See
The Trump-Climate Freakout by Oren Cass. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the forthcoming report “The Costs of Climate Change Are Real — and Manageable.”
"The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by
William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs
of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP
in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575
percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model
estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the
remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today.
Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27
percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no
point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth.
Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the
prosperity of the not-warming 2100.
Zach (the DNC staffer who reportedly stormed out of a post-election meeting upset that “I am going to die from climate change) might take issue with DICE’s underlying scientific and economic
assumptions, yet the model produces cost estimates much higher than
those of the PAGE and FUND models, which are also considered by the
Social Cost of Carbon analysis. And while not every potential effect of
climate change lends itself to quantification in economic terms,
remember: This is the approach chosen by the Obama administration — not a
group often known for trying to minimize the climate threat."
"Further, Trump is not significantly altering the likelihood of
incurring these costs, because the climate agenda he intends to unravel
is a failure already. Domestically, even the EPA acknowledged that its
Clean Power Plan will have no meaningful influence on future
temperatures. The State Department said the same about blocking the
Keystone XL pipeline. The purported value of these policies was to
display international “leadership.”
But the global picture is no better. Even with U.S. “leadership,” the
commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look
almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the
agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s
Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance,
projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C
with it.
Proponents of the agreement argue it will nonetheless spur clean-energy
investment. “It is going to move the marketplace,” said Secretary of
State John Kerry. It is “a break-away agreement which actually changes
the paradigm.” It is “going to spur massive investment.”
Instead, investment has plummeted. Over the first three quarters of
2016, global clean-energy investment is down 29 percent relative to
2015. Q3 investment saw a 43 percent drop from Q3 2015 — falling to its
lowest level since the George W. Bush administration."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.