Over at The Economist, long one of the publications beating the drum for radical cuts in our carbon output, Will Wilkinson notes the cooling of the “consensus.”
Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.
Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.
My emphasis. Those who have been hysterically advocating carbon reduction on the basis of computer models that are, bluntly, crap (I’m looking at you, Saint Al), completely ignore the very real economic consequences of their nostrums, particularly for the poorest for whom economic growth is essential. But the president continues to jack up our energy prices by fiat.
Wilkinson seems to confuse climate sensitivity with temperature volatility over time; volatility can give you temperature plateaus without telling you anything about long term sensitivity. He comes off as yet another non-scientist who’s in over his head. Yes, waiting a decade or two would give you better models, but so would waiting a century or two. His personal level of comfort with climate modeling is neither here nor there.
In addition, he has an apparently entirely unsupported belief that cutting emissions in rich countries will “exact a terrible humanitarian price” in poor countries. Does anyone really believe that rich countries are burning fossil fuels for the good of the poor of the developing world?
particularly for the poorest for whom economic growth is essential. But the president continues to jack up our energy prices by fiat
Do explain how Obama’s energy policies have hurt the poorest of the world.
“Do explain how Obama’s energy policies have hurt the poorest of the world.”
They have hurt economic growth, lowering imports and devastating export driven economies. When the rich sneeze, the poor catch the flu.
So any policy that helps US economic growth can be justified by the needs of the global poor? That’s pretty handy.
Tax cuts… the best form of foreign aid.
So any policy that helps US economic growth can be justified by the needs of the global poor? That’s pretty handy.
I get the impression you think that this idea has the virtue of convenience, but not somehow the virtue of being mostly correct.
Jim, why are your remarks are at such a variance with the article?
Quoting your remark, “volatility can give your temperature plateaus without telling you anything about long term sensitivity.” That is exactly what the author of that article is saying.
The author goes on to say that climate sensitivity is being questioned because the volatility cannot be assigned to other-than-CO2 forcing — the author has a link to some scientific view on this. But the author is not presenting this as the author’s view, merely as part of the discussion of how the current temperature plateau is affecting the political landscape. Really.
The author never, ever claims that the hardship to poor or developing countries would be anything other than the result of cutting energy consumption in those same countries. Read the article again if you disbelieve me. The author is speaking about cutting emissions in the poor countries has having the effect on the poor.
What the article also alludes to is the (political) difficulty of cutting emissions in the US. You along with everyone else knows of this works. America cutting emissions won’t do much or won’t do enough because of the growth in India, China, maybe Brazil and other rapidly developing countries. The Grand Bargain is that the US emits so much per capita (partly because we are wealthy SUV drivers with palatial houses, partly because we are so far north and hence cold — check out the per-capita on Canada or consider that the smug Europeans have an ocean-moderated climate).
The Bargain is that since the US uses so much per capita, the US would “show leadership” in foregoing some luxuries and the rest of the world (China!) would fall in line foregoing some economic growth, a policy that in the opinion of the authors would bring hardship. What is there to disagree with this view?
Yes, our esteemed host Rand is a Libertarian who needs “straightening out” from time to time, but we really need a more informed presentation of the opposing viewpoint.
That is exactly what the author of that article is saying.
I don’t think so. He refers to “now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity”. But there’s no reason for a temperature plateau to “trouble” those estimates.
The first part of the piece is about politics — that if temperatures don’t rise soon it will be hard to sell the American public on measures to reduce emissions. At the end he pivots to asking whether the “scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect” is “now falling apart”. He might be right about the political implications of flat temperatures, but the second, scientific argument is completely unfounded. He even quotes climate scientists to that effect!
The author is speaking about cutting emissions in the poor countries has having the effect on the poor.
Where does he make any mention of the climate policies of poor countries? This is an article by an American for an American and European audience. He is using global poverty as a bizarre rationale for higher U.S. carbon emissions.
Jim, you want an explanation of how Obama’s energy policies have hurt the poorest? That’s easy – he’s increased the cost of fuel and electricity via the EPA’s carbon policies. This increases the cost of most everything, from manufacturing to food. And increased prices hit the poor far harder than anyone else. Remember, this is that same Obama who declared that under his energy policies, electricity costs would “necessarily skyrocket”.
Another way Obama’s policies (in this instance with a helping hand from many farm state Republicans) hurts the poor is by starving them; the corn ethanol program uses a lot of corn, thus driving up its price, and therefor driving up the price of other staple foods as well as anything made from them (meat, dairy, eggs, etc). This is already having a major impact, especially in the third world.
And all of these prices are ‘fungible’.
That is: Yes, no one is buying American corn in Vietnam. But regular corn prices ends up raising ‘livestock corn’ prices. (People switch what they grow, or work harder to meet standards for retail, whatever). Ending up with someone, say chicken farmers, buying rice instead. Lots of rice. Raising the price in America for rice. Meaning more imports from places with rice. Like Vietnam. Meaning that there are people in far away places deciding “You know what, I could make more money selling this in America” … leading to higher -rice- prices in Vietnam. Not a -lot- higher necessarily.
Oil is even easier. The entire energy sector is basically fungible.
Do you really think that Obama’s raised the global price of oil?
the corn ethanol program uses a lot of corn
The corn ethonol program is stupid, but it isn’t as if it’d be any better with a different president.
He said energy and that includes electricity. Obama said he wanted to raise the price of electricity to consumers and to increase the costs and regulations of generating electricity in order to shut down industries he does not like for ideological reasons.
In light of the Obama administrations other abuses of power, it looks like the entire powers of the federal government are being used to “punish our enemies” as Obama would say. Who knew we we living in Venezuela?
You know, Obama would have been better off with a soft power approach to his domestic opponents and a hard power approach to our foreign opponents but instead we get the opposite where the treatment indured by Americans who Obama doesn’t like is often worse than we treat Iran, China, and AQ.
Let’s say that Obama succeeds in increasing the cost of coal-generated electricity. How does that make the world’s poorest people poorer?
the treatment indured by Americans who Obama doesn’t like is often worse than we treat Iran, China, and AQ
LOL. Name an American Obama doesn’t like who was treated worse than Al Qaeda. Has he been dropping Hellfires on Tea Party rallies?
Let’s say that Obama succeeds in increasing the cost of coal-generated electricity. How does that make the world’s poorest people poorer?
A portion of the global economy becomes more expensive. Poor people can buy less of whatever is dependent on that coal-generated electricity (or on competing products which increase in price as a result of a switch to alternative energy production) and hence, their buying power goes down.
The global price of oil is based on US dollars. Policies like quantitative easing reduce the buying power of dollars, so yes, they’re pushing up the global price of oil. Increased oil production on private land offsets the weaker dollar somewhat, but that has happened in spite of Obama, not because of his policies.
If Obama actually succeeded in reducing US fossil fuel consumption that would leave more supply for the rest of the world, reducing global prices. It’s hard to see how this would leave the poorest of the world worse off.
For decades Europe has had extremely high gas taxes, which has reduced consumption. Has that really hurt economic growth in Africa?
Yes. Think of all the African produce which could have been purchased with all that tax money.
Taxing gas instead of something else doesn’t cut spending on African produce. It does reduce oil demand, which makes oil cheaper for African farmers. Try again.
Seems you omitted an alternative.
Spoken like a true, narrow-vision, Regressivist.
If you want more more oil available for the poor countries, then drill and frack it. Flood the market drive the price down. Make energy so cheap that even the poorest, most destitute dirt-floor hut, African can run an A/C unit, and drive a land yacht.
Instead, all you can think to do is hurt, impoverish, steal from and destroy people you evidently hate in order to help someone else.
Do you not see that hurting some to give to others is evil and destined to fail?
No I don’t believe you do….
Obama talks about a lot of things like enacting carbon taxes and closing Gitmo. However it does not mean he is going to do either of those things.
The truth is so far the Federal administration has allowed shale oil extraction to continue as it was. Deep sea drilling is not being done in California because the state, rather than the federal government, is against it. Other than federal enforcement of deep sea drilling against the state’s wishes there is little he could be doing right now to increase extraction AFAIK.
The truth is so far the Federal administration has allowed shale oil extraction to continue as it was.
No, that’s not the truth. In fact, it’s completely false.
IOW, Obama’s lying. Thanks for noticing that.
You touch upon the hidden –and profoundly bigoted– message of the progressives to those in developing countries: just enough of us; way too many of you.
Sterilize the DNC!
Zero Population Growth for Berkeley!
(now all I need is a good ‘2-4-6-8’ chant, and I’m in business…)
High taxes on vehicle fuel lead to the manufacture and use of fuel-efficient cars, which has two beneficial effects. One is less money going to Dark Ages theocracies; the other is cleaner air in cities. Arguably, also, since more fuel-efficient cars are usually smaller they reduce congestion in cities, as well.
Given the larger area of most American cities compared to European ones the comparison might be quite difficult to do, but a comparison of actual expenditure on fuel between the USA and the UK might be interesting.