# Climate Change Editorial **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840 "2012-08-18T01:59:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/81 "2012-08-25T17:36:08Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I hope I’m not accused of being rat, confuser or wedge-artist if I agree with **Chief Pedant** that high population is the fundamental problem leading to climate change and other bad effects. I have no solution to propose, however. There are 3 problems there. 1. Once again this ignores that environmentalists do point at that issue as a very important one, unfortunately many of the same that oppose doing something about global warming also oppose population control. 2. Even environmentalists also mention the most likely solution. 3. The “Rat” was not a person but the straw man idea that environmentalists refuse to deal with the issue; once again, education, reducing poverty and better access to and new ways of birth control are encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/82 "2012-08-25T17:49:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are 3 problems there. > > 1. Once again this ignores that environmentalists do point at that issue as a very important one… And this comment points at something that annoys me over and over. Nowhere in my post do I characterize what environmentalists do or do not point at. You could argue that I “ignored” it; I also ignored the color of cheese and the name of my barber. I post my beliefs. I hope that responses to my posts focus on whether my beliefs are right or wrong. Others seem to see SDMB as some debating game. Include me out. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/83 "2012-08-25T18:09:31Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > And this comment points at something that annoys me over and over. > > Nowhere in my post do I characterize what environmentalists do or do not point at. You could argue that I “ignored” it; I also ignored the color of cheese and the name of my barber. > > I post my beliefs. I hope that responses to my posts focus on whether my beliefs are right or wrong. > > Others seem to see SDMB as some debating game. Include me out. The beliefs are only partially right, just saying. Remember that you are not Chief Pedant, he came with the Straw men to avoid dealing with the main subject. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/84 "2012-08-25T20:16:48Z")
> [@nachtmusick](#): > > Sam- > > What solution would you suggest? Well, this is how I look at the problem. First, I start by looking at the dynamics of politics and what is and isn’t possible. For example, we have plenty of evidence that when push comes to shove, people simply will not tolerate being taxed for a ‘greater good’ - especially not in times of financial difficulty. For example, even today people who strongly believe that we should ‘do something’ about global warming are complaining that gas prices are too high. And even the Obama Administration, which claims to be seriously committed to doing something about global warming, is trying to do everything it can to goose the economy and lower gas prices. For example, one thing you CAN do to make petroleum more expensive is to simply buy it up and sequester it. When the U.S. fills the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, gas prices go up. When it empties the reserve, gas prices go down. Simple supply and demand - additional supply comes on the market, and prices drop. So what is the Obama administration thinking of doing right now? They’re thinking of opening the petroleum reserve to push gas prices down. This will inevitably drive up consumption, and make global warming worse. I’m sure they know this, but political considerations (it’s an election year) override the environment. They always do. Now imagine what will happen to a government who puts in place extremely expensive tariffs to control carbon. The only time they could pass such laws would be during an economic boom when people aren’t focused on the economy. But as soon as times get hard again, those tariffs will either be removed, or they’ll be ignored, or the administration that supports them will be kicked out in favor of one that will repeal them. So I start with the assumption that chasing a dream of some worldwide carbon tariff and tax regime is impractical, and even if it was attempted it would undoubtedly be hijacked and perverted by special interests, just as the U.S. stimulus package was, and how the tax code and regulatory structure of the U.S. has been hijacked to the benefit of big business and big labor. Second, you have to accept that every drop of oil that’s in the ground is going to be drilled and extracted, until it no longer makes economic sense to do so. There is simply too much money in play for people to voluntarily walk away from the cheapest sources of energy. Environmentalists tend to agree, but their solution it to attempt to tax and regulate it until it’s too expensive to use. As I said above, I think that’s an unworkable strategy in a competitive global economy. So, the other option is to make the alternatives cheaper. Environmentalists also tend to agree with that, but their solution seems to be to tax people and use the money to ‘invest’ in research. I’m not strongly opposed to R&D funding, but I am strongly opposed to government micro-management of the R&D infrastructure and of the government getting involved in picking winners and losers and in choosing the best technology. They aren’t competent to do so. Given all those constraints, here are some realistic options: 1. To stimulate R&D, the government can start funding prizes for various efficiency achievements. The prize won’t demand a specific technology - it’ll be more like, “10 million dollars to the first person or company that can make a road-worthy vehicle that passes standard safety regulations and yet achieves the equivalent of 120mpg on a 5 mile open loop road.” To get smaller entrepreneurs, you can have smaller prizes, like $100,000 to the first person who can make a battery flexible enough to be sewn into clothing but which can power an 800ma device for four hours". Look at little incremental gaps in the infrastructure, and incentivize people to fill them. Instead of funding specific technologies like hydrogen fuel cells or thin-film solar cells, simply announce a prize of 100 million dollars to the first company that can power a standard car on electricity alone for 500 miles within certain constraints (must accelerate to 60 in no more than 12 seconds, must carry four passengers, must not be more than X in length). Then let the market decide whether to use fuel cells, or batteries, or ultra-light materials, or new motor designs, or whatever. 1. Maintain funding for global warming research. We need to understand it better. However, I would clean up the field, which has been infused with politics and political activists, and the results of which are increasingly being viewed skeptically by the public. I would go out of the way to include climate skeptics along with climate researchers that believe warming is happening. I’d demand that all data created with public funds be open-sourced, along with the source code for all climate models. I would set up a commission to ensure transparency. If this is the most important issue of our time as the climate alarmists say it is, then it needs to be debated openly and the public has to be convinced that the science is sound. 2. Fund studies of the costs of coping with climate change. Frankly, I think the most likely path we’re on is one where there will be moderate climate change that will have a negative effect on some parts of the world. Let’s start figuring out how to minimize those costs and plan for the disruptions. More information on what the costs are likely to be will also help sell climate change avoidance policies if necessary. 3. Examine and remove regulatory barriers preventing alternative energy. That includes things like opposition to the Nantucket wind farm, excessive regulatory barriers in place for nuclear power, tariffs that are hurting alternative energy such as the tariffs on sugar products that protect corn producers in the U.S. at the cost of cheaper, more efficient biofuels, or this [Obama administration policy](http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/obama-solar-poster-boy/index.html) that may put a solar company out of business. 4. Ramp up nuclear power. We still don’t have a GHG-free alternative energy source that can come close to replacing even the large minority of our energy consumption, other than nuclear power. Nuclear power no longer requires gigantic power plants with huge liquid-cooled piles. New designs like the [Gen 4 module](http://www.gen4energy.com/) are small generators that are buried underground, and turn water into steam to power a generator. They can power small towns or industrial complexes without needing to be connected to a grid. They last for 10 years, then they are dug up and removed by truck and a new one put in place. No waste remains, and the fuel is recycled. We should be encouraging their use in countries like India and in the 3rd world where the electrical infrastructure is weak, and for remote industrial sites in lieu of gas generators. 1. Wait. The cost curve for oil is going up, and the cost curve for alternate energy is coming down. When those two curves cross, major changes happen rapidly. Look at how quickly natural gas is displacing coal in the U.S. The same thing will happen to oil at some point. It’s also still an open question whether it would be better and more cost-effective to simply deal with the damages caused by global warming than to try and stop the warming from happening in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/85 "2012-08-25T20:47:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So no, the public attention given to climate change vis-a-vis overpopulation is not a hypocrisy issue. (And until you can report back that you’ve successfully managed to dead-end your own family tree and thus eliminate the consequences of the potential population growth that you yourself recklessly caused, you have no business lecturing anybody else about hypocrisy, either.) Wait…I think you’re missing my point. I don’t make any pretense of trying to solve AGW, live more simply or consume less. I repeat: I AM the problem. I am Al Gore (metaphorically). I am a participant in the tragedy of the commons. So are you, I bet, with an occasional lamo green bone thrown in to assuage your conscience (hybrid car, or something). And I also repeat: I am just like everyone I meet. More precisely, everyone I meet is just like me. Yes; “population control” is intensely personal. So is trying to take away my big house, charge me more taxes, and regulate me more tightly, Kimstu. But if we look at the AGW problem, I repeat: it is unsolveable without solving population growth. A complete, utter waste of time, if you crunch the numbers. I give you clean energy tomorrow, and don’t control the population, and the earth’s ecosystem is still trashed. My point is not so much that AGW enthusiasts are hypocrites (we all are) but that if their concern is the welfare of the earth, they are focusing their energies on the wrong problem. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/86 "2012-08-25T22:26:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Maintain funding for global warming research. We need to understand it better. However, I would clean up the field, which has been infused with politics and political activists, and the results of which are increasingly being viewed skeptically by the public. I would go out of the way to include climate skeptics along with climate researchers that believe warming is happening. I’d demand that all data created with public funds be open-sourced, along with the source code for all climate models. I would set up a commission to ensure transparency. If this is the most important issue of our time as the climate alarmists say it is, then it needs to be debated openly and the public has to be convinced that the science is sound. Done already, the biggest problem here is to even ignore what is going on. [http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/](http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/) > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Fund studies of the costs of coping with climate change. Frankly, I think the most likely path we’re on is one where there will be moderate climate change that will have a negative effect on some parts of the world. Let’s start figuring out how to minimize those costs and plan for the disruptions. More information on what the costs are likely to be will also help sell climate change avoidance policies if necessary. Also done: [http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2012-10](http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2012-10) > [@](#): > > In our case combining high climate sensitivity, high damages, and a low discount rate, the social cost of carbon could be almost $900/tCO2 in 2010, rising to $1,500/tCO2 in 2050. > The most ambitious scenarios for eliminating carbon dioxide emissions as rapidly as technologically feasible (reaching zero or negative net global emissions by the end of this century) require spending up to $150 to $500 per ton of reductions of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Using a reasonable set of alternative assumptions, therefore, the damages from a ton of carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 could exceed the cost of reducing emissions at the maximum technically feasible rate. Once this is the case, the exact value of the social cost of carbon loses importance: the clear policy prescription is to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, and cost-effectiveness analysis offers better insights for climate policy than cost-benefit analysis. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Examine and remove regulatory barriers preventing alternative energy. That includes things like opposition to the Nantucket wind farm, excessive regulatory barriers in place for nuclear power, tariffs that are hurting alternative energy such as the tariffs on sugar products that protect corn producers in the U.S. at the cost of cheaper, more efficient biofuels, or this [Obama administration policy](http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/obama-solar-poster-boy/index.html) that may put a solar company out of business. You mean to increase the opportunities of sending jobs overseas? As pointed before I do think we should concentrate on the deployment of the technology and accept that the Republicans surrendered a long time ago the idea of keeping manufacturing jobs in the USA. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Ramp up nuclear power. We still don’t have a GHG-free alternative energy source that can come close to replacing even the large minority of our energy consumption, other than nuclear power. Nuclear power no longer requires gigantic power plants with huge liquid-cooled piles. New designs like the [Gen 4 module](http://www.gen4energy.com/) are small generators that are buried underground, and turn water into steam to power a generator. They can power small towns or industrial complexes without needing to be connected to a grid. They last for 10 years, then they are dug up and removed by truck and a new one put in place. No waste remains, and the fuel is recycled. > > We should be encouraging their use in countries like India and in the 3rd world where the electrical infrastructure is weak, and for remote industrial sites in lieu of gas generators. And I agree with that, as I pointed many times before in the past. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Wait. The cost curve for oil is going up, and the cost curve for alternate energy is coming down. When those two curves cross, major changes happen rapidly. Look at how quickly natural gas is displacing coal in the U.S. The same thing will happen to oil at some point. It’s also still an open question whether it would be better and more cost-effective to simply deal with the damages caused by global warming than to try and stop the warming from happening in the first place. As pointed before, the less we emit, the better we will be as we will have to pay less for the changes that we will get. It will be cheaper for humanity to act soon rather than waiting for even worse damage. Waiting for peak oil or coal to take care of the carbon debt we are accumulating is reckless. > **[Facing Up to the Real Cost of Carbon | MR Online](https://mronline.org/2011/07/25/facing-up-to-the-real-cost-of-carbon/)** > > Your house might not burn down next year. So you could probably save money by cancelling your fire insurance. That's a "bargain" that few homeowners would accept. But it's the same deal that politicians have accepted for us, when it comes to... > [@](#): > > How much would it cost to buy climate insurance, to invest in emission reduction? The early stages would cost little or nothing; many energy efficiency measures, and the most cost-effective forms of clean energy, such as wind power in suitable locations, are already competitive with fossil fuels. To control the climate crisis, we’ll need to move on beyond those early stages; several research groups have estimated the costs of very ambitious worldwide emission reduction scenarios at $150 to $500 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2050. > > **That sounds expensive, unless you compare it to the cost of inaction. Of our 16 scenarios, 14 find that the costs of climate damages – the costs we’ll suffer if we do nothing – will be equal to or greater than the costs of ambitious emission reduction. Those 14 scenarios reflect real risks, measuring how badly climate change could turn out – and those risks mean that inaction is the more expensive and shortsighted choice. Financial prudence in Washington requires immediate action on climate change, to stop paying for climate damages and to start investing in guarding against them.** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/87 "2012-08-25T22:42:41Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But if we look at the AGW problem, I repeat: it is unsolveable without solving population growth. A complete, utter waste of time, if you crunch the numbers. I give you clean energy tomorrow, and don’t control the population, and the earth’s ecosystem is still trashed. > > My point is not so much that AGW enthusiasts are hypocrites (we all are) but that if their concern is the welfare of the earth, they are focusing their energies on the wrong problem. Piffle, the costs of inaction and the damage expected demonstrates that we could stop all new births now and very little would change on what we are doing now to the atmosphere, and the problems resulting from that. In the end your prescription is to continue to ignore that the solution does include also the control of the population. It has to be pointed out that the problems of Acid rain and Ozone depletion are under control **even though the population has increased**. Dealing with a problem like CO2 emissions can be separated from the problem of the increase in the population as other issues in the past were. The point remains, environmentalists do also make the point of controlling the population, it is not in the forefront as many encompassing solutions do include also that item. The increase on the well being of poor populations and education and birth control are items that do take care of the problem of population, but as noticed, that does not mean that the emissions are being taken care of, efforts to deal with the fossil fuel emissions should **remain** in place. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/88 "2012-08-26T04:27:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, the costs of inaction and the damage expected demonstrates that we could stop all new births now and very little would change on what we are doing now to the atmosphere, and the problems resulting from that. In the end your prescription is to continue to ignore that the solution does include also the control of the population. > > It has to be pointed out that the problems of Acid rain and Ozone depletion are under control **even though the population has increased**. Dealing with a problem like CO2 emissions can be separated from the problem of the increase in the population as other issues in the past were. The point remains, environmentalists do also make the point of controlling the population, it is not in the forefront as many encompassing solutions do include also that item. The increase on the well being of poor populations and education and birth control are items that do take care of the problem of population, but as noticed, that does not mean that the emissions are being taken care of, efforts to deal with the fossil fuel emissions should **remain** in place. Um…how do you get better well being of the exploding populations? Lessee…you get them stuff. Stuff is what gives us “well being.” Better places to live, better transportation, better work (typically making stuff), better hospitals…you get the idea. What is the byproduct of making and distributing stuff? CO2 production. Oops. Have a looksee at the developing world out there. Truck around a few of the countries with the worst population expansions, and tell me the #1 goal isn’t to live a decent lifestyle, closer to that of the West. Then explain to me how population control doesn’t get the forefront for environmentalists, since every blessed poor person on this earth wants to figure out how to get from 100 pounds of CO2/yr to 20 tons (or, in their minds, want to have the same amount of stuff as the West). The answer is simple: it is politically incorrect, it doesn’t drive big government, you can’t find ways to create tax revenue and bureaucracy around it and you probably can’t fix it anyway, given the populations involved. None of those things mean it’s not the biggest problem (by far, since if we can’t fix it, every other effort to save the earth’s ecosystem is doomed to failure as 9 billion people come up to speed on getting stuff). That’s the rat I smell. AGW is a fabulous Great Cause, and it’s OK to get developed countries to strong-arm their populations for more taxes and more government. But it is most definitely off limits to strong arm developing countries to hold off on population growth, even though population expansion sabotages and offsets any CO2 reduction efforts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/89 "2012-08-26T05:15:51Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Um…how do you get better well being of the exploding populations? > Lessee…you get them stuff. Stuff is what gives us “well being.” Better places to live, better transportation, better work (typically making stuff), better hospitals…you get the idea. > What is the byproduct of making and distributing stuff? CO2 production. Oops. The ignorance shows here, that transportation that distribution also will have to deal with items like a carbon tax, change will happen at all levels. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Have a looksee at the developing world out there. Truck around a few of the countries with the worst population expansions, and tell me the #1 goal isn’t to live a decent lifestyle, closer to that of the West. Lookie here at the fact that you are assuming that they do not want also what many on the west see as progress: Renewable energy: [http://www.thegef.org/gef/content/renewable-energy-developing-world-gef-makes-it-reality](http://www.thegef.org/gef/content/renewable-energy-developing-world-gef-makes-it-reality) > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Then explain to me how population control doesn’t get the forefront for environmentalists, since every blessed poor person on this earth wants to figure out how to get from 100 pounds of CO2/yr to 20 tons (or, in their minds, want to have the same amount of stuff as the West). The answer is simple: it is politically incorrect, it doesn’t drive big government, you can’t find ways to create tax revenue and bureaucracy around it and you probably can’t fix it anyway, given the populations involved. Nope, as anyone can notice, you are still ignoring that the ones complaining about this issue are the same that oppose progress on the control of emissions. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > None of those things mean it’s not the biggest problem (by far, since if we can’t fix it, every other effort to save the earth’s ecosystem is doomed to failure as 9 billion people come up to speed on getting stuff). As the examples of what humanity did with acid rain and ozone depletion CFC’s yours is indeed the alarmist position. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > That’s the rat I smell. AGW is a fabulous Great Cause, and it’s OK to get developed countries to strong-arm their populations for more taxes and more government. But it is most definitely off limits to strong arm developing countries to hold off on population growth, even though population expansion sabotages and offsets any CO2 reduction efforts. And again, that only works by willfully ignoring that environmentalists point at solutions already, that they are not to your liking is not my problem, and once again, solving our emission problems does not depend on doing any draconian solutions on population control, if that was the case then things like phosphate contamination of rivers and lakes would had never been solved as the population has increased: [http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full\_text\_search/AllCRCDocs/94-54.htm](http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-54.htm) > [@](#): > > In the mid 1960s, many of the nation’s rivers and lakes were rapidly turning green and choking with aquatic plant growth. A primary reason for these deleterious changes in water quality was the high levels of phosphorus, one of several major plant nutrients, found in domestic and municipal sewage effluents. The principal source of effluent phosphorus was from phosphates used in laundry detergents. This paper discusses the dispute and eventual resolution of the general issue of whether phosphates should be banned from detergents, a debate most fiercely fought between 1970-72. The paper first provides background material including the nature of soaps, the development of phosphate detergents, and the environmental effects of surplus phosphorus on aquatic environments. The major players are then described, highlighting their positions and interests. The dispute is presented more or less in chronological fashion, and the scientific community’s role in focussing the issues is documented. Finally, the aftermath of the dispute and current conditions are briefly discussed. > [@](#): > > Considering the times and the national (if not global) nature of the dispute, the resolution of the phosphate in detergent dispute between the Industry and nearly everyone else went reasonably smoothly. What environmental action groups existed in the late 1960s and early 1970s were still in their infancies. This dispute and concern for the pollution of America’s waters, however, probably played a part in the environmental movement (Earth Day was April 22, 1970) rather than the other way around. Today, environmental disputes such as spotted owl habitats are instigated by focused environmental action groups. In contrast, the eutrophication issue was raised by the public and public officials. Because the scope of the problem was so large, congressional action was necessary and resulted in hearings to determine comprehensively what were the scientific bases for eutrophication and clear up (intentional and accidental) misconceptions. > > The Industry was eventually forced to fight for its interests in the public forum, and in the end probably the best results were attained. Although states and communities may regulate phosphate concentrations as they deem necessary to protect local environments, regional regulations like Pennsylvania’s seemed to have struck an acceptable balance between protecting the aquatic environment **(you can now swim in Lake Erie without slipping on mats of green slime)**, protecting the citizens’ health and welfare, and not burdening the detergent manufacturers and phosphate producers unreasonably with blanket prohibitions. In the final analysis both sides seemed to fair well. Phosphates can be legally banned in localities wishing to implement such legislation to protect regional aquatic environments. And the Industry is apparently able to exceed even their earlier voluntary limit of 8.7% phosphorus (“P” Tide has 10.9%) in their pursuit of giving homemakers whiter and brighter clothes. Now, after reading that, can you explain to me why the green slime has not choked all our rivers and lakes even with the population increasing? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/90 "2012-08-26T05:42:49Z")
Gigobuster: I read that ‘e-economics’ piece, and found it VERY unconvincing and even misleading. The author appears to be a progressive activist as well as an economist, and the ‘Stockholm Institute’ appears to be a small organization dedicated to ‘sustainable development’. This is the equivalent of me telling you a problem has been solved, and citing a paper from a supply-side think tank written by a supply-side activist, and published in a non-peer reviewed forum. But putting that aside, their methodology and conclusions stink. First, to get that headline-grabbing scary number for the social cost of carbon they had to find the most extreme predictions of damage and climate sensitivity, then use the highest values from those predictions, then apply a discount rate lower than I think any reasonable financial analysis would support. Their own paper admits that other other estimates and discount rates could result in a social cost of carbon as low as $21/ton, even with a low 3% discount rate. The paper is full of strange assumptions, such as: > [@](#): > > The DICE [Monte Carlo Simulation] low-temperature damage estimate is based on an evaluation of several categories of climate damages at 2.5°C (Nordhaus 2008; Nordhaus and Boyer 2000). In a review and critique of the Nordhaus estimates as applied to the United States, Michael Hanemann develops alternative estimates for damages at 2.5°C, which are, in total, 2.4 times the Nordhaus value (Hanemann 2008).8 If the same relationship applies worldwide, then a reasonable alternative at low temperatures is to keep the form of equation (1) or (2), but recalibrate damages to 4.2 percent of output at 2.5°C. See what they did there? They found a paper that showed potential damages 2.4x the previously accepted estimate, then just assumed that they could use that number and apply it globally. Then they simply recalibrated the equation so that it matched that number at 2.5 degrees C. That number is outrageously high. In fact, as I recall the IPCC IV estimate for damages at or below 2.5 degrees C was ZERO. And in fact, the IPCC admits that global GDP would probably rise for values of warming below 2.5 degrees, because it would manifest itself primarily in longer growing seasons for the food belt, warming of winter nights leading to lower heating costs (and lower energy consumption), opening of new navigable waterways like the Northwest Passage, etc. There would be damages to the warmer parts of the world, but they would be more than offset by gains in the colder parts of the world. Overall net damage does not occur until the temperature rises above 2.5 C. So a real function for damages should start off negative and turn positive somewhere around 2.5 degrees. Their simplistic function does not do that. Furthermore, the benefit part of global warming happens sooner than the damage, and so it has a higher net present value (in other words, you could save the money you got from the gains and invest it, and by the time the damages kick in your money from the savings would be worth more). They do this stuff throughout the paper. For example, their comparison for determining their discount rate is ‘zero risk’ investment rate. But why is that reasonable? Why would they not use a more balanced value for the discount rate? If the cost of carbon mitigation is being taxed out of the economy, then they should be comparing the cost against the average real return of capital investment in other areas, which is closer to 7%. Of course, if you use that rate, it’s almost impossible to justify any intervention at all. This paper should be titled, “What would the social cost of carbon be if you took the most extreme scenarios you can find, apply the lowest discount rate you can get away with, and then pick the 95th percentile results?” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/91 "2012-08-26T06:54:36Z")
The point was to respond to your strange idea that there are no studies made, they are, that was just one: > [@](#): > > Last week economist William Nordhaus slammed global warming deniers and explained that the cost of delaying action is $4 Trillion. As I wrote, Nordhaus’s blunt piece — “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong” – is worth reading because, like most mainstream climate economists, he is no climate hawk. > > A key reason for that, I believe, is a chronic low-balling of future temperature rise and hence future climate impacts and hence future climate damages by the mainstream economic profession. Nordhaus’s piece proves that point. In his argument on why CO2 is a pollutant and negative externality—”a byproduct of economic activity that causes damages to innocent bystanders”– he writes: > > \*\* The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. **This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade.7 Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.** \*\* > [@](#): > > Yes, a spring 2009 review of the economic impact of climate change reviewed 14 studies — and not single one of them looked at warming of more than 3°C! And Tol is, according to one of the leading scholars in the field, “the leading scholar in the field.” And that is “the most recent thorough survey.” > > Who says economics is the dismal science? It’s the super-optimistic science. If you could ask climate economics to sum itself up in one word, it would be “cheerful.” > > Note that if you check out Table 1, you’ll see that the 2 estimates of the impacts of 3C warming are Nordhaus himself from 1994 and 1995. Indeed, 4 of the 9 estimates of the impacts of 2.5C damage come from either 1995 or 1996. The head-exploding estimate that 2.5C warming could actually be a significant positive for welfare is from 1996 also. Way to stay up to date on the science. > > As readers of Climate Progress know, the recent scientific literature has amped up the likely consequences of inaction considerably (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces.” > > A 2010 AAAS presentation on “the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge“ concluded: New scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.” > > Multiple independent analyses conclude that we are on track for total warming of some 5°C by century’s end and more after that. What would be the impact of that level of warming? There is a clue inside Nordhaus’s 2008 book, A Question of Balance. Nordhaus explains that in his DICE model, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 only hit 685 ppm in 2100 and “measured mean global surface temperature … is projected in the DICE model to increase by 3.1°C in 2100 relative to 1900″ or a mere 2.4°C between 2005 and 2010. But he also notes that > > ``` > … the DICE model’s projected baseline increase in temperature for 2200 relative to 1900 is very large, 5.3°C. The climate changes associated with these temperature changes are estimated to increase damages by almost 3% of global output in 2100 and by close to 8% of global output in 2200. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/92 "2012-08-26T07:03:04Z")
??? Where did I say that there were no studies? I just said we have to fund such studies. The wide range of answers that current studies have found makes my point - it’s not good enough to have social carbon cost estimates in a range from $21 to $1000. Or even from $200 to $800, because at $200 we’re likely to be economically better off to do nothing and just use the money to cope with the damages, because the cost of actually trying to stop the problem would exceed the cost of the problem itself. So, we need more study. And not just tendentious studies from progressive activists and institutes dedicated to sustainable development. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840/93 "2012-08-26T07:21:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > ??? Where did I say that there were no studies? I just said we have to fund such studies. The wide range of answers that current studies have found makes my point - it’s not good enough to have social carbon cost estimates in a range from $21 to $1000. Or even from $200 to $800, because at $200 we’re likely to be economically better off to do nothing and just use the money to cope with the damages, because the cost of actually trying to stop the problem would exceed the cost of the problem itself. > > So, we need more study. And not just tendentious studies from progressive activists and institutes dedicated to sustainable development. More study=more delay. The latest ones show that the low cost estimates are not so good, however, this is not a reason to just do nothing. What the latest reports show is that we already have better information to start. BTW This has not even been done or even considered with the current republican leadership in congress. One huge point you continue to miss is that the longer we go by doing nothing the more expensive this gets. The point of the latest studies is that they also find more issues that have to be included into the costs, staying in the 90’s may do wonders for your ideology but it doesn’t do anything with the latest reports. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-editorial/631840.md?page=4)