symple19
10-01-2013, 01:07 PM
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/climate-activists-need-to-dial-back-on-the-panic/?iid=op-main-belt
We need to get back to reality. Yes, global warming is happening. In the long run, it has an overall negative impact. But actually — and surprisingly for many — economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092). Worldwide and in almost all regions, many more people die from cold than heat. With increasing temperatures, avoided cold deaths will vastly outweigh extra heat deaths. By midcentury,researchers estimate (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905003423) 400,000 more heat deaths but 1.8 million fewer cold deaths.
(MORE: Can Climate Skeptics Save the Planet? (http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/the-right-just-might-save-the-planet/))
Likewise, CO2 fertilizes crops and will increase production more in temperate countries than it will slow down crop increases in tropical countries. It will reduce heating costs more than it will increase cooling costs.
A new study by climate economist Richard Tol that is featured in my forthcoming book,How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?: A Scorecard From 1900 to 2050 (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/economic-development-and-growth/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world-scorecard-1900-2050), shows that since 1900, global warming has been an increasing net benefit for humanity and will peak around 2025 with an annual benefit of about 1.5% of GDP. Only toward the end of the century will global warming turn to a net loss — so while we need to do something, it must be cost-effective.
The problem is that we have been enacting policies that are phenomenally expensive but do little good. Take the world’s most significant climate policy, the so-called EU 20/20. The average of the top economic-energy models show (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.018) that this policy costs $250 billion annually, mostly in reduced growth. Over the 21st century it will cost about $20 trillion in total. Yet, on a standard climate model, by the end of the century, it reduces the temperature rise by a trivial 0.1°F. For every dollar spent, it avoids 3¢ of global-warming damages.
Perhaps tellingly, the IPCC report got much less attention outside a worried Europe. The U.S. media was entirely consumed with the government’s looming debt-ceiling crisis. Meanwhile, much of the developing world understandably has more important priorities. We need to fix global warming, but we need to find smarter strategies to do so. Economists including three Nobel laureates in the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate found (http://fixtheclimate.com/) that the smartest, long-term solution would be not to subsidize today’s hugely inefficient green technologies but to focus on innovating to push down the costs of future generations of wind, solar and the many other, amazing possibilities. If future green technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, not just subsidized, well-meaning Westerners.
The moderate new IPCC report ought to make our debate more constructive. Instead of being scared silly, we need to realize that global warming is one of many challenges to tackle during the 21st century and start fixing it now with low-cost, realistic innovation.
We need to get back to reality. Yes, global warming is happening. In the long run, it has an overall negative impact. But actually — and surprisingly for many — economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092). Worldwide and in almost all regions, many more people die from cold than heat. With increasing temperatures, avoided cold deaths will vastly outweigh extra heat deaths. By midcentury,researchers estimate (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905003423) 400,000 more heat deaths but 1.8 million fewer cold deaths.
(MORE: Can Climate Skeptics Save the Planet? (http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/the-right-just-might-save-the-planet/))
Likewise, CO2 fertilizes crops and will increase production more in temperate countries than it will slow down crop increases in tropical countries. It will reduce heating costs more than it will increase cooling costs.
A new study by climate economist Richard Tol that is featured in my forthcoming book,How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?: A Scorecard From 1900 to 2050 (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/economic-development-and-growth/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world-scorecard-1900-2050), shows that since 1900, global warming has been an increasing net benefit for humanity and will peak around 2025 with an annual benefit of about 1.5% of GDP. Only toward the end of the century will global warming turn to a net loss — so while we need to do something, it must be cost-effective.
The problem is that we have been enacting policies that are phenomenally expensive but do little good. Take the world’s most significant climate policy, the so-called EU 20/20. The average of the top economic-energy models show (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.018) that this policy costs $250 billion annually, mostly in reduced growth. Over the 21st century it will cost about $20 trillion in total. Yet, on a standard climate model, by the end of the century, it reduces the temperature rise by a trivial 0.1°F. For every dollar spent, it avoids 3¢ of global-warming damages.
Perhaps tellingly, the IPCC report got much less attention outside a worried Europe. The U.S. media was entirely consumed with the government’s looming debt-ceiling crisis. Meanwhile, much of the developing world understandably has more important priorities. We need to fix global warming, but we need to find smarter strategies to do so. Economists including three Nobel laureates in the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate found (http://fixtheclimate.com/) that the smartest, long-term solution would be not to subsidize today’s hugely inefficient green technologies but to focus on innovating to push down the costs of future generations of wind, solar and the many other, amazing possibilities. If future green technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, not just subsidized, well-meaning Westerners.
The moderate new IPCC report ought to make our debate more constructive. Instead of being scared silly, we need to realize that global warming is one of many challenges to tackle during the 21st century and start fixing it now with low-cost, realistic innovation.