# Does the EPA's "social cost of carbon" include BENEFITS of global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 18, 2016, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141 "2016-08-18T02:25:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/21 "2016-08-19T13:22:20Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sure I’m being serious. And it’s just not credible to me that climate change will leave every region worse off. That comes across like propaganda. It seems much more likely to me that some places will be worse off and some will be better off and most places a combination of both depending on what you value. I think the government of Canada is invested in what’s good for the country as a whole. And yes, it’s perfectly possible that climate change makes the whole world shittier. Not end-of-the-world shittier, mind you, just no real winners. All the current nice places get shitty to live in (or disappear under the ocean) and all the current not-so-nice places just become not-so-nice in different ways. > [@](#): > > We had the hottest July ever, but even most climate scientists will tell you that global warming is warming winters much more than summers. And significantly warmer winters with only moderately warmer summers is going to make a lot of currently population non-dense land in northern Russia, Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia a lot more conducive to human habitation. It’s not just a matter of climate belts moving North, that’s a hopelessly simplistic way of looking at it. Say Northern Russian permafrost thaws - you think it’s simply a matter of ploughing up the (thin, poor) soil to turn tundra into farmland? And all these people moving in there - I hope they like mosquitos… > [@](#): > > We may see a reversal of the patterns we’ve seen of people migrating to the Sun Belt. I highly doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/22 "2016-08-19T20:20:20Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > We had the hottest July ever, but even most climate scientists will tell you that global warming… Scientists won’t say "_global warming"_ at all, because that is an inaccurate & misleading term. They will talk about ‘climate change’, which is much more complicated. For example, it causes both warmer summers and colder winters. (As the Arctic gets warmer, cold winter winds that normally blow there get diverted further south into Canada & the US.) Plus the additional heat (energy) in the atmosphere causes more extreme storms, like the ‘500 year’ flooding this summer, and the huge snowstorms of last winter. The beneficial effects are likely to be greatly outweighed by the damaging effects. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/23 "2016-08-19T20:24:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Of note: Global warmth might be a good thing. But global warmth isn’t the same thing as global warming. The problem is just due to the change, which comes too rapidly to easily adapt to it in time. Right. Warming will benefit some and hurt others. It could be a wash, hard to tell. But it’s happening too damn fast. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/24 "2016-08-19T22:47:36Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Scientists won’t say "_global warming"_ at all, because that is an inaccurate & misleading term. ORLY? It appears this is news to the Union of Concerned Scientists, who use the phrase “global warming” a full 20 times by my count, just on their main CC/GW page: [Climate Science | Union of Concerned Scientists](http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.V7eMCJA8KrV) That page contains nine references to “climate change”. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/25 "2016-08-20T00:14:31Z")
As this is GQ and not GD I don’t want to drive this into debate territory, but a few quick facts are in order: - Bjorn Lomborg (not Lomberg) is a well-known climate change “skeptic”. He is, basically, a climate change denier, and rose to fame (and infamy) as a result of a book he wrote on the subject that was so full of scientific misrepresentations that he was formally charged with scientific dishonesty and tried before the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. The committee partially exonerated him on the grounds that he had no expertise in the subject matter and so might be regarded more as “ignorant” than “dishonest”. - the scientific consensus on “benefits” of global warming is, broadly speaking, that to the extent that they exist at all they will be minimal, localized, and temporary. Only some temperate areas may benefit and only for some crops, and even then only for a temperature rise of up to about 2°C, beyond which even those special circumstances turn negative. Meanwhile, most of the world will suffer increasingly severe consequences especially in areas like Africa which are already very vulnerable and experiencing shortages of food and clean water. Any benefits from CO2 fertilization are quickly stopped by other limiting factors like soil nutrients, and benefits from a longer growing season are offset by localized weather changes, invasive species, and extreme weather events like droughts and floods that may result in no growing season at all. - you ask about Canada. Last year the federal government renamed the Ministry of the Environment to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change to reflect a concerted focus on what is regarded as a very serious problem, largely for the reasons noted above. No one in the serious scientific community here expects any windfall of benefits from global warming, and even the prospect of milder winters has in recent years manifested as the opposite, due to anomalous or strengthened circulation systems like the polar vortex. It’s likely that in the long term winters will be shorter and warmer, but accompanied by potentially costly extreme weather events in all seasons. ---
**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 20, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/26 "2016-08-20T00:29:36Z")
Anyone that uses Lomborg as a cite should look at what **wolfpup** said. Lomborg does remain a many times discredited economist (and that is being generous, his training and education was actualy in Politial science) that pretends to be an environmentalist, the fact that he is still being taken seriously by many is only a sign of the power that skeptic groups funded by fossil fuel interests are. For more information on the errors and misleading info that he is making consult [Realclimate.org](http://Realclimate.org) that is maintained by real climate scientists. > **[RealClimate: Bjørn Lomborg, just a scientist with a different opinion?](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/)** > > RealClimate: Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known media personality who argues that there are more important priorities than reducing emissions to limit global warming. In a recent controversy centering on him, the Australian government (known for its... Scroll to the middle of the article for a cartoon with a now classic debunking of his past failure to see the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/27 "2016-08-20T00:38:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As this is GQ and not GD I don’t want to drive this into debate territory, but a few quick facts are in order: > > - Bjorn Lomborg (not Lomberg) is a well-known climate change “skeptic”. He is, basically, a climate change denier, and rose to fame (and infamy) as a result of a book he wrote on the subject that was so full of scientific misrepresentations that he was formally charged with scientific dishonesty and tried before the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. The committee partially exonerated him on the grounds that he had no expertise in the subject matter and so might be regarded more as “ignorant” than “dishonest”. He is well known. If this were GD, I’d argue that he’s not a crackpot, not that you said that he was. I don’t think it’s fair to call him a denier. Wikipedia: “His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.” He opposes fossil fuel subsidies for example. Wiki gives the fuller story with regards to the Danish Committee. I agree that Lomborg’s statements should not be viewed uncritically. [Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg) ETA: The sea level graphic in Gigo’s link is pretty damning though. ---
**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 20, 2016, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/28 "2016-08-20T00:45:31Z")
Regarding the very specific claim by Lomborg in the OP I have seen already many refutations to his climate change saving lifes vs killing people. Lomborg usually gets the best numbers by ignoring the issue of famines brought by severe droughts that are made worse by global warming. > > [@](#): > > The first quote presents a specious argument as I rather doubt the heat and cold related deaths includes deaths due to famine, which often involve crop-failures where weather/climate was an issue, which can easily affect hundreds of thousands or even millions in a single year, which clearly outweighs Lomborg’s “by mid-century” figures. The recent famine in Somalia alone is estimated to have resulted in 258,000 deaths. Much of the worlds populations depends on the productivity of agricultural land already becoming marginal. The greatest agricultural effects of climate change are likely to be due to changes in rainfall, and sea level rise (much of Bangladesh, a very populous country, is low lying and already susceptible to flooding) rather than the direct effects of increased temperature. ---
**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 20, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/29 "2016-08-20T01:00:25Z")
And I was not surprised to know that Lomborg is what could be called a lukewarmer, the kind that does accept climate change and that humans are a reason, but in the end his basic advice of “do not bother to do anything” makes him just the next card to play by the same denier groups that want to prevent the fossil fuel companies form being bothered. IOW just a way\*\* to get the same result\*\* from governments as the complete deniers of climate change want to too. The media is many times at fault for not allowing the proper rebuttals to his talking points (he never changes and recycles many of his old chestnuts) as in this case: > **[Open letter to the Wall Street Journal editor: a scientists’ response to...](https://skepticalscience.com/open-letter-to-wsj-scientist-response-to-misleading-lomborg.html)** > > This letter was submitted to the editor of the Wall Street Journal who did not publish it.  > [@](#): > > On April 6, 2016, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Bjorn Lomborg entitled “An Overheated Climate Alarm” following the publication by the US Global Change Research Program (US GCRP) of a comprehensive overview of the impact of climate change on American public health. Ten scientists from around the world who have expertise in climate change and its impacts on human health have completed an in-depth analysis of Lomborg’s op-ed and conclude his account of the available evidence is misleading your readers. > > While the US GCRP report is based on thousands of scientific publications, Lomborg cherry-picked only a few to support his case that 1) “cold kills many more people than heat” and 2) “climate change will reduce the number of cold days” and “that will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.” > [@](#): > > Kristie Ebi, Professor of Global Health at the University of Washington, adds that “Mr. Lomborg is confusing seasonal mortality with temperature-related mortality. It is true that mortality is higher during winter than summer. However, it does not follow that winter mortality is temperature-dependent.” The fact that people are more likely to die in winter has more to do with “incidence and virulence of influenza and similar diseases” says Philip Staddon, Philip L Staddon, Associate Professor at Xi’an Jiaotong - Liverpool University. > > In response to Lomborg’s second point, Dr Staddon commented: “The assertion that warmer winters equals less mortality is a schoolboy error.” Prof. Ebi concluded that “there is very limited scientific support for the claim that reducing the number of cold days will reduce the number of cold-related deaths.” Of course the WSJ did not post that reply. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/30 "2016-08-20T01:43:00Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > He is well known. If this were GD, I’d argue that he’s not a crackpot, not that you said that he was. I don’t think it’s fair to call him a denier. Wikipedia: “His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.” He opposes fossil fuel subsidies for example. > > Wiki gives the fuller story with regards to the Danish Committee. I agree that Lomborg’s statements should not be viewed uncritically. [Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg) > > ETA: The sea level graphic in Gigo’s link is pretty damning though. As you acknowledge, I didn’t claim he was a “crackpot”, but I think it’s fair to call him “basically a denier” because although he doesn’t deny the fact of AGW, he does deny the necessity for serious mitigation, which places him in the same company as climate change deniers and makes it a distinction without a difference. His statements on this have been wildly inconsistent, but when he says things like “Just because there is a problem doesn’t mean that we have to solve it, if the cure is going to be more expensive than the original ailment” he is spreading falsehoods about the enormous economic costs of non-action and is undermining the imperative of climate change mitigation, and standing in opposition to the scientific consensus and the projections of global insurance organizations. From a factual GQ standpoint, the message here is that anything attributed to Bjorn Lomborg should be treated with a great deal of skepticism. Indeed [there is an entire website](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/) dedicated to keeping an exhaustive record of Lomborg’s misleading, mistaken, or inaccurate statements. ETA: Some very good points by **GIGO** in the immediately preceding post. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/31 "2016-08-20T05:21:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > From a factual GQ standpoint, the message here is that anything attributed to Bjorn Lomborg should be treated with a great deal of skepticism. Cross out “a great deal of” and I agree. More than “Some skepticism”. As for an overall assessment of Lomborg, I’ll leave that for GD. Back to the OP. Yes, both the benefits and costs of global climactic change are routinely considered. The go-to place for deliberate and historically cautious scientific reporting is the IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. [Website](http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm). They issue huge reports. Here is an excerpt from the [FAQ](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/docs/WGIIAR5-FAQs_FINAL.pdf) of Working Group II of the Fifth Assessment report, _Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability_, 2014. [INDENT][INDENT] FAQ 7: **Are the future impacts of climate change only negative? Might there be positive impacts as well?** [Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30] Overall, the report identifies many more negative impacts than positive impacts projected for the future, especially for high magnitudes and rates of climate change. Climate change will, however, have different impacts on people around the world and those effects will vary not only by region but over time, depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change. For example, many countries will face increased challenges for economic development, increased risks from some diseases, or degraded ecosystems, but some countries will probably have increased opportunities for economic development, reduced instances of some diseases, or expanded areas of productive land. Crop yield changes will vary with geography and by latitude. Patterns of potential catch for fisheries are changing globally as well, with both positive and negative consequences. Availability of resources such as usable water will also depend on changing rates of precipitation, with decreased availability in many places but possible increases in runoff and groundwater recharge in some regions like the high latitudes and wet tropics. [/INDENT][/INDENT] In case anybody is wondering, the entire FAQ is written in that sort of dry scientific language. Jumping ahead: **SlackerInc** : There is a fair amount of assessment of anthropogenic climate change that implicitly assumes optimal adaptation. But recognize that if Iowa yields go down and North Dakota yields go up, that inevitable governmental intervention won’t make that a zero sum effect. In practice redeploying resources from one region to another is likely to be inefficient and expensive, unless it occurs predictably and gradually. Which is won’t. For example, we should probably ban development (or demand private insurance which won’t be available in practice) for certain beach front properties in certain locations. But we don’t. The rebuilding of Louisiana after hurricane Katrina simply hasn’t been conducted with particular foresight. It’s these sorts of politically difficult and fairly understandable policy errors which ratchet up the costs of global climactic change. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/32 "2016-08-20T06:55:52Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > So has the AGW crowd shifted from denial to arguing that global warming is happening but it’s a _good_ thing? Well, as I understand it, that was both Putin’s position and Steve Harper’s. When you make your empire in the vastness of frozen lakes and swamps, global warming sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, most human nations are not anywhere like Russia or Canada. The USA, for example, is largely subtropical, and has an interior already prone to drought and heatwave. A shift of the average temperature a few degrees upward would increase the likelihood and the incidence of crop failures, and possibly desertification. In short: Russkies and Canucks need to learn they are outnumbered and suck it up. Don’t like it? See if somewhere will let you immigrate. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2016, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/33 "2016-08-20T07:12:15Z")
Actually, to be fair to Harper and Putin, after a quick google it looks like both of them ended up admitting that climate change really was a big global problem. I don’t know how much it affected their policies, but they did actually at least pay lip service to the consensus on AGW eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Kropotkin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kropotkin/32/18045_2.png) [@Kropotkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kropotkin)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2016, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/34 "2016-08-22T04:34:20Z")
Warmer winters are reducing the snow pack that supplies the water for Metro Vancouver, so that’s a problem. Droughts are reducing well water across the province of BC. Warm winters have led to pine beetle infestations–previously, the cold winter kept the population under control. The pine beetle has destroyed much of the commercial timber in the province, and timber is a crucial industry there. And the pine beetle makes forests highly vulnerable to fire, as do the reduced rainfall and warmer winters. So yeah, global warming looks like a net loss there. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/35 "2016-08-22T05:44:57Z")
And here we get to the meat of the matter. The problem with global climate change is _not_ that it will lead to an apocalyptic runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy all life on Sol III. It won’t. The amount of water on the surface of the Earth is low enough that after all the ice on Earth melts, we will hit an equilibrium point below boiling due to (if only due to) a lack of available mass of potential greenhouse gases. It is rather that climate change will cause a series of lesser cataclysms, from the economic to the social to the environmental. Here is a small fraction of the fallout: Flooding the Maldives out of existence. Flooding the entire present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico, something like 80% of the Florida Peninsula, and, I think probablly Long Island, NY–much of that territory unrecoverably. Higher temperatures leading to less reliable water supply for places that rely on glaciers or snow pack. Higher temperatures potentially leading to lower rainfall in western regions of North America even as what is technically a greater mass of water vapor remains suspended in the air. This may literally wreck agriculture for generations and desertify semi-arid regions. The spread of insect-borne diseases to regions that previously had seen harsh winters stop them–and not just human diseases, but livestock diseases, and tree diseases. Or just, you know, more insects eating your green flora. With problems like these, talking about “increased lifespan from electrification” sounds silly. We are going to lose territory to this. We are going to lose industry, lose production, lose capacity, but we are most of all going to actually lose land to desert and saltwater, and lots of it. Accepting or encouraging increased greenhouse gases is deadly silly. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2016, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/36 "2016-08-22T12:33:20Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > It is rather that climate change will cause a series of lesser cataclysms, from the economic to the social to the environmental. The [U.S. National Climate Assessment](http://nca2014.globalchange.gov) describes many of the potential impacts on the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141/37 "2016-08-22T14:47:09Z")
I think the idea that Global Warming will reduce deaths from cold is a non-starter. The effect will be slight at best, perhaps even too small to measure. Far and away, technology will prevent far far more cold related deaths than any increase in average temperature. We can start will old technologies more widely adapted; for example just insulating our homes, installing double pane windows and what-not. New technologies are always being developed so we have better more efficient heating units. As I remember, it was on “This Old House” they showed how to apply a plastic substance to the inside of the heating ducts that completely sealed them, and they claimed a 10% increase in efficiency. There’s also the social aspect, tax dollars given to the poor to pay their heating bill, electric utilities not being allowed to cut off service in winter and grants to weatherize. This will save a hell of a lot more lives from cold exposure than Global Warming. Where this risk exists even a 5ºC increase will not reduce that risk, a climate that includes polar incursions will still be a climate with polar incursions. If any benefit can be found with Global Warming, more likely this will be along the equatorial side of the world’s desert belts. These areas should see more tropical air and an increase in rainfall; central Mexico, the Sahel and northern Australia. Unfortunately this benefit will come at the cost of less rainfall along the polar side; southwest USA, southern Europe and central Chile. Pretty much a balance concerning climate parameters, but looks downright nasty economically. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-epas-social-cost-of-carbon-include-benefits-of-global-warming/763141.md?page=1)