is the cost of enforcing an agreed upon reduction in carbon emissions. This is the minimum threshold that must be passed before any action is possible, and the chances of passing it in the near future are slim: not in least part because we lack the technology to monitor the emissions of other countries. But even if we did have the technology, the nature of the problem makes the challenge nearly impossible. Suppose two nations Alpha and Beta, agree to limit their emissions, and suppose further that it is cheaper for Alpha to reduce its emissions in the present while it is cheaper for Beta to limit its emissions in the future. What prevents Beta from reneging on its agreement after Alpha has already committed to a reduction? The act of punishing a defector, whether it comes in the form of a trade sanction or other action, is itself a public good that carries some cost to the punisher.
The sound and the fury that has characterized the public discourse on global warming often obscures a basic economic fact: we are in the situation we are in because it requires fewer resources to generate electricity with coal or propel automobiles with petroleum than it does to accomplish those same goals with solar cells and biofuels. The “green economy” our politicians have placed on a pedestal is not an improvement over our existing one — there is no gain to be had in producing with the effort of three men what we previously accomplished with two. We should tolerate this inefficiency only insofar as it helps us avoid some other, greater harm.
Full story here
h/t to WUWT Jimbo and Climate Depot
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would be curious what the economic conclusion would be if a temperature rise of 1.5C was used rather than the 3 to 7C, if one added increased plant yield due to higher CO2, if one added reduced desertification, and if one added increased precipitation due to slightly higher temperatures.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is one of the few changes humans are making that is clearly beneficial to the biosphere as whole. (The biosphere expands and is more productive.)
There is limited funds to spend on any cause. Economic policy needs to be based on facts.
Elevated CO2 increases plant growth and yield (including all cereal crops) and reduces the plants requirement for water. Plants eat CO2. When CO2 levels rise plants produce less stomata which reduces transpiration (water loss as the plant gasps for CO2.) Less transpiration also leaves more moisture at the roots which enables synergistic nitrogen fixing bacteria to create more nitrogen components which increases plant growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
“Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
“Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
“The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences. The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.
“Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said. “The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.” “
The point about ‘sovereign government’ is well made. Here in the UK, our politicians are WAY ahead of the curve when it comes to beating themselves up, tearing their hair out and wearing sackcloth and ashes, rushing around shouting ‘We MUST tax energy more – cover the country with wind farms – send out more propoganda – otherwise we won’t meet our green targets…’
So – basically, making our country’s industries (such as still remain) less and less competitive, while the rest of the world goes: ‘Yeah, right…’
History will record that for one brief moment, a species thought it was the root of all evil AND the answer to every problem in the Universe. Then they went the way of all flesh and evolved.
PS: Interesting to note, it happened during an Ice Age.
I thank the MIT grad student Keith Yost for bringing up the subject of economics, and Anthony for posting it.
It gives me an opportunity to post quotes that I think are applicable to climate issues from my favorite economist.
Quotes from Von Mises [ http://mises.org/quotes.aspx ] :
John
The significance of this piece is that it comes from a supporter of AGW who anticipates a temperature rise above the standard projection. His very persuasive analysis and recommendation have all the more force as a result. Eric and Stu may be hostile to it because they think it is provocative and will upset some of the other bloggers! Sound opposing arguments are usually provocative . . . in the sense that they merit and demand a logical response. . . . the collision of opinions allows us to develop sounder opinions. An important posting imv Anthony.
The author eliminates emotion as a driving factor. His reasoning might work if all governing actions were based on Good science and solid logic. They aren’t.
Sometimes (often) emotion trumps all.
Given that we do not know:
1 Whether global temperatures are truly rising and if so to what extent and at what rate.
2 If global temperatures are rising whether they will continue to rise and if so to what extent and at what rate.
3 What is causing any rise in global temperatures, and in particular whether the rise in temperatures (if any) is natural or anthropogenic.
4 Whether a reduction in CO2 emissions will have any significant effect on reducing the rise in global temperatures (if any).
5 Whether a rise in global temperatures would overall be a good or a bad thing.
6 To what extent the negative effect of a rise in global temperatures would cause serious problems.
It is obvious that rather than wasting money in an attempt to mitigate a thread that we do not know is real, nor whether it is capable of mitigation, it is more sensible to adapt if serious problems eventually manifest themselves.
Any sensible person would readily appreciate that it is better, at this stage, to do nothing but merely to monitor the situation and stand ready to adapt if a serious problem truly manifests itself.
The part of the article you quote sounds less like a call for inaction on global warming than a lamentation about the lack of a world government through which such action might be enforced. This led me to suspect the authors of merely seeking a backhanded way of pursuing the same goal as many jolly green giants, through a bit of reverse psychology.
But reading the rest of the piece (somewhat) laid my concerns to rest. They do indeed understand the basic facts of international commerce. They are not arguing that world government should be pursued as this would reduce the cost of “mitigation”, but they do, perhaps unwittingly, provide a template for making such an argument.