Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing the first US rules on CO2. I thought I’d take a look at the EPA’s own estimates of cost and benefit of CO2 regulation, to see if the new rules make sense.
Figure 1. Danger, high costs ahead. Photo Source
There’s two numbers of interest – how much will it cost to reduce CO2 emissions, and how much will the decreased CO2 reduce the temperature?
First, the cost … truth is, no one knows. These things are hard to estimate. I took the EPA figures. They say that the new regulations will cost US$78 billion per year. Considering that’s only a tenth of the size of the recent “Stimulus”, that doesn’t seem like too much. Other analysts have put larger numbers on the cost, but I’ll take the EPA’s low estimate.
And how much will it reduce the temperature?
Again, no one knows … so I’ll take the EPA figures from the same source. They say
Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.
Whoa, be still my beating heart. I’ll take their average estimate, 0.00375°C (about four thousandths) of a degree cooling by 2100.
OK, now to run the numbers:
Total Cost = US$78 billion per year times 90 years = US$7 trillion dollars with a “t”, or about half a years GDP for the US.
Total Cooling = 0.00375° C in 90 years
That gets us to where we can make the final calculation …
US$7 trillion divided by 0.00375°C gives us … wait for it …
US$1,900 trillion dollars for each measly degree of cooling.
I’ve heard of air conditioners that were expensive to run, but that’s gotta take the cake, almost two quadrillion dollars running cost per degree of cooling …
The usual explanation is that this is because only the US is involved, and if the rest of the world got with the picture everything would be fine.
However, the cost per degree will not change based on the number of countries involved. It’s still almost two quadrillion ($1,900,000,000,000,000) bucks per degree. So that explanation won’t wash. And although the US economy might be able to take the hit, poorer countries like China and India won’t do well. Finally, those are EPA estimates, the cost may well be higher. Government estimates of the costs of their own programs are notoriously way below what they actually turn out costing.
In any case, my question is, given that the EPA says that cooling costs two quadrillion dollars per degree … how much cooling would you suggest we buy at that price?
Regards to all,
w.
PS – How big is a trillion? Almost unimaginably big. We think a million dollars is big money, and it is. Suppose my family had started a business in the year zero, a couple thousand years ago. Suppose we ran the business like a government, and we lost a million dollars.
To make it more like a government, let’s make my losses a million dollars a day.
Suppose I lost a million dollars a day, every day for the last 2,011 years. Generation after generation of the family, call it three generations per century, reaching down sixty generations. And every one of them, for their entire lives, losing a million dollars a day.
If we had done that, lost a million dollars a day, every single day since Biblical times, not taking a single day off, we still wouldn’t have lost a trillion dollars. We wouldn’t even have reached three-quarters of a trillion dollars.
How many of these trillions!!!!
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Just as an idea of scale, WORLD GDP in 2009 was just over $58 trillion – so we’re talking about 30 times world gdp per degree.
So clear and to the point. Right on Willis. This is a nice ‘headline’ number that will lauinch many conversations, and confuse many bureaucrats.
But, but… [sarc] what would be the costs if we don’t do it! The heat may have impaired my memory but didn’t Lord Stern say they would be infinite or something like that. You really can’t measure them. Every polar bear is sacred. Only cold-hearted bean counters would be whining about the cost – I mean investment – if you care about the children. Didn’t you see the Copenhagen shock film?
So, they don’t need no stinkin’ right wing facts like this. And money is no object. It comes from the Fed’s computer – which apparently also must be kept cool not matter how much it costs.
It’s like the scam that the Catholic Church was running 500 years ago.
Martin Luther strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment of sin could be purchased with money.
500 years ago it was about money and it’s the same this time.
I describe a trillion (or a terabyte) as 1Km square divided into mm squares.
How many sq. inches is Central Park Manhattan? :D:D
That kind of money would allow us to totally eliminate hunger and all disease, create a world where every single person is valued and tutored, make the human race a space faring society and a welcome member of the Galactic Council.
Now that’s a proper fantasy.
Willis:
There is some confusion in the reported figures:
Your link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Gives us:
“Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are
estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.” [65]
The Reference [65] leads us to:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420r10012a.pdf
Based on these reductions, EPA modeled the anticipated potential effect on climate change and found that in year 2100, the rule would reduce temperature increases by 0.006-0.015 degrees Celsius, and the reduction in sea-level rise would be 0.06-0.14 centimeters. EPA has also projected a reduction in CO2 concentration of 2.9 parts per million in 2100, which corresponds to a projected ocean pH increase of 0.0014 units in 2100.
So it looks like the Senate report has a typo.
I checked as I doubted that the EPA would come up with such a low figure.
Alex
If you go back 6000 generations, thats 2 ^6000 ancestors (assuming perfect pairing, for genetic diversity 😉 )
My calculator throws out this number, 1.5e+1806 as the number of ancestors,
or, if you like, the percent of blood one has from one of the year zero ancestors is
6.6e-1807.
These are very large, and very small numbers, which obviously aren’t real world numbers.
If you divide the accumulated debt, even if it reached 1
QuatlooQuadrilion, by the total number of descendants, well you get a small number.Oh look, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 is out today.
http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/browser-wars-heat-up-internet-explorer-9-launched-4060782
Willis
Could I suggest that you calculate how long the catastrophe would be delayed rather than the reduction in temperature.
The message
“spending trillions of dollars will delay the global warming catastrophe by a week” is much more understandable for the lay person than conveying the information in hundredths of a degree.
40 shades
jorgekafkazar says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Thanks, Jorge, fixed.
Willis,
Re the costs:
This looks like a mish-mash, the senate report gives a stream of short quotes that it references to here (the actual link is broken but this seems to be the document) :
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/09/16/document_gw_02.pdf
but may ultimately come from here:
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/riatailoring.pdf
There is reference here to a relief from administrative costs that would fall for the issuing of permits according to the rule proper by omitting the 6.12 million smallest sources from permit requirements, (in the hope that they can fix the permitting system?) as a short term measure, the $b78 seems to refer to these permitting costs, but I have not had time to locate it in the EPA document.
Also report the 2.9ppm the reduction figure comes from (my previous comment) is titled:
“Light‐Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards”
which I think is just a small part of the emissions under consideration.
Alex
We are in a time where there are very good reasons to believe that we are in for serious cooling 1+ degC over the next 30-40 years: the Sun, the PDO etc.
What is the cost of that going to be in starvation and civil unrest.
A warmer world which we are not getting at present feeds more people and makes mankind more successful.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX3BNncSS00&fs=1&hl=en_GB%5D
John Lanchester’s excellent book ‘Whoops’ in the financial crisis has a useful hint on millions/billions/trillions etc. Write down (quickly, don’t do the math) how long is:-
1,000 seconds
1,000,000 seconds
1,000,000,000 seconds
1,000,000,000,000 seconds.
You get from a quarter of an hour to the last glacial maximum rather quickly!
These projects beggar belief. It is not just the staggering cost but of more concern is the real consequence that this project will result in, namely it will bu**er the economy of every developed nation that is a party to implementing such schemes. Research already shows that for every so called ‘green’ job created, 4 jobs are lost from other industries. As energy prices sour, developed nations will become less and less competitive and inductry will inevitable shift to those countries not adopting such stupid policies, where energy prices will be cheaper, very probably China, India, Latin America etc. The true consequences will be truly awful for generations to come.
It is not just the EPA that does not know the implications of the project it is seeking to implement. In the EU, Jill Duggan (who is the European Commission’s Director General for Climate Action) admitted that she had no idea as to the cost of the EU’s programme nor what result it would achieve. She was totally discredited in a recent interview on Australian radio (I think by Andrew Bolt). It is only in a public institution that the project manager could remain in office when they do not know the costs of implementing the project that they are in charge of nor the results that the project will deliver when implemented . In the real world, in the private sector, where performance matters, the project manager would be kicked out on their ear.
I consider these schemes to be madness especially given that they are based on what is no more than a hypothesis, not even a scientic theory, still less a theory that has been subjected to rigorous scientific testing and always found to be sound. It should be obvious to anyone, who has even an ounce of commonsense, that adaption is a far better policy compared to mitigation and adaption would save trillions of dollars and millions of jobs.
Willis, however, in fairness to the EPA and its EC equivalent, these schemes are not about bringing down temperature, they are about restricting temperature rise to no more than 2 degC. It is therefore not fair to suggest that the rediculous costs involved (which in the end will turn out to be far higher than you calculate because of inflation, the loss of inductry, the loss of jobs, increased social benefit payments etc), are being expended merely to reduce temperature by a paultry 0.00375°C (which in any event is so small that it would be unmeasurable). Nonetheless, even with this concession, the schemes are pure madness.
Unfortunately, we have reached the stage where government has lost all commonsense and the lunatics are running the sanatorium.
Let’s look at C02 ‘reductions’ since Kyoto Protocol according to the Guardian:
Apart from the blip caused by the global economic crisis it is still rising. So much pain so little gain. Even if Warmists are correct there is little we can do to adjust the Earth’s thermostat.
However much humanity exchanges its money, the climate will carry on being the climate. It’s a completely separate entity, and doesn’t give a toss what humanity does, spends or thinks. When will we get a grip and realise this?
If you think this is bad just look what the Eurocrats are doing over here- see transcipt of radio interview.
Below is an excerpt to vividly illustrate how liars, incompetence and junk science are stealing our taxes. http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/32823.html
The woman is an economically illiterate moron. But still highly dangerous.
Welcome to Lisa Jacksons Carbon Casino, where everyone is a loser.
All proceeds are summarily dumped into the nearest volcanic cauldron, to appease GAIA of course.
Sort of has a Mayan sacrificial Hero Twins taste to it, eh?
No, they don’t serve any drinks and there’s nothing to eat.
Go back: You’ll be sorry.
The European Union is also introducing a carbon trading scheme on the same basis. That is, they don’t know what it will cost and don’t know what it might achieve.
The EU’s expert on carbon markets is Jill Duggan, who is currently trying to persuade Australia to follow suit. Unfortunately for her, she gave an interview on Australian radio which is best described as a car crash.
Listen to excerpt here
Obviously, she has never been asked a hard question before, and was totally unprepared for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement.
Regrettably, however, it is on the basis of expert opinion such as hers that the EU is proposing to bankrupt parts of western civilisation back to the stone age.
Willis,
That is a good start considering the population would still be growing and using more resources.
The measuring of temperature is such a short period of time in the overall time frame of this planet as to be non-sense. Then projecting a speculative model of that time without any physical motion or events.
Like measuring the temperature over our whole body for one minute over our life time. Does that make sense?
Willis,
One must also look at oportunity costs. Say that $78 billion was spent on new nukes. Forget the ineffective wind and solar. That should buy about 13 GW of energy per year replacing about six coal fired stations a year. Convert the coal to gas and reduce the dependance on foreign oil. Conversely use the dough to mitigate any climate issues. A few more dams or a desal plant perhaps.
The real question is where does the money go. In the Australian tax proposal the proponents say it will all be returned to the poor and lower middle class so they can afford the higher utility bills. No pain to them so why reduce consumption? Then there are to be payments to help the really big polluters (emitters) cope with the tax. And we will give ten percent to the UN to help the Pacific Islands being drowned by runaway sea level rise. I’m not an accountant but it seems we have spent twice what the tax raises. Our ALP, your Democrats, are from union and public service and welfare backgrounds and have absolutely no idea of managing money but are excellent at spending yours.
The solution is to do what you have done and what Jo and a few reporters (Bolt, Blair) have done and ask the question. How much and what do I get? Andrew Bolt asked Jill Duggan the European Commissioner on Climate Change that question in a radio interview. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/ She had no idea. It doesn’t matter what it costs and it doesn’t matter the result just so they can be seen to do something.
When numbers get so big, they become meaningless. In such cases, I like to break them down to more human terms. Let’s break it down to more personal terms.
Using Willis’ numbers:
$7T (in 2011 dollars) divided by the approximate number of families, 50M (only half of whom actually pay taxes), gives $140,000 per US family. That’s only $1500 per family per year. It would be crippling, but it would be possible for the US, at least for until the economy crashes.
When you extend the total cost ($1,900T) to everyone on the planet, you get about $29,000 per individual. In terms of Gross World Product, that is around 3 years of total world output. Another way to look at it is the yearly cost, which would be $322 per person. I’m not sure, but I think that exceeds the income of a good percent of the world population.
Looks like fiscal insanity, even if it succeeded in controlling warming.
Willis, whatever the above arguments about the correctness of your math, you have shone a bright light down the logic hole and brilliantly illuminated the insanity of selling secular indulgences to propitiate whatever profoundly illogical and nonsensical diety the Warmists worship. The creator of ‘Alice in Wonderland’, a theologian and mathemetician with an unfortunate fondness for little girls, could not have invented anything as absurd as the mad world where hot becomes cold and dry becomes wet, etc, beloved of the warmists, and which requires Man to adapt back to the Stone Age by flinging all of our income down the logic hole and supressing our universal and incredible urge to improve stuff.
Hey, don’t beat the EPA up too badly… If all 196 countries in the world saved the .00375 degrees it would be .735 degrees! In 2100. Of course, most of the other countries would have to abandon electricity to make that kind of impact, but no sacrifice is too great for Mother Gaia!