2011-02-21 06:33:54Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I drafted up Monckton Myth #15: Tragedy of the Commons.  I also made it into the intermediate rebuttal to "CO2 limits will make little difference" (linked at the bottom of MM #14).  Let me know if you have any comments.
2011-02-24 06:04:20crickets chirping
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Looks like nobody is visiting the MM forum anymore!  Anybody got feedback?
2011-02-24 09:47:40
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

It's worth looking up some more papers... I remember reading some that dealt with the effect on cumulative CO2 of different groups of countries working together.

Of course, 'rationally' by setting up simple game theory you're driven inexorably to Nash equilibrium, i.e. massive global warming and catastrophe. That is one of the main weapons of the climate deniers: but any diplomatic agreement gets around that.

 

 

Of course, the science deniers in the Republican party look desperate to let the world burn for the short term profits of their paymasters, so I'm starting to think we're utterly fucked.

2011-02-24 10:34:26
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.102

Sorry Dana, pretty swamped lately; will review this later tonight.

 

@ Mark: We're of like mind on that score.

2011-02-24 10:34:35papers
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I agree, more papers would add some substance to the post.  If you can think of any specific studies, let me know.  I'll see if I can find any.
2011-02-24 15:51:32Can't help with the papers part, but here's my two pennies
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.102

 

Carbon Pricing and Emissions Limits

You have:

In fact, we showed that the benefits of carbon pricing would outweigh the costs several times over, even in the legislation proposed in the USA which would have cut the country's emissions 80% by 2050.

Strikes me as a run-on sentence.  Perhaps you could tweak it into two sentences for better flow and clarity.

And, in the next paragraph immediately following:

If Australia were to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050, the country's average emissions cut over the next 40 years would be approximately 40%. 

The average reader here will do a math:fail at this.  To be honest, I'm struggling with it a lot myself.  What am I missing here?

 

The rest is just perfect: succinct, to the point.

2011-02-24 16:10:07math fail
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I had trouble with that concept at first too, Daniel (Monckton said something similar in his article).  Basically it boils down to the fact that the cuts are gradual - you start out with zero cuts in 2010, and end up at 80% in 2050.  If it were a linear change, you would get a 40% cut in 2030, less before that, more after.  On average, you have a 40% cut over the full period.  I'll try to explain a little better.
2011-02-24 16:26:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Perhaps a graphic and discussion of the Nash equilibrium?  That's basically all the Tragedy of the Commons is: an exercise of Game Theory.  Something like this:

http://www.kevinhinde.com/elearning/Strategic%20Management/images/PDGame.gif

Acting alone, an individual will choose the option that has the best outcome for himself compared to the other's no matter what the other person's choice.  This can lead to the least beneficial result.  Working together, they can maximize the overall outcome.

2011-02-24 16:28:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148
Well, really shouldn't say "no matter what" the other choice, rather "taking into account" the other person's choice.
2011-02-24 16:34:00
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.102

Got it now.  How about this then:

 

If Australia were to achieve its 80% emissions reduction target by 2050, the country's average emissions cut over the next 40 years would be approximately 40%.

2011-02-24 19:46:06
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80
If Australia cut at a constant rate to get to 80% lower emissions by 2050, then it would have emitted 40% less CO2 by 2050 than it would have done at today's rates perhaps?
2011-02-24 20:42:10Rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.223.91.161
Do you think it's possible to make the rebuttal more generic without the MM references.
2011-02-25 03:45:54got it
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Good suggestions Daniel and Mark, thanks.  Alex, I'll look into Nash equilibrium.  John, sure, I'll make the rebuttal more generic. 

I'm striking out in trying to find useful papers though.

2011-02-25 07:39:41
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

For perhaps a way to phrase any Nash Equilibrium info, I answered one question on Y!A regarding that:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ara7Ved3ybHl1LO6bgA9ZrHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110224023243AAartpe

At the bottom. 

2011-02-25 08:01:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Oh I didn't realize Alex = AMP.  Hi AMP!  Yes, that's a good explanation of Nash equilibrium.  I'll make use of it.
2011-02-25 23:35:40Emissions would have risen
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.156

Surely the average emissions cut is more than 40%, because in BAU Australia’s emissions would have risen between now and 2050.

2011-02-26 11:28:51simplifying
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
True, it's more than a 40% average cut as compared to BAU, but it's an average 40% cut from current levels.  Just trying to keep it simple.