…is not a one-sided threat. For those people who don’t understand discount rates, a graphical presentation.
This is a problem that just begs to have a regret analysis performed on it. Of course, we have a media that can’t even do simple division, so why would we expect them to understand net present value?
[Update on Tuesday morning]
It’s the economic growth, stupid:
Here are some other metrics. The percentage of the world’s population that is at risk for coastal flooding is well under 1% in the baseline, and is not projected to rise close to 1% in any scenario within the 95-year forecast. Malaria deaths have historically been in effect eliminated by societies that achieve several thousand dollars per year of per capita income — the key risk here is once again slower economic growth that keeps parts of the developing world poorer longer.
Again and again, we see the same pattern: At least for the next century, changes in human welfare, even on metrics that are not purely economic, are fundamentally driven by changes in economic development, not AGW damages. This is why it makes sense to be focused acutely on risks to economic growth when considering the overall effects of any emissions-mitigation program.
Most people who advocate nonsense like cap and trade are ignorant of the science, but even more are ignorant of economics, including the “scientists.”
Even if there were a consensus for “global warming” among scientists, that circumstance would not be dispositive of the issue because “global warming” is being used as a two-word abbreviation for perhaps half a dozen claims, many of which do not concern climate science at all.
For example, “global warming” unpacks at least to: (1) The Earth’s surface has been getting warmer for a century due to human activity, in particular, the addition of GHG to the atmosphere. (Climate science) (2) Unless stopped by some powerful resolve, will continue to add significant quantities of GHG to the atmosphere for the next century or two. (Sheer speculation) (3) The additional GHG in the atmosphere will lead to considerably more warming. (Climate science) (4) The additional warming will be bad for us. (Economics) (5) Changing our ways now will cost less than dealing with the resulting global warming. (Economics, plus sheer speculation) (6) Doing something about global warming later, by some kind of geoengineering project, will be impractical. (Sheer speculation)
If any one of these claims fails, the climate issue has no legs; and most of them are not matters where the opinions of climate scientists are better than anyone else’s.
You’re looking at it from a point of view of science and economics and logic and common sense, Mark. It makes much more sense if you look at it through a Machiavellian lens.