http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-makes-climate-change-math.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:35:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-makes-climate-change-math.html#comment-2413 blueskies Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:19:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-makes-the-climate-change-math-work/#comment-2413 One of the main problems is that nobody knows how to achieve climate stability. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, if there is more then all other things being equal temperature will go up. The basic physics is clear. But worldwide climate modeling is not a solved problem. Models in use today do not explain the little ice age, or the medieval warm period. So, if a model does not match the past how do you use it to predict the future? you dont (if you are honest). Thats why the 13.8 number in the post made me cringe, 3 significant digits that is ridiculous. If you increase carbon dioxide you are conducting an experimient, you don't know what will happen. The argument should be "lets not experiment on climate". Next should be a discussion of PRACTICAL ways to reduce carbon dioxide. The list here is short, allow lighter cars to be sold (eg smart car), and use as much nuclear power as possible. The safety lobby blocks the first, and the environmental lobby blocks the second. If economists apply math to the issue they are wasting their time, the input values are not known. In the end they will not come up with an argument better than lets not experiment. Interesting that Arrow scores uncertain outputs as undesirable. He should just stop there. One of the main problems is that nobody knows how to achieve climate stability. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, if there is more then all other things being equal temperature will go up. The basic physics is clear. But worldwide climate modeling is not a solved problem. Models in use today do not explain the little ice age, or the medieval warm period. So, if a model does not match the past how do you use it to predict the future? you dont (if you are honest). Thats why the 13.8 number in the post made me cringe, 3 significant digits that is ridiculous. If you increase carbon dioxide you are conducting an experimient, you don’t know what will happen. The argument should be “lets not experiment on climate”. Next should be a discussion of PRACTICAL ways to reduce carbon dioxide. The list here is short, allow lighter cars to be sold (eg smart car), and use as much nuclear power as possible. The safety lobby blocks the first, and the environmental lobby blocks the second. If economists apply math to the issue they are wasting their time, the input values are not known. In the end they will not come up with an argument better than lets not experiment. Interesting that Arrow scores uncertain outputs as undesirable. He should just stop there.

]]> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-makes-climate-change-math.html#comment-2412 Ronnie Horesh Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:58:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/kenneth-arrow-makes-the-climate-change-math-work/#comment-2412 I can't help thinking that the cost-benefit method, in being applied here, has little relevance, or meaning. For one thing, it's being applied to the so-called costs of mitigation, but the uncertainties extend to the relationship between ghg emissions and climate change. I'd prefer to see climate change tackled directly and in fact targeting climate stability, rather than gas emissions, and subordinating policy to that would make life much easier. I suggest agreeing on a target for climate stability, and contracting out the achievement of a stable climate to the market. This means no prejudging of how best to achieve the goal: mitigation might be necessary, but there will other, possibly more efficient solutions, as yet unthought of by those who would commit us to gas reductions and <i>only</i> gas reductions. (More info on http://socialgoals.com/ieakyototext.html.) I can’t help thinking that the cost-benefit method, in being applied here, has little relevance, or meaning. For one thing, it’s being applied to the so-called costs of mitigation, but the uncertainties extend to the relationship between ghg emissions and climate change. I’d prefer to see climate change tackled directly and in fact targeting climate stability, rather than gas emissions, and subordinating policy to that would make life much easier. I suggest agreeing on a target for climate stability, and contracting out the achievement of a stable climate to the market. This means no prejudging of how best to achieve the goal: mitigation might be necessary, but there will other, possibly more efficient solutions, as yet unthought of by those who would commit us to gas reductions and only gas reductions. (More info on http://socialgoals.com/ieakyototext.html.)

]]>