2010-10-29 07:32:07Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I drafted up a blog post on the economic impacts of carbon pricing.  This is in response to the argument "CO2 limits will harm the economy", although it's not in the rebuttal list yet.  If we add it to the list, I would think this might be the Advanced rebuttal.

Feedback would be appreciated.  I'll also be adding a figure to the GDP section later on to illustrate that the impacts to GDP are extremely small.  As I said, if we want to roll out some simpler solutions rebuttals before we publish this one, that's fine.

2010-10-30 05:57:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.254.128
Another great post. It's good that you point out the comparisons are often made to an imaginary scenario .i.e BAU itself having no impact on the economy. 
2010-10-30 09:21:30thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Thanks Rob.  Yes I think that's a key point to make.  When these analyses say that household costs will increase $100 per year, that's in comparison to a business as usual scenario in which continued climate change doesn't impact the economy.  It's simply not realistic, but unfortunately it's the best we can do since we don't know exactly how much GHG emissions will be reduced or how much of an impact climate change will have on the economy.  It's not zero, but it's very hard to estimate.
2010-10-30 09:43:10
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.108.45

It would be easier to understand if all these different proposals were fit into a table, with the same parameters. Then they could be compared on an apples-to-apples basis.

That should also eliminate the confusion between reductions relative to 1995 vs relative to 2005, etc.

2010-10-30 11:30:59interesting idea
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
The only difficult part about that would be that not all analyses analyzed the same parameters (for example, only one or two looked at the reduction in oil imports).  But I could make a table with columns for legislation, GHG reductions, and perhaps impact on GDP, which was the most commonly-evaluated parameter.
2010-10-30 11:37:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.108.45

If you don't have data on one entry for one column, just leave that cell blank.

But it just makes it a whole lot easier to comprehend and compare when the format is identical for each item.

2010-11-10 07:18:54advanced or intermediate?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I've updated the post a bit, and now it's an Advanced rebuttal.  I'm thinking of maybe switching it to the Intermediate version, and perhaps we can get an economics expert (for example, from Real Climate Economics) to do an Advanced version (or a blog post which could be made into an Advanced rebuttal).  Any thoughts?  Comments on the current draft?
2011-01-06 17:00:53The cost of doing nothing
keithpickering

keith.pickering@yahoo...
74.33.96.64

Hi Dana,

It's nice to see you active here; you may remember me from my time on Yahoo Answers. In addition to what you've written here, I also think we need to stress the very high cost of doing nothing, as compared to the modest cost of mitigation. Here are some links:

1. UK estimate (the Stern Review) is perhaps the best known. Cost estimate for doing nothing is 5% to 20% of global GDP by 2100, compared to mitigation costs of (currently) 2-3% of global GDP. [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

2. The German cost estimate for doing nothing is $20 trillion per year globally by 2100 (in constant year 2000 dollars). German est: www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf

3. The official EU estimate for doing nothing is $26 trillion annually (global) in 2100, rising to $76 trillion per year by 2200. EU est: The Impacts and Costs of Climate Change

Keith Pickering 

2011-01-06 22:00:20Cost of doing nothing
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.58.57

One thing that really got my goat was Monckton's "we must have the courage to do nothing" (enhanced by his smug superior tone, overcome with his own cleverness). My counter would be "do nothing" actually means continue to throw 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air. We actually need the courage to emit nothing.

Anyway, I digress. What I wanted to say was would anyone be interested in writing Keith's "cost of doing nothing" into a blog post? It doesn't need to be too long or complex - just fleshing out some details from the 3 studies, for instance? Keith? Anyone? :-)

2011-01-07 03:42:08hi Keith
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I assume you're Keith P on YA?  Keith P really knows his stuff - his answers were always excellent.  We miss you over on YA!

I'll defer to Keith, but if he doesn't want to tackle it, I can do a post on these studies.  Maybe incorporate it into an Advanced rebuttal too.

2011-01-07 10:47:30Calculating the True Cost Of Global Climate Change
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.58.57

Related article on e360:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate_change__/2357/