More on “Risky Business”
Part 2 at IER of my commentary on “Risky Business,” the climate change analysis co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson, and Thomas Steyer. An excerpt:
Thus we see the fundamental flip-flop: Rubin’s long quotation from page 44 can only make sense if the Report is urging a globally-coordinated government crackdown on carbon emissions. Yet on the very next page, Snowe claims that “we” (which presumably means the Americans reading the report, which focuses on regional U.S. impacts) have the power to avert this catastrophe.
These two claims do not fit together. Even if policymakers took Rubin’s advice to “act now” and immediately halted all further U.S. carbon dioxide emissions forever, this draconian move would only make global temperaturesone-tenth of a degree Celsius cooler in the year 2100 than they would otherwise be, if the U.S. government took no action.
Incidentally, here is the video compilation I made the graphics guy at IER assemble, in response to Paulson saying he knows about risk management and that’s why we should take him seriously as he lectures us on climate change:
“Rubin’s long quotation from page 44 can only make sense if the Report is urging a globally-coordinated government crackdown on carbon emissions.” I don’t accept that. It makes sense if global reductions are achieved through any mechanism. As the biggest emitter, USA must set an example if others are to follow. USA does not have the power on its own to avert the costs. It does have the power to ensure they are not averted.
“Even if policymakers took Rubin’s advice to “act now” and immediately halted all further U.S. carbon dioxide emissions forever, this draconian move would only make global temperatures one-tenth of a degree Celsius cooler in the year 2100 than they would otherwise be, if the U.S. government took no action.” You cannot possibly know this because you do not know how it will affect the behaviour of others.
“When it comes to adapting to potential climate change—by considering sea level rise when building new hotels, or wondering how long the winters will be over the next few decades before building a new ski lodge—private business owners have the proper incentives to get their forecasts correct.”
In order for these adaptations to be made it is essential that the climate change is not minimised. From the temperature calculating site you link to “IPCC modestly-educated guess is 3.0°C, but a collection of reports from the recent scientific literature puts the value around 2.0°C, and based on recent global temperature behavior, a value of 1.5°C may be most appropriate.”
The collection of reports was based on one of several techniques for estimating climate sensitivity and ignored the others. The 1.5°C is presumably based on short term data and thus almost certainly meaningless. To promote this as “most appropriate” is going to prevent private individuals and businesses from adapting appropriately.
Harold wrote:
In order for these adaptations to be made it is essential that the climate change is not minimised. From the temperature calculating site you link to “IPCC modestly-educated guess is 3.0°C, but a collection of reports from the recent scientific literature puts the value around 2.0°C, and based on recent global temperature behavior, a value of 1.5°C may be most appropriate.”
The collection of reports was based on one of several techniques for estimating climate sensitivity and ignored the others. The 1.5°C is presumably based on short term data and thus almost certainly meaningless. To promote this as “most appropriate” is going to prevent private individuals and businesses from adapting appropriately.
Harold, that website doesn’t force you to pick 1.5C, it gives you the choice. Whether you pick 1.5, 2, or 3 as the ECS, rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree, the answer is the same: Complete cessation of all US emissions means global temperatures in the year 2100 are 0.1C cooler than otherwise would be.
It says “based on recent global temperature behaviour 1.5°C may be the most appropriate.” This does not represent the science.
The point is clear either way -USA reductions on their own will not make very much difference -this is a global problem. I just wish there were not attempts to smuggle in mis-information about the science of global warming among economic and political discussions. The point would have remained without this confirmation bias based distortion of the climate sensitivity.
My other point remains. The effect of USA reductions will not only be on USA emissions. The USA affects policy in other countries. It may be accurate to say that the CO2 not emitted directly by the USA will result in 0.1°C lower temperature. It is not accurate to say global temperatures will be 0.1°C lower, because the temperature is the result of more than the direct emissions from the USA.
Heh.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/14/news/economy/bernanke_paulson/