...to the Stern Report:

Stern’s novelty was to produce two figures: that global warming would eventually reduce the size of the world economy by 10% if left to fester; but that curbing emissions at his recommended level would cost only 1% of global wealth.

Between those two suspiciously certain figures lies a world of conjecture, supposition and stabs in the dark. Stern is the ecological equivalent of a dodgy intelligence dossier revealing weapons of mass destruction which don’t exist – which makes it a typical Blairite production. Doubts have been hardened into certainties, contradictory facts downplayed or omitted. The result is a tax-raising manifesto which could see Great Britain – which generates just 2% of world carbon emissions – sleepwalk into a growth-destroying agenda which will hit the poorest hardest.

Meanwhile, at the University of Arizona, Roger Angel has a better idea:

"The concept builds on existing technologies," Angel said. "It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in about 25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars. With care, the solar shade should last about 50 years. So the average cost is about $100 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the global domestic product."

Much cheaper!

Some comments on the Stern report, via Number Watch:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2006%20November.htm

If it were all about going nuclear, I'd figure that AGW was a government ploy to get around imported oil without upseting the Sheiks. It's the insistence on covering the land with ugly windmills that doesn't compute.

ADD: All the AGW stuff has got me to pondering.

The malthusians who are so damn eager to see horrible death associated with technological progress are also those folks who find consumerism and plenty sinful. Their solution for the impending apocalypse of the week is aways more sacrifice and a more impoverished human lifestyle. A simple and recent example is how long we kept the 60mph speed limit, well after the oil crisis had passed.

No wonder the policial gurus are attempting to link up the evangelicals and the greens. They have much the same philosophy and, I suspect, much the same psychological issues.

Not only cheaper, Rand, but with the delightful side benefit of providing a large, long-term market for space transportation, both during the construction and maintenance phases.

Rand,
For a really good take on Stern,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3ZHJVKDUSQYQ5QFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/11/05/do0511.xml

Mike

Rand

The problem is that space advocates have not adequately made the case for space. Space is the answer, but right now the only one that our friends on the other side want is the end of civilization.

Dennis

None of these are competitive at $5/ton carbon offsets. The hard question isn't how to offset, but how to pay for offset. "Bad guys should pay." is a political non-starter.

"It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in about 25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars."

As my physicist friends would say: Eh, what's an order of magnitude or two between friends?