Re: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 06 2009 - 20:34:14 EST

The cost below assumes some cap and trade or equivalent mitigation. If it's business as usual it's much more expensive. Or to put it another way, the later you mitigate CO2 the greater the total cost is. And if you think that this is the ONLY cost of climate change adaptation then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. :-)

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

On Dec 6, 2009, at 6:06 PM, John Walley wrote:

> Great. That settles it. $1.2T * .25% in 100 years from now is a much better deal than Cap and Trade now. I'm sold.
>
> See how efficient free market economics are? :)
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 7:51:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 5:32 PM, John Walley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes a Freudian typo due to my exasperation but I was not telling you where to go as that would be beneath even my somewhat lax standards of email debate, but I was trying to point out your blind spot on this however and that we agree that you should take your own advice and look at the data, all of it. This tired selective data argument is a canard that I run into frequently but it loses its effect when we are no longer debating about anything that the selected data has any relevance on.
>>
>> As far as your proposed mitigation analysis, I haven't thought about it but to the continental US, I could see Miami Beach and San Diego turning into Venice at high tides and maybe some more Louisiana wetlands but we could survive that. And if it happened over 50 years that would hardly be catastrophic or financially ruinous. And the cost of not reducing our emissions would obviously be zero so from a domestic pure cost perspective, the better business case is do nothing. Especially if we can't stop the rise anyway.
>>
>> However, the more realistic analysis would be what it would cost us to choke down emissions to some reduced levels in terms of jobs and economic productivity. I think we all agree that would be substantial and I am sure the CEI has some numbers on that and then the needed comparison would what the lack of sea level rise would buy the rest of the world, since it likely wouldn't be benefitting us. And then we have to weigh in the likelihood that our sacrifices would be met with equal sacrifice from other countries or whether it would be in vain. And currently we don't have this commitment.
>
>
> Sugiyama et al at MIT estimated a 1m linear rise in a century to have a $1.2 trillion dollar cost in 1995 dollars. The largest nation affected is the U.S. with roughly 1/4 the total costs. This was just protection and wetlands costs and does not take into account any emigration costs.
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 6 20:34:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 06 2009 - 20:34:34 EST