Re: [asa] Copenhagen Consensus on Global Aid (Warming)

My main objection is that the consensus looks at cost-benefit. In
other words, investment of a single dollar returns x dollars.
Furthermore the budget is limited and has to be divided amongst
competing cases. But what is the cost of ignoring global warming on
health and hunger, one of the other causes involved? The impact of
global warming will be much more extreme for developing countries.

Yohe's damages estimates are based on a study which is on the lower
end of the damage estimate spectrum. It also ignores that early
action may be far more relevant than letting the climate changes reach
a potential 'tipping point'

<quote> Applying benefit-cost analysis to a technology-based program
aimed at stabilizing climate is a dubious proposition. The results,
timing, scalability of successful technologies, and success in
reducing their costs on the one hand, and the climate change damages
avoided (benefits) on the other are so uncertain as to make benefit
cost assessment little more than impressionistic. Of more concern is
that benefit cost ratios could easily distract from the message of the
paper: that not only is the technology challenge to stabilization
huge, but analyses that use emission scenarios as baselines
systematically understate the magnitude of the challenge.
</quote>

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. What are the specific problems with the models in the
> Copenhagen report?
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's not what I said.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:47 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So, unless one thinks a priori that global warming is the top priority,
>> > one
>> > can't create a scientifically valid economic model to measure and rank
>> > priorities? Sounds upside down to me.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:23 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, if one is skeptic of the fact of global warming then it is
>> >> unlikely that one will consider it to be a relevant priority. Garbage
>> >> in, garbage out and no economist is going to make a difference when
>> >> the assumptions are flawed. However, worse, the mistake is to look at
>> >> short term versus long term impact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-copenhagen-consensus/
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:06 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The Copenhagen Consensus released a report on what sorts of
>> >> > international
>> >> > investment will likely produce the most return for humanity. See
>> >> > here:
>> >> > http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788
>> >> >
>> >> > Top of the list: micronutrients, lowering trade barriers, deworming.
>> >> > Middle of the list: R&D for low carbon technology. Bottom of the
>> >> > list:
>> >> > global warming mitigation. Not on the list: population control
>> >> > (though
>> >> > it's not clear this was studied).
>> >> >
>> >> > It is fair to note, of course, that the Copenhagen Consensus project
>> >> > is
>> >> > headed by Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
>> >> > But
>> >> > the panel included some pretty impressive economists, including nobel
>> >> > laureate Vernon Smith (inventor of the "combinatorial auction" for
>> >> > wireless
>> >> > spectrum and other infrastructure resources), and others.
>> >> > --
>> >> > David W. Opderbeck
>> >> > Associate Professor of Law
>> >> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> >> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Associate Professor of Law
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 7 16:59:56 2008