3 ms·

William Nordhaus and his cost estimates are themselves controversial and by no means some kind of standard in the field of climate mitigation economics. For peo

William Nordhaus and his cost estimates are themselves controversial and by no means some kind of standard in the field of climate mitigation economics. For people who paid attention, this was brought up when he won his prize. [1] I dare say the IPCC knows better than both Econlib and Nordhaus. There isn't much of an analysis here. They ignore the most obvious huge cost: the risk of reaching the tipping-point after which global warming would be unstoppable. They ignore the positive externalities of climate action, which are plenty in themselves. They ignore the fact that it is not possible to not act now and then suddenly put on the brakes on warming when we reach whatever target they deem appropriate. 1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-climate-catastrophe/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-cli...

delianmarks 7y ago
The strange thing is that if there is such positive externalities for climate policies why don't rich countries that can afford to pay more for energy be more aggresive in reducing emissions? Even Germany, for instance, isn't spending as much as it could to reduce emissions. If reducing emissions are so important why aren't German business forced to purchase electricity at the market rate(with renewable subsidies builtin) the same way consumers are? Complaining about growth in rich countries basically misses the mark. It isn't rich countries that are driving greenhouse emissions but developing countries that can't afford renewable energy wihtout cutting investment and thus growth. Less growth means that people in the present will be worse off as well and they have less resources to ameliorate the social consequences of a stagnant economy. Of course, rich countries that cut growth will be less rich. That means all else being equal workers will be paid less(because they live in a less wealthy economy) and the lack of growth will cause similar (if more manageable) social impacts as in developing economies. Saying that you could still be 'happy' living in such a country misses the point entirely. You would never rationally believe such an outcome of being economically poorer shouldn't be avoided if at all possible.

delianmarks 7y ago

The strange thing is that if there is such positive externalities for climate policies why don't rich countries that can afford to pay more for energy be more aggresive in reducing emissions? Even Germany, for instance, isn't spending as much as it could to reduce emissions. If reducing emissions are so important why aren't German business forced to purchase electricity at the market rate(with renewable subsidies builtin) the same way consumers are? Complaining about growth in rich countries basically misses the mark. It isn't rich countries that are driving greenhouse emissions but developing countries that can't afford renewable energy wihtout cutting investment and thus growth. Less growth means that people in the present will be worse off as well and they have less resources to ameliorate the social consequences of a stagnant economy. Of course, rich countries that cut growth will be less rich. That means all else being equal workers will be paid less(because they live in a less wealthy economy) and the lack of growth will cause similar (if more manageable) social impacts as in developing economies. Saying that you could still be 'happy' living in such a country misses the point entirely. You would never rationally believe such an outcome of being economically poorer shouldn't be avoided if at all possible.