The Paris accords are just a first step, and it was deemed far better to take that first step than not take a step at all, and the hope and intent is that the agreements would be strengthened in future iterations. It seems highly incongruous to claim on one hand that the existing agreement is too weak, and then claim on the other hand that it’s so burdensome that it is “very unfair” to the US (Trump’s exact words).
The reality is that the US withdrawal takes a delicate and evolving agreement that for all its shortcomings had the promising attribute of universal international support, and throws a great big monkey wrench into the whole thing. Which was the malignant and counterproductive intent.
How is an alleged economic cost of climate mitigation any kind of “cost-benefit tradeoff”? Such an economic cost, even if true, is just one side of the equation. But what will be the economic costs by 2025 of unconstrained climate change, such as destruction caused by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and increased storm surges? What will be the costs in terms of loss of life, food crop instability in vulnerable regions and consequent political instability, and national security? This isn’t a cost-benefit analysis, it’s a one-sided misrepresentation.
Not only is the citation meaningless, but National Economic Research Associates has a reputation for dredging up these kinds of outrageous numbers on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, for example when they were hired by a coal industry front group to produce fantastic cost projections for compliance with new EPA regulations on coal. So no, I don’t believe their numbers for one second. Realistic costs of mitigation are those that come from the scientific sources at the NAS, the IPCC, and the UNFCCC. Intuitively, it’s hard to see how millions of jobs would be lost in a properly managed transformative economy oriented to massive new clean energy technologies, while the kinds of jobs Trump is talking about saving have been horrific ones like coal mining – dirty, dangerous, and dead-end – whose product is the worst polluter of all fossil fuels.
Skeptical does not mean against it, William Nordhaus says in reality that the social cost of CO2 much higher than he thought, while team Trump says it is zero.
Just to clarify, the bit I quoted about the NERA’s estimated job losses wasn’t intended to showcase the sum total of Trump’s cost-benefit analysis. It was in response to a particular claim by you (which I thought was clear because I quoted it) that “no actual facts were involved or cited”. Indeed, I can’t say for certain that Trump did actually perform any sort of a cost-benefit analysis, or whether it was based on sound figures or not. The closest I got to a claim like that was “Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that it was too much cost for too little benefit.”
Agreed. I don’t believe I ever misrepresented Nordhaus’s position as one of opposition to the Paris Agreement. And he seems very forthright about the limits of his model and the uncertainties involved in his estimates.
Cite?
I don’t think I ever made the claim that no studies had been done. I asked if anyone was aware of any (and thanked you when you cited one):
Right, and my point to that, made earlier, was that Trump’s conclusion was ideologically motivated typical right-wing anti-science bullshit that wasn’t based on facts or analysis and involved a predetermined result that he had already promised in order to attract the rube vote and get elected.
Turns out that Ted Cruz wrote an op-ed on CNN.com on just this subject, urging Trump to do this and quoting the same stupid NERA claim of 2.7 million jobs, and making the same claims as the WSJ (and of course the previously cited denialist Bjorn Lomborg that I already debunked earlier) and some posters here about how little effect the Paris accords would have. The Climate Feeback site asked four prominent scientists to comment on the op-ed and thus, in effect, on the rationale for Trump’s corresponding position on the Paris accords.
Needless to say, the consensus of the scientists was that everything that Cruz wrote (and that Trump basically re-iterated) was pure bullshit. On a scientific credibility scale of +2 to -2, it was given the lowest possible credibility rating of -2 – in effect, a pack of lies and gross exaggerations. The fact-based analysis is well worth a read.
It isn’t that hard to argue the NERA might be mistaken. They’re a well-known think tank for coal and natural gas industries, i.e. very biased. Their last major prediction that I’m aware of comes in 2011, when they predicted that Obama regulations would raise electricity rates by 11.5% by 2016.
Let’s see March 2016, 10.02 over all sectors. March 2011, 9.55. An increase of 4.7%.
Well, I have my doubts that you get to learn from the cites as in the one you are demanding a cite for already got one. It was in the article I linked to.
Hence the point about “team Trump says it is zero”. They are looking at the worst of what deniers offer, not the serious skeptics.
I might take this a little more seriously (i.e. not as just another step on the denialism staircase) were it coming from someone who didn’t vote for the party who denies the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
“proposed ending the use … in federal rulemaking” does NOT equal “says it is zero”.
There are a whole host of things I understand have an actual non-zero number but I don’t think would be a good basis for federal rulemaking.
Given that the “social cost of CO2” appears to be not very well-understood / accurate (for example, Nordhaus’s earlier estimates seem to have been off by a significant margin), I can completely understand why one might think that its a bad basis for federal rulemaking.
“ending the use of the social cost of carbon in federal rulemakings”
When you end the use of something it does not mean that there will be a continuation of a “little bit” or “some”, no they propose to end it.
:rolleyes:
Like using what a vaccine proponent says as a tool for anti-vaccers. Anti-vaccers do that BTW. The roll eyes is also there because Nordhaus actually does report that the cost should be higher now, Trump and minions are going the other way. Penny wise, Pound foolish.
Why do you think the President is so essential in all of this? Americans have done all sorts of awesome things without sitting back and waiting for the government to direct / fund / mandate them. Why do you think we can’t do so today? Can’t California (the sixth largest economy in the world, as they often brag about) get some shit done? Why do we need Washington? Tesla is working on bringing solar roof tiles and in-home battery systems to market. What’s with the defeatist “with trump in office we’re not going to” attitude? Where’s your “Yes we can” chant when we really need it?
Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical example. Imagine a world in which the federal government was making rules based off of a figure like “how many minorities are enrolled in each state’s public colleges and universities”. This hypothetical federal government might do things like determine the amount of Pell grants each state’s colleges can receive based off of this figure (the % of minorities enrolled). Now, imagine a new President comes into office and says, “You know what, I don’t think that figure (the % of minorities enrolled) is a very good basis for federal rulemaking. I propose we end the use of that figure in federal rulemaking”. Does that mean the President or his “team” says that the figure is actually “zero”, i.e. that there are zero minorities enrolled? NO! He’s just saying that it’s not a good basis for making federal rules.
Now, it may be that Trump or his team actually do believe there is zero social cost of CO2 (I don’t know either way), but your cite, about the proposal to end its use in federal rulemaking, does nothing to verify that.
And what you are doing is just an argument from ignorance. IMHO what I pointed out is valid until a counter proposal or a new way to deal with the issue is revealed. Trump’s staff is full of people that do not believe that there is a problem. It is not only me the one that pointed at that basic problem, but many experts in policy did notice that this is a result for electing people that told you many times before that this issue was a hoax.
Going forward, one has to notice here that Trump and his minions are also:
Looking to heat up the stupid war against drugs, replaying the zombie trickle down economics and many other fronts that will only end in tears, Trump had to add now yet another front against him with the war against our environment. And in this case the now more valid opposition that is not helpless is not only international in nature but it is a local one too as California and other states are and will show.
