Mr. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale, picks through an impressive tool kit of the latest findings in climate study and economic theory. DICE informs him that with a possible increase in temperature of 2.5 degrees Celsius, global warming in 2070 can be expected to inflict economic losses and damage amounting to 1.5 percent of global output. That would not be trivial, but it wouldnât be devastating, either. He estimates that 90 percent of the United States economy would be negligibly or only lightly harmed by greater warming. Only 1.2 percent, mainly farming, now a mere sliver, would be hit hard.
That dollar damage would include items like lower crop yields and flooded waterfront properties. But the estimate does not cover the possible destruction of natural wonders like the Upper Amazon or thousands of species. Their loss cannot be captured in dollars, yet we must insist on protecting them when figuring costs and benefits, he says.
He expects that economic damage from climate change will probably be quite small compared with economic growth over the next half-century to century. But he warns that Mother Nature may play her hand in a way that upends logical forecasts and leads to global disaster.
In particular, he frets about four tipping points: the collapse of the large ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; large-scale changes in ocean circulation (possibly reversing the Gulf Stream); situations when warmth prompts more warmth (say, by the thawing of frozen methane); and the possibility of a warming trigger that may double the Earthâs temperature increase, to six degrees Celsius. (Even three degrees is now considered an unthinkable extreme.)
His views put him to the right of center on the ideological spectrum, but he has no patience with the few âcontrarianâ scientists and numerous political figures who contest the established science that global warming is real and ominous. Though he includes a hopeful chapter meant to appeal to thinking conservatives, not even DICE is smart enough to devise a solution to the intractable politics of climate change, which are stubbornly deadlocked.
Like many other experts, he sees a drastic reduction in the burning of coal as the obvious step in reducing greenhouse gases. He urges that we accomplish that by enacting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions of, say, $25 a ton for openers â or the equivalent in exchangeable pollution credits in the system known as cap and trade. And, he says, we need to do it right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/b...n-overview-of-global-warming.html?ref=science
That dollar damage would include items like lower crop yields and flooded waterfront properties. But the estimate does not cover the possible destruction of natural wonders like the Upper Amazon or thousands of species. Their loss cannot be captured in dollars, yet we must insist on protecting them when figuring costs and benefits, he says.
He expects that economic damage from climate change will probably be quite small compared with economic growth over the next half-century to century. But he warns that Mother Nature may play her hand in a way that upends logical forecasts and leads to global disaster.
In particular, he frets about four tipping points: the collapse of the large ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; large-scale changes in ocean circulation (possibly reversing the Gulf Stream); situations when warmth prompts more warmth (say, by the thawing of frozen methane); and the possibility of a warming trigger that may double the Earthâs temperature increase, to six degrees Celsius. (Even three degrees is now considered an unthinkable extreme.)
His views put him to the right of center on the ideological spectrum, but he has no patience with the few âcontrarianâ scientists and numerous political figures who contest the established science that global warming is real and ominous. Though he includes a hopeful chapter meant to appeal to thinking conservatives, not even DICE is smart enough to devise a solution to the intractable politics of climate change, which are stubbornly deadlocked.
Like many other experts, he sees a drastic reduction in the burning of coal as the obvious step in reducing greenhouse gases. He urges that we accomplish that by enacting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions of, say, $25 a ton for openers â or the equivalent in exchangeable pollution credits in the system known as cap and trade. And, he says, we need to do it right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/b...n-overview-of-global-warming.html?ref=science
ost-Glacial Sea Level.png