450Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Your correction is acknowledged. Stern's estimates of costs will cost more than a couple of years of growth. But the Stern review was just just one - non peer reviewed - report. It was heavily criticised by economists who had already done major reports in this area. The reference for warming costing 1 to 2 years of growth came from a 2009 ESRI paper by Richard Tol. Another, William Nordhaus, described as the foremost climate economic modeller has estimated the total costs of warming this century to be $23trillion. Using the 4 main IPCC SRES scenarios, average projected income for this century is $2300trillion. (Lomborg 'Cool it' 2007 pp. 163). These figures are obviously not cast iron but even if the cost was out 10 fold higher, the world would still be vastly better off in 2100 than today.Originally Posted by Húrin
Another perpective is to compare incomes again using the IPCC SRES. (Stern used the A2 scenario in his report). In the A1FI and B1 world's international trade is encouraged leading to a far richer world than A2 and B2. Because the wealth is more dispersed in A1FI and B1, global inequality is reduced and population growth more stabilized at 7.9bn by 2085. Developing country incomes/capita are respectively $66,000 and $40,000 (1990 US$) compared to a global average today of $7000. This is why a GWP cut of 5% from even 2085 is a very small burden to carry relative to the real poor - today's generation.
Source:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf
You may not agree with the determinations in the above paper but all the figures are drawn from official reports through the UN or the UK's DEFRA.
With respect to India's agricultural concerns, India's economy has grown by 6.2% for the last decade (Economist world figures 2008). Even if it's income was to continue to grow at half that, income by 2085 would be $7000+. No country in the world today with that income has a problem feeding it's people. If the EU and to a lesser extent, the developed world opened itself up to freer global trade, India's growth prospects would be even greater. And this is to say nothing of the increased stock of knowledge we will have in the future.
Finally, the obvious problem with opening up trade and enabling a rapid acceleration of developing world growth is that emissions would rise faster. But what economists are trying to do is to maximize global welfare. This is done by aiming to allocate our resources appropriately on the various challenges and opportunities we face. At this stage of our development we will get far more in return for encouraging free trade and doing things like fighting AIDS than we will from making deep cuts in CO2 emissions.
My own relatively lay opinion on all this is to support the proposals of the likes of Nordhaus and Tol. That is to start adressing CO2 with a modest global carbon tax (<$10/tonne CO2). This would mainly wean out the wasted CO2 first costing the world little and then as the decades pass and more energy options open up through technological growth, the tax would be ramped up ($80 by 2100). Total CO2 cuts by 2100 would likely be less than 15% from 1990 but aiming for higher would be sub optimal.
Regards,
Jethro.
Reply With Quote
