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

I'm not sure I understand the objection. All economic modeling is
cost-benefit analysis; without cost-benefit analysis, we can't do any
rational economic work at all on climate change.

I like Yohe's notion of a "portfolio" approach:

<quote>Fighting climate change can be a sound investment, even though
neither mitigation nor adaptation alone will be enough to "solve" the
problem. To make a real difference, especially in the near term, the world
must combine mitigation and adaptation with increased research and
development into carbon-saving and sequestering technology, which in turn
requires designing and exploiting market-based incentives. </buote> (
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/yohe1)

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:59 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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.