<Wednesday's Open Thread The Oil Drum The Megaproject update>

55 comments on Two small bits on cars and global warming

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

zeroworker7 on April 5, 2006 - 10:54am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
This conversation between the Internal Human and the Internal Economist might appear reasonable at first blush, but the economist is off his rocker.

How can you even BEGIN to total up the costs of global warming?  We have no idea.  Just to take one example, what is the cost of having all land based glaciers melt, and to lose the resulting runoff which feeds lakes and rivers (and provides water to irrigate crops)?

To do this kind of "analysis", you have to know what the effects of global warming will be.  We haven't a clue.  Do we know just how much warming there will be?  Do we know whether or not the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will melt?  Do we have any clue?

The notion that this kind of cost/benefit calculation can be made is simply laughable.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 5, 2006 - 11:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I totally agree. We have no clue. But we can at least try some guessmates... better than nothing, right? What I fear is that economics as always will choose not include in the costs the destruction of ecosystems and all other impacts we humans have chosen to ignore by default.

The second problem (unfortunately) is that the balance costs / gains would be different for the different players. Countries like USA and China will resist curbing CO2 emissions to the very end, while Nepal or UK will have it as top priority. The net effect would be similar to what we saw last year - the biggest CO2 level increase of all times.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
zeroworker7 on April 5, 2006 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi LevinK,

Sure, we can try to guesstimate.  But when I think about it, the ledger seems heavily weighted in the "climate change is bad" direction.

Our economy (not to mention the world's ecosystems) is adapted to the climate we've experienced up until now.  Whatever change occurs, it is highly unlikely that we will be better adapted to live in the changed conditions.

It is analagous to an organism.  I read an article yesterday (Peak Energy linked to it) about coral reefs dying en masse in the Carribean due to increasing water temperatures in the summer.  The environment changed in a way the coral is not used to.  They didn't flourish, they died.  I see the same negative consequences coming from global warming.

Cities are built on rivers as they exist now, the breadbaskets of the world are based in areas which currently have good growing conditions, etc.

I think the "we should do a cost/benefit analysis" argument is just a reasonable sounding smokescreen to delay taking preventive measures.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 5, 2006 - 2:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think the "we should do a cost/benefit analysis" argument is just a reasonable sounding smokescreen to delay taking preventive measures.

You probably think so, because it would be a daunting task and the interested parties will have the opportunity to argue against the conclusions for years.

But the reality is that a cost/benefits analysis is the only way to make those with money and power take some decisions and justify the enormous amounts of money that needs to be spend to tackle the problem.

In this analysis though I insist that we at least try to include the risks and the actual destruction of our environment due to GW. I realise that we can hardly price the extinction of the corals, but this is what our society is for - money. If you do not put a price tag for it nobody will take it serious. It may not be cynical, but so is the world we live in... Believe it or not, I've actually read in an economic textbooks how presumably smart people are calculating the cost of the human life - by the net present value of the expected income of the person until he/she retires. So the graduated student is "expensive", a retiree is worthed a lot less and if you are unemployed you are obviously worthed nothing... blah

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 5, 2006 - 2:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ooops that should read:

It may be cynical, but...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
zeroworker7 on April 5, 2006 - 3:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi LevinK,

Let me try to recap my position.

Performing a meaningful cost/benefit analysis of climate change is impossible.  There are too many unknowns, and any $ values you place on the costs and the benefits are just guesses.  The ultimate balance sheet is therefore worthless as a guide for future action (or inaction).

The only reason for asking for such an analysis would be to get someone bogged down in the discussion, to argue over the $ amounts, etc., in order to gum up the works and prevent any action from being taken to mitigate the problem.

The qualitative information we do have all points toward serious problems coming down the pike.  This is all we need.  I don't agree with the notion that everything needs to be put into $ terms before things can be discussed, or decisions reached about what policies to pursue.  I simply reject that hypothesis.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dinaz on April 6, 2006 - 8:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Perhaps it is better to consider that cost/benefit analysis related to climate change can occur at different scales. I think it is self evident that macro scale estimates as to the economic impacts of climate warming are impractical. Any figure cited by any group will invariably be skewed by the mandate of the group. But a choice between one technology or system and another can very easily be analysed for cost benefit, with consideration for effects externalised by classical economics. That is not to say that the valuation of the externalities will be accurate, but this does not mean that such valuation is useless. Indeed a major part of socioeconomically responding to climate change is devising new means of previously externalised costs. Measurement of economic flows is always developing and revising previous metrics. They are persistently imperfect but somehow, persistently practical. Why then should valuation of environmental and social impacts be rejected outright? IMHO it deserves a fair shot at development and integration into existing economic theory.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don Sailorman on April 6, 2006 - 9:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Speaking as an economist, I am a big fan of economic analysis--where it can be applied appropriately.

By its nature, economic theory is relatively well equipped to deal with incremental change, changes where parameters stay stable, functions that you can differentiate because they are continuous.

But in regard to discontinuities and parameters that suddenly become highly variable, traditional economic analysis breaks down. For example, could you do a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not it was of economic benefit for the U.S. to fight in World War II? I don't think so.

Similarly, when dealing with "lumpy" problems, you are forced to discard the sophisticated arsenal of economic "weapons of mass optimization" and fly by the seat of your pants.

Having said all that, I do believe in the effectiveness of market prices to help us find good responses to problems of increasingly costly oil and also effective approaches to various envirnomental problems. No, the market will not "save" us, but intelligent laws that use market forces as an alternative to government command/bureaucracies can make a huge difference to deal with what is one of the biggest challenges humans have faced since the onset of the last ice age.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
clifman on April 5, 2006 - 2:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, how much is the basis of the oceanic foodchain worth to us?  Coral reefs are dying in the warming seas http://www.w3ar.com/a.php?k=548, exacerbated by increased UV from ozone depletion, of course.  Either way, doesn't matter much, we humans are pretty unconcerned with our mode of destruction, s'long as we kill as much as possible.

Not to mention plankton, down by 30% in one study - http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html

Which, in concert with deforestation, may rob us of our breath - http://www.truehealth.org/oxydecl.html

How much is that worth?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on April 5, 2006 - 5:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
may rob us of our breath

How about this breath robbing:
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-02-05-report.htm

a particular engineered bacterium that had been approved by the USEPA for field testing.
These bacteria would therefore get into the root systems of all terrestrial plants and begin to produce alcohol. The engineered bacterium produces far beyond the required amount of alcohol per gram soil than required to kill any terrestrial plant.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Mad Maxout on April 5, 2006 - 7:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Where can you get these bioengineered yeast organisms? They would be a boon for alcoholics! No distilling needed to make vodka from switchgrass. The advantage is that as more people will want to drown their sorrows, they can cultivate their own drinkable E85 and it placates the teeming masses by getting them too drunk to care about anything. Could THIS be the best use of ethanol?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on April 5, 2006 - 10:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Where can you get these bioengineered yeast organisms?

Hopefully, one can't go out and obtain the bacteria.

No distilling needed to make vodka from switchgrass.

Vodka is defined as being at least 40% ethyl alcohol.   I know of no way to obrain such a level w/o distillation.

placates the teeming masses by getting them too drunk to care about anything.

The problem is, untill you die, you can eventually sober up.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fleam on April 6, 2006 - 12:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But killing more is Good.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

55 comments on Two small bits on cars and global warming

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version