Monday, February 08, 2010

Stat of the day

Bjørn Lomborg:
...Trying to force drastic cuts in carbon emissions makes no economic sense. All the major climate economic models show that, to achieve the much discussed goal of keeping temperature increases under two degrees, we would need a global tax on carbon emissions that would start at $106 per ton (or about 25 cents per litre of gasoline) – and increase to $4,200 per ton (or $9.83 per litre of gasoline) by the end of the century.

In all, this would cost the world $42-trillion a year. Most mainstream calculations conclude that, all in all, this spending would be 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it seeks to prevent.
A cost-benefit analysis has to be part of any serious conversation about global warming.


caynazzo said...

Why doesn't the technology non-answer you provided for why we shouldn't be worried about AGW apply here?

caynazzo said...

Most large corporations are in favor of climate change regulation because they want regulatory certainty.


1. China needs to bear its share.

2. the US can use carbon-neutralizing tariffs at ports of entry, so that the carbon-tax for imported items is similar to the carbon-tax (or quota cost) for domestically produced items.

Of course the honest debate is about the flaw in the market, which failed to recognize and allocate for the cost of burning fossil fuels, and how to calculate that cost.

Colin said...

Well, actually I do think that technology should play a role in the discussion.

As for large corporations, many of them favor climate change regulation both in order to profit off of it (e.g. GE) or to place a burden on smaller competitors.