Posted on 10/30/2006 11:07:19 PM PST by MadIvan
From a dry-as-dust economist such as Sir Nicholas Stern, the apocalyptic language is startling. He warns that, without action to control global warming, we risk disruption to social and economic activity "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century".
This lurid prognosis sets the tone for his 600-page cost-benefit analysis of climate change and is clearly designed to shatter any sense of complacency we may still harbour towards this contentious issue.
Alarmism is never a sound basis for formulating public policy. In fact, the Stern review tells us nothing new in scientific terms — but for the first time it has pinned a price tag to the greenhouse effect, and that is invaluable. It should help encourage an informed debate on a subject that has, hitherto, been characterised more by assertion and dogma (on both sides of the argument) than by rational discussion.
Sir Nicholas warns that a "do nothing" strategy could lead (there is no certainty in any of this) to a permanent reduction in per capita consumption of 20 per cent. If, however, the world decided to invest one per cent of GDP on paying a true price for carbon, such a catastrophic economic collapse could be averted. Sir Nicholas proposes three methods of rescuing the global economy — taxation, carbon trading, and regulation — and suggests that most governments would employ a mix of all three.
In fact, as we said yesterday, governments aren't very efficient organisations and are rarely much good at running things. This is also self-evidently a global rather than national problem and should be treated as such. That means businesses — not bureaucrats — are best placed to take the lead role within a broad framework set by national governments.
There should be some simple guiding principles. Measures should be based on incentives, not penalties, and there should be a heavy investment in technology, not an abject retreat into rationing.
This argues, in turn, not for the wholesale imposition of green taxes (though some are probably inevitable), but for carbon allocations that will ultimately allow both individuals and companies to choose how they make their contribution to cutting emissions — and to trade their allowances if they wish.
No one should be under any illusions; such a sophisticated structure will be immensely difficult to create and enforce. That is why politicians from all three parties are instead reaching so readily for the blunt and simplistic weapon of higher taxes. They should think again. This is a complex problem that requires complex solutions — not a knee-jerk hike in taxation.
The Telegraph isn't going to outright deny it's happening (I will - climate change is a normal part of life on this planet) but they're right that government is the wrong way to do anything. It's socialism by the back door.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
God...governments? God or governments? God or governments?
Alec, I'll take God for a thousand please....
Yes, it's the Daily Double!!!
Socialists don't want to make the weak strong, they want to make the strong weak.
They are the best friend of Middle Ages Islamofascists, who cannot compete without some means to hobble the West.
Ergo, Environmentalism.
Vote Republican if you want to be strong.
And to see if the marquee thing works.
Or make them dead.
Isn't that the truth!
Even the Germans aren't this crazy.
Socialists don't want to make the weak strong, they want to make the strong weak. They are the best friend of Middle Ages Islamofascists, who cannot compete without some means to hobble the West. Ergo, Environmentalism. Vote Republican if you want to be strong.Excellent summing up of the problem, and good suggestion towards a solution.
Read Stern's paper.
Stern does not understand capital.
a person living on a dollar a day,
is not going to write a check for
a million bucks for something he does not need,
even if the recurring cost is only a penny.
also, Stern does not onderstand inelastic supply.
The last time I checked, the BBC had problems predicting the weather for next week, let alone for years ahead. This is voodoo science, based upon a thoroughly wrong assumption: that there has been or ever will be stability in global weather. Never happened, never will happen.
Regards, Ivan
computer models cannot give an accurate output,
for the temperature of any given point on Earth.
suppose you want to test a program by asking,
'what was the climate in 2004?',
the program would need climate input
from another year.
LOL!! - Only an utter moron would state that the way to "rescue" an economy is with more taxes and regulations.
"This is voodoo science, based upon a thoroughly wrong assumption:"
Perhaps you are correct. No doubt your credentials on the matter are impeccable.
More to the point, I suffer from being old enough to remember when we had to vote for Dems because of Global Cooling...
It is always some chicken little scheme with that crowd.
Have a good read of this book. Perhaps you should actually broaden your reading rather than try to insert some snide condescension into this discussion.
Ivan
I might read it, thanks. Although the Danish scientific community didn't like it much..
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."
..opened a right bruhaha that one
Yep, only scientists in their field can engage in that particular science, eh? And others cannot call them on glaring errors in their methodology if they are adhering to the official dogma of the moment.
Look up Alfred Wegner and get back to us about how that is a load of hooey.
Nah, he's just giving the usual knee-jerk reaction that global warming adherents give to heretics.
"Yep, only scientists in their field can engage in that particular science, eh?"
It certainly helps with credibility
"And others cannot call them on glaring errors in their methodology"
Of course they can. Generally though, the 'call' is more than unsubstaniated question begging.
"Look up Alfred Wegner and get back to us about how that is a load of hooey."
Why would I do that? It's a complete non-sequitor. What have plate tectonics to do with global warming (well I suppose some blame vulcanism for increased CO2)?
"Nah, he's just giving the usual knee-jerk reaction that global warming adherents give to heretics."
Provide a convincing argument against global warming that stands up to scrutiny.
I'm certainly no greeny, but you're pissing in the wind with an increasingly marginalised viewpoint that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist. Even our leaders have taken it on board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.