Economics & Climate Change Policy - 07/14/08 10:28 AM
This is a continued discussion from a conversation between greenfyre and I that can be found here: http://digg.com/environment/bjorn_lomborg_TED_2005
Quick summary:
Admitting my limitations and being aware of the deep impacts of climate change. I advocate that smart economics is the best way to approach Climate Change policies. In such a statement, I hold that programs such as [or similar to] Kyoto, Carbon trading, Carbon tax, ectra... are not high priority policies and as such should receive very few funds, resources and attention. I admit that this is not true in all cases, and that such policies can be a better investment than many other options, however are in the larger scope poor. Furthermore, I outline some keys area climate change policy could focus on in order to get backing from those in my school of economics:
Greenfrye seemed to me to highlight and question three major areas of this argument.
1) "I find that i)there is a too easy and completely unsubstantiated dismissal of the real costs and consequences of climate change, and ii) there is no assessment of the true effetiveness of other programs when they are coping with those consequences (ie if you don't deal with climate change it will happen, and it will have consequences)."
To which an accounting metaphor is used:
Column A - Resources put into climate change
Column B- Resource required when climate change effects are more pronounced.
Saying also: "IMHO C&T, Kyoto, etc are so ludicrously out of synch with the true magnitude of the problem that they are no more than symbolic."
2) "That is treating it as a zero sum game. I assume the models deal with variables that feedback to the economy, so if CC causes the economy to shrink more than dealing with it would, whereas dealing with it creates more resources to be generally available, how is that factored in?"
3) "Fair enough, but sometimes you have to try the impossible because anything less is absolutely certain to fail, whereas the impossible is merely certain to fail. That may sound oxymoronic, but I think history abounds with examples."
Now my responses, I welcome anyone to the discussion.
Toward the first argument of real cost.
Solving climate change is not a policy or an action. We as economists do not therefore even try to analyze the costs associated with solving climate change. What we do is take from the science and political movements actions or policies and look at the cost:benefits to determine the best priority. I would love to discuss a specific action plan and how we go about calculating in real cost when analyzing that specific policy, but in general that is a harder egg to crack.
As for the accounting scheme. It assumes a huge point from my point of view: investing in stopping climate change solves as it intends. That is simply not true. Am I missing your point? We can not take in account that math [as I understand it] simply because you don't even potentially solve climate change in almost all proposed policies and that needs to be taken into account, not to mention the foreseeable consequences of specifically proposed climate change policies.
Toward the second argument of factoring in real cost.
Feedback is not an easy[quick] thing to explain, but put as simply as possible:
In regard to a policy like kyoto, it firsts scales since the effects are merely prolonged not mitigated. In addition, on a positive side, it tries to adjust to account for stalling those effect for x amount of years, the effect of resource redistribution [e.g.creatied opportunities] and the effects of having those policies in place on future policy. On the negative side, it tries to adjust to account for macro-economic costs[e.g. loss of certain energy alternatives], foreseeable effects of micro-spending redistribution [e.g. how will this effect how an institution spends it revenues], effects on the cost of goods, effects on labour growth. There is also a variety of smaller variations on both the positive and negative side.
Toward the third argument of drastic action.
Would you agree with including my four recommend additions? What would you add or not include? In est, what is your vision of the "hail mary pass"?
Quick summary:
Admitting my limitations and being aware of the deep impacts of climate change. I advocate that smart economics is the best way to approach Climate Change policies. In such a statement, I hold that programs such as [or similar to] Kyoto, Carbon trading, Carbon tax, ectra... are not high priority policies and as such should receive very few funds, resources and attention. I admit that this is not true in all cases, and that such policies can be a better investment than many other options, however are in the larger scope poor. Furthermore, I outline some keys area climate change policy could focus on in order to get backing from those in my school of economics:
- Address population growth.
- Include positive action solutions: such as carbon sequestration or cooling technology.
- Have true cost readjustments directed toward re-compensation not tax revenue.
- Mitigate costs by pigging backing on infrastructure upgrades.
Greenfrye seemed to me to highlight and question three major areas of this argument.
1) "I find that i)there is a too easy and completely unsubstantiated dismissal of the real costs and consequences of climate change, and ii) there is no assessment of the true effetiveness of other programs when they are coping with those consequences (ie if you don't deal with climate change it will happen, and it will have consequences)."
To which an accounting metaphor is used:
Column A - Resources put into climate change
Column B- Resource required when climate change effects are more pronounced.
Saying also: "IMHO C&T, Kyoto, etc are so ludicrously out of synch with the true magnitude of the problem that they are no more than symbolic."
2) "That is treating it as a zero sum game. I assume the models deal with variables that feedback to the economy, so if CC causes the economy to shrink more than dealing with it would, whereas dealing with it creates more resources to be generally available, how is that factored in?"
3) "Fair enough, but sometimes you have to try the impossible because anything less is absolutely certain to fail, whereas the impossible is merely certain to fail. That may sound oxymoronic, but I think history abounds with examples."
Now my responses, I welcome anyone to the discussion.
Toward the first argument of real cost.
Solving climate change is not a policy or an action. We as economists do not therefore even try to analyze the costs associated with solving climate change. What we do is take from the science and political movements actions or policies and look at the cost:benefits to determine the best priority. I would love to discuss a specific action plan and how we go about calculating in real cost when analyzing that specific policy, but in general that is a harder egg to crack.
As for the accounting scheme. It assumes a huge point from my point of view: investing in stopping climate change solves as it intends. That is simply not true. Am I missing your point? We can not take in account that math [as I understand it] simply because you don't even potentially solve climate change in almost all proposed policies and that needs to be taken into account, not to mention the foreseeable consequences of specifically proposed climate change policies.
Toward the second argument of factoring in real cost.
Feedback is not an easy[quick] thing to explain, but put as simply as possible:
In regard to a policy like kyoto, it firsts scales since the effects are merely prolonged not mitigated. In addition, on a positive side, it tries to adjust to account for stalling those effect for x amount of years, the effect of resource redistribution [e.g.creatied opportunities] and the effects of having those policies in place on future policy. On the negative side, it tries to adjust to account for macro-economic costs[e.g. loss of certain energy alternatives], foreseeable effects of micro-spending redistribution [e.g. how will this effect how an institution spends it revenues], effects on the cost of goods, effects on labour growth. There is also a variety of smaller variations on both the positive and negative side.
Toward the third argument of drastic action.
Would you agree with including my four recommend additions? What would you add or not include? In est, what is your vision of the "hail mary pass"?