The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Calculating the true cost of global climate change > Comments

Calculating the true cost of global climate change : Comments

By John Carey, published 19/1/2011

Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The complexity of this issue and the level of disagreement on the numbers are both well demonstrated in this article. However it skims over the critical threshold matter, which is the reluctance of much of the public to accept that it is useful or even legitimate to think seriously about the true cost of climate change. Cost is important for the simple reason that it is not rational to spend more on removing the next tonne of carbon emissions than the cost of the damage it would cause. That's a simple principle but very hard to put into practice, as the article shows. We know a lot about the abatement cost but little about the damage cost. Richard Tol looked at 88 estimates of damage costs per tonne of carbon emissions and found them to cover a range from less than $5 to over $200. That was a few years ago; the uncertainty has probably not gone down since then. So, while the principle is important to think about and debate, it’s not yet a real basis for action. Much better guidance comes from the quantum of emission reductions reckoned to keep global warming to some target level, say two degrees. Once that has been decided, look at the cost and check it out against the damage cost. It might not give a clear answer, but at least it’s rational. And that seems to be a big step for many.
Posted by Tombee, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 12:10:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2
in fact its the other way round.. what evidence will convince you that climate change just isn't happening as expected? None of the forecasts made by the IPCC sinbce 1990 have been bourne out. Almost all the seasonal climate forecasts made by the Met Office - an IPCC bastion - among others, have been laughably wrong.

Admittedly temperatures at the moment are high, but even if any of the theory is wright you still have the problem that you're dealing with a unproven forecasting system rather than a scientific theory.. no matter which you turn there are problems. There is no 90 per cent certainty about any of it.. time to admit the doubts.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 12:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“There is no 90 per cent certainty about any of it. time to admit the doubts.”
The Australian Academy of Science in its report of August 2010, The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers is a fair enough place to start looking at the range of knowledge available to assess certainties and doubts; and place whatever percentages any rational person wishes to place upon them.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 1:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

You state that "None of the forecasts made by the IPCC sinbce 1990 have been bourne out."

Could you please list say the top 5 forecasts they made as per one of their reports with a reference to which report and where in that report, and what actually happened in a table and post on this forum. Then we can have a proper basis for a discussion.

Thanks
Posted by Rich2, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 1:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is climate change a meaningful concept?

1. Is the direction towards higher temperatures? If so by how much and where? Does it mean warmer summers or milder winters or both?

2. Or is the direction towards long hard cold winters such as is
being experiences in Northern Europe, North America and North Asia?

3. Does it mean increased draughts or exceptional floods?

4. Does not mean that the climate of Perth which is now Mediterranean will suddenly metamorphose into either sub-arctic or tropical or what you will.

Peter Hume defined climate change as:

“We need to remember that "climate change" is shorthand for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action".

Peter is correct, “climate change” is a slogan employed by activists to bolster support for the greenhouse hypothesis. The fact is that daily the anthropogenic global warming story becomes less and less plausible
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 2:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Will ice caps melt without global warming, climate change, call it what you like. The thing is something is happening, nature is not happy.
To get science 100 % it will probably take considerable time. Man has been polluting at an increasing rate, which has now upset the balance of what the world can take. Cut down on the pollution and who knows what we may benefit.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 2:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy