Limits...
A multidisciplinary, science-based approach to the economics of climate change.

Carlin A - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2011)

Bottom Line: The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses, as follows: The economic benefits of reducing CO(2) emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO(2) emissions reductions on atmospheric CO(2) appear to be short rather than long lasting.Geoengineering such as solar radiation management is a controversial alternative to CO(2) emissions reductions that offers opportunities to greatly decrease these large costs, change global temperatures with far greater assurance of success, and eliminate the possibility of low probability, high consequence risks of rising temperatures, but has been largely ignored by economists.CO(2) emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the very modest benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Carlin Economics and Science, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA. carlineconomics@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives to the change proposed. These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses, as follows: The economic benefits of reducing CO(2) emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO(2) emissions reductions on atmospheric CO(2) appear to be short rather than long lasting. The costs of CO(2) emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified. Geoengineering such as solar radiation management is a controversial alternative to CO(2) emissions reductions that offers opportunities to greatly decrease these large costs, change global temperatures with far greater assurance of success, and eliminate the possibility of low probability, high consequence risks of rising temperatures, but has been largely ignored by economists. CO(2) emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the very modest benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

Show MeSH
Graph depicting Orssengo’s hypothesis concerning global temperatures. Source: Orssengo [48].
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3118875&req=5

f5-ijerph-08-00985: Graph depicting Orssengo’s hypothesis concerning global temperatures. Source: Orssengo [48].

Mentions: Another hypothesis by Orssengo [48] to explain temperature variation based on ground-based readings over the last 130 years assumes a gradually increasing trend presumably starting from the Dalton Minimum of the Little Ice Age with a 60-year cycle superimposed on it without reference to carbon dioxide or any of the other physical variables tried by d’Aleo [47]. It is illustrated in Figure 5, which compares ground measurements of global temperatures with the hypothesis. This hypothesis may or may not prove to be accurate in forecasting future global temperatures, but Orssengo finds that it has an 88 percent correlation with past temperatures over the period studied. As shown in the figure, there are only a few years in the late 1890s and 1950s that do not appear to fit the hypothesis very well. So no strong support for the IPCC’s CO2 hypothesis is evident here either.


A multidisciplinary, science-based approach to the economics of climate change.

Carlin A - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2011)

Graph depicting Orssengo’s hypothesis concerning global temperatures. Source: Orssengo [48].
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3118875&req=5

f5-ijerph-08-00985: Graph depicting Orssengo’s hypothesis concerning global temperatures. Source: Orssengo [48].
Mentions: Another hypothesis by Orssengo [48] to explain temperature variation based on ground-based readings over the last 130 years assumes a gradually increasing trend presumably starting from the Dalton Minimum of the Little Ice Age with a 60-year cycle superimposed on it without reference to carbon dioxide or any of the other physical variables tried by d’Aleo [47]. It is illustrated in Figure 5, which compares ground measurements of global temperatures with the hypothesis. This hypothesis may or may not prove to be accurate in forecasting future global temperatures, but Orssengo finds that it has an 88 percent correlation with past temperatures over the period studied. As shown in the figure, there are only a few years in the late 1890s and 1950s that do not appear to fit the hypothesis very well. So no strong support for the IPCC’s CO2 hypothesis is evident here either.

Bottom Line: The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses, as follows: The economic benefits of reducing CO(2) emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO(2) emissions reductions on atmospheric CO(2) appear to be short rather than long lasting.Geoengineering such as solar radiation management is a controversial alternative to CO(2) emissions reductions that offers opportunities to greatly decrease these large costs, change global temperatures with far greater assurance of success, and eliminate the possibility of low probability, high consequence risks of rising temperatures, but has been largely ignored by economists.CO(2) emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the very modest benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Carlin Economics and Science, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA. carlineconomics@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives to the change proposed. These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses, as follows: The economic benefits of reducing CO(2) emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO(2) emissions reductions on atmospheric CO(2) appear to be short rather than long lasting. The costs of CO(2) emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified. Geoengineering such as solar radiation management is a controversial alternative to CO(2) emissions reductions that offers opportunities to greatly decrease these large costs, change global temperatures with far greater assurance of success, and eliminate the possibility of low probability, high consequence risks of rising temperatures, but has been largely ignored by economists. CO(2) emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the very modest benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

Show MeSH