All posts tagged Climate Change Analysis

Climate Change Policy in Perspective – Part 1 of 4

Introduction

In the Climate Change policy there lacks a simple framework to assess the policy. There is a large consensus of scientists telling us that a large rise in global temperature will occur, and that the only policy in offer is to constrain the growth in greenhouse gas emissions globally. Presented below is a simple graphical model to encapsulate the central policy arguments of the UNIPCC and the 2006 Stern Review. That is, there are policies that can be implemented that though costly, will be an order of magnitude less than the disastrous consequences of letting global temperatures rise unchecked. These consequences will not only affect the human race and for the rest of the planet. Use of this model allows analysis of the relative importance of various issues in devising policy and implementing global policies needed to achieve the consensus objectives.

The starting point for the analysis is to assume that two propositions are correct. First, that if we do nothing in two centuries global average temperatures will be at 5-10oC warmer than at present. Second, that there exists in theory a set of policies that will comfortably constrain CO2 emissions to prevent the atmospheric CO2 levels going above 600ppm and thus preventing global temperatures rising more than 2oC above current levels. I also start from a moral basis for policy that few will disagree with. Political action should only be taken if there is a reasonable expectation that the resulting outcome be a better situation than if no action was taken at all. The treatment, if not a full cure, should at least be expected to leave the patient in a better condition than without treatment. This, I would claim, is an absolute minimum requirement for action, as it can still leave moral dilemmas. For instance, if the policies cause the deaths of a million people, but prevents a 10% chance of 11 million people dying, then it is justified on this rule.

There are four parts to this explanation, which I will divide into separate blog postings. Part one, below, develops a graph replicating the standard consensus argument of the overwhelming consensus case for action. Part two addresses the issues with policy, relating this through movements in the policy curve. Part three evaluates the impacts of that warming, showing how changing the analysis of risk and time can radically change our perception of the costs. Part four brings these together for an overall conclusion, with indications of areas for further research.

The basis of the model is that global warming will create costly consequences, both for the human race and for the rest of the planet. Proposals to resolve this we also be costly. It is therefore to economics that we must turn to understand the issue from the top-down.

Part One – The Consensus Argument for Mitigation in Graphical Form

The following aims to replicate the mainstream consensus case of catastrophic climate change and the mitigation policies deemed necessary to combat it.

The Costly Consequences of Global Warming

We are already seeing some of the minor consequences of increasing greenhouse gases through disrupted climate. But the scientists tell us this will be as nothing compared to what will happen if greenhouse gases continue to increase unchecked for the next century or more. The large increases in temperature – around 4oC to 7oC or higher – would cause massive disruption to the climate system. It is fair to say that as global temperatures increase, these costs would increase exponentially. These “costs” are in the broadest sense. They are not just the human costs of property damage, failed harvests, population migrations and land being submerged by rising seas. These include the damage to the eco-systems and species extinction. Graphically it would look something like this.

There is no scale on this graph. It cannot be predicted how far temperatures will increase if the growth in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed, nor at what point the catastrophic consequences will set in. What is essential to recognize is that allowing temperatures to increase will be many times worse than stabilizing that increase at lower temperatures. Without a check, it is near certain that the planet’s temperatures will climb to the top end of the graph with the level of costs predicted.

The Costs of Mitigation

The solution to the problem of climate change is to remove the cause of that change. To remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions totally would be hugely costly. The economic wealth of the rich countries is based upon fossil fuel energy consumption. Stop the energy consumption and you not only stop economic growth, but potentially cause economic collapse. Instead, there must be a rapid but orderly switch in energy use to clean energy sources. This may actually spur economic output as the switch is made, but is more likely to be costly, but have at most a negligible but negative impact on economic growth. Similarly, in the emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) economies, satisfying their rapidly-rising energy demands from carbon-neutral sources need not constrain their economic growth. Indeed for China and India real living standard could rise more rapidly, as the cities suffer less from the choking effects of the pollution from burning fossil fuels. How will these costs map out? To stop climate change now and reverse the impacts would be hugely costly. Even to stabilize emissions at current levels globally would be hugely expensive. In particular with China and India increasing their emission levels rapidly, to stabilize globally would require huge cuts elsewhere. Far less costly would be to stabilize at some higher level than at present.

The shape of the cost of mitigation graph can be represented like this.

The costs of doing little are very small, whilst those of stopping global warming in its tracks, or even reversing the warming that has already occurred, are huge. We are able to choose the policy to pursue.

The Combined Costs of Climate Change and Mitigation

Climate change will incur costs of CCI. Combating climate change involves mitigation costs M. For any temperature that stabilization is reached, the total costs TC will be CCI+M.

The question as to which level of policy to pursue now becomes clearer. A highly aggressive policy could be just as damaging as doing nothing. However, we are left with a large middle ground. By stabilizing the temperature increase from pre-industrial levels at around 2-3oC is generally thought to be where this middle ground lies. However, as there is some uncertainty as to what average temperature the worst effects of climate change start to come into play, a prudent policy is to aim at stabilization at the lower end of the temperature range. Prudent policy is at around point P.

Climate Change in Perspective Part 2 – The Mitigation Curve

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/02/2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change Analysis, Economics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/02/2011

https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%e2%80%93-part-1-of-4/

Bishop Hill and Comment Moderation

BishopHill has been having problems with comment moderation.

The comments are getting completely out of hand. Once again, please do not call people names. Stay on topic. I’m simply snipping whole comments now, because I do not have time to edit our people’s poor behaviour.

 

Perhaps if people would have more courtesy towards their opponents they would start to understand the opposing arguments. Then they may contrast it with their own and moderate their views.

Dogmatically assuming that your side is right and by implication that the opposition are either betrays our own fallibility. It is only by demonstrating an overwhelming and coherent case that one can legitimately use this in current debates without appearing out of touch with reality.

We must remember that the burden of presenting the case is on the side those who say we must act to prevent catastrophic global warming
climate change climate disruption. That just not just mean showing the case for the science is, on balance, correct. Simplified it means

First to demonstrate that CO2 and other greenhouse gases can cause a bit of warming, and how much
AND THEN
Show that this small temperature rise will lead to an increase in water vapour at high level to cause massive positive feedbacks (despite negative feedbacks being the norm in science)
AND THEN
Show that this warming will be of massive net harm to humanity and the planet (and that neither human society, nor the other creatures, nor plants will be able to adapt – despite much evidence to the contrary).
AND THEN
Show that mitigation policies – carbon taxes, cap n’ trade, subsidies to “clean” energy – will reduce greenhouse gases in THEORY, so long as all countries participate.
AND THEN
Show that when most of the emerging nations, particularly China and India, do nothing to curb emissions, that curbing emissions in theory will still work for the OECD countries.
AND THEN
Show that the governments pursuing the policies are capable of delivering the theoretical results. That is only taking on policies that meet the cost criteria laid down by the IPCC or Stern. Then project managing in fine detail and quickly ending failing projects.

As well as making the case for each of Forecast, Consequences, Policy theory and policy Implementation (FCPI), it must be combined together to show that, on balance, there is an expectation that the policy outcome will be better than if nothing was done. I believe that it is only on the basis of extreme and untenable assumptions in ALL of these four areas that the current policies can be justified.

My concern is that the “consensus” quickly grasps onto obscure bits of detail, or fine points of theory, or relies on prestige and opinion when challanged. Alternatively they question the motives of the critics.


by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/01/2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Eco-Fanatics, Global Warming, Uncategorized
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/01/2011

https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/01/25/bishop-hill-and-comment-moderation/

Extremist Global Warming Paper Taken Down

The Guardian reports that a paper that report predicting that global temperatures would rise by 2.4oC or more by 2020, has now been dropped from the
Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was checked by Osvaldo Canziani, Nobel-prize winner and a former co-chair of the UNIPCC.

Problems with the report are

Expert Review

The report was meant to have been checked by Canziani. At a minimum that means that the reports major prediction is validated. As it was based upon the UNIPCC climate assessment report of 2007, then any figures that were substantially out of line should have been carefully justified. Instead, the author, Ms Liliana Hisas, says that instead of withdrawing the report

“We are just going to go ahead with it. I don’t have a choice now. The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it’s not wrong.

Therefore, the report is correct because a distinguished person put their name to it. However, they appear not have done basic checks, so the validation process has failed. Very much like the peer review

Ignoring Adaptation

The claim that the 900 million people extra people by 2020 will go hungry relies on some ignoring some basic adaptive facts.

  1. Changes in climate can be partly met by changes in crops. A slightly warmer climate in Europe can be met be changes in crop varieties.
  2. One of the countries with lower yields across crop varieties is Brazil. Having visited Brazil a number of times, I have observed vast tracts of farm land that are underutilized. I have picked oranges from trees that act as wind breaks, and where most of the fruit rots. I have sampled star fruit and large avocados from trees where the fruit is never commercially harvested. Similarly for large papaya, watermelons, bananas and cassava. Increased food prices have been, and will continue to increase outputs. It is not just in Brazil, but in the Russian Steppes, much of Africa and the plains of Canada that agricultural productivity can be increased.
  3. Low productivity is more often due to poor economic policies than natural factors. In the extreme, the greatest famines of the twentieth century are due to the collectivization of agriculture. Even the lesser famine of Ethiopia in 1984, where “only” 500,000 died was partly due to the collectivization policies of the communist government, and the need to feed the city populations where disaffection was centred.

Ignoring the Burden of Government

The claim that the 900 million people extra people by 2020 will go hungry relies not only on the rapid warming claim, but also upon no change in government policy. World food prices have doubled in the last few years due to vast areas being given over to growing fuel for cars. Repealing the subsidies and ethanol content regulations in fuel will release vast acres for food production. Back to Brazil, there are thousands of square miles given over to sugar cane production for ethanol production. Growing food instead in Brazil would probably close half the global gap. In Europe, where the less productive sugar beet is grown for ethanol (or USA where maize is used), then switch to food production could have similar dramatic impacts on food production. A lesser increase in productivity could be made from abandoning organic farming for more intensive varieties. Most studies have shown no difference in quality, or health effects with artificially-fertilized production. Also, by adapting more GM crops, which can vastly increase productivity and provide greater resistance to extreme weather.

Extreme position also requires Extreme Climate Disruption

The claim that the 900 million people extra people by 2020 will go hungry relies is based not only on the rapid warming claim, but also that this results in extreme weather and changed climate patterns. Even if we accept that the 2.4oC+ of warming is likely, the forecast changes in the weather as a result are speculative. Any mitigation policy should cost these as a risk, not as a certainty. The likely cost therefore should be weighted downwards by a risk factor.

Alarmist Policies Discriminate Against the Poor

The report is from a group trying to justify more intensive mitigation policies, whilst believing “in the need for a more equitable society, especially for those living under underprivileged circumstances.” That means that they should consider whether the policies will leave the poor in a worse position than if nothing was done at all. But the main policies of Cap-n-Trade or a Carbon Tax are highly regressive. It is those on the margin who will have to give up their cars and central heating, or hundreds of millions in developing countries who will be denied the opportunities to every obtain what is viewed as the staples of life in Europe. To work, both must impose economic pain, and that pain is greatest for the poor. Furthermore, if policies are imposed that are ineffective in controlling CO2, (such as windmills) then society as a whole will be made poorer for no benefit.

 

The Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US) has produced an extremist report in more ways than just having a silly forecast. In failing to consider the wider adaptive ability of the human race, it is overstates both the likely consequences, whilst understating the harm to the poor of the policies it advocates. The author states

“Scientific information is usually not easy to understand. Communicating climate change is often also complicated. As a result, the understanding of climate change has led to misconceptions.”

 

A report that spreads undue alarmism is the enemy of true science, and will entrench the misconceptions.

 

 

Donna Laframboise at

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 20/01/2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Economics, Uncategorized
Tagged ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 20/01/2011

https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/01/20/extremist-global-warming-paper-taken-down/

Cure Worse Than The Problem? – Global Warming and California Prop 21 Compared

Warren Meyer seems to have got a little confused on his blog posting on Judith Curry’s ostracism by the alarmist community. He states

I find it just staggering that Judith Curry, whose hypotheses about man-made global warming probably overlap those of the hard core alarmists by 80-90%, can no longer be tolerated by alarmists.  Much as the Catholic Church radicalized Martin Luther when all he initially wanted to do was reform some practices (many of which the Church later reformed), the attacks on Curry seem to be having a similar effect.

The typical response by politicians, of course, is to try to get more money from taxpayers.  California has a ballot initiative this November proposing to raise vehicle licensing fees to all its citizens in order to fund state parks.  Unfortunately, this kind of funds earmarking by ballot initiative is already threatening to bankrupt California.  One problem with this approach is that it demolishes accountability — once an unelected state agency gets dedicated funds the legislature can’t touch, there is nothing that taxpayers can do if these funds are not spent wisely short of another time-consuming ballot initiative to revoke them.

In the case of state parks, the accountability problem is even worse, as the initiatives replace park user fees, which at least enforce accountability in that users can stop visiting if park services are not up to expectations, with a no-strings-attached bureaucratic windfall.  Compounding the problem, in many states the parks organizations report to rubber-stamp boards rather than the governor or any elected official, so taxpayers have absolutely no path to enforce accountability.

 

The quotation seems to belong to Meyer’s Coyote Blog. I would direct folks to the Reason Video on this issue.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/10/coyote-on-reason-tv-private-management-of-public-parks.html

However, maybe, there are just some words missing here, because the funding of state parks and global warming have some common policy issues.

Let me start with Global Warming. The case can be divided into two main areas. There is the science bit (the forecast warming and the catastrophic consequences) and the policy devised as a remedy (divided into the policy itself – the Legislation and actions – along with the expected / actual results). Or more simply Forecast, Consequences, Policy, and Outturn (FCPO).

In the UK, the Stern Review looked at this whole issue as a cost benefit analysis. By assuming fairly alarmist consequences (without the uncertainty) and assumes a relatively cheap (but highly effective) policy fix, gave benefits of the policy are 5 to 15 times the costs. It looks a clear-cut case for action, so anyone who denies this is either ignorant or has ulterior motives. But if you start assessing the uncertainty in the science, you will quickly find unverified hypotheses, implicit assumptions and measurement errors tending in the same direction. Furthermore the climate disruption consequential on this postulated warming is possibly more speculative still.

Even if you accept this worst case scenario with all the damaging consequences as the near certain, there is still the fact that the policies proposed (like Kyoto & Copenhagen) would only be cost-effective if each individual government implemented them like a business plan – maximising revenues and minimising costs. In Britain (with a legislated 80% CO2 reduction by 2050), the levels of costs are often many times the cost boundaries set by Stern, and there are many other costs being incurred that are at best side-shows (targets on recycling, banning incandescent light bulbs, alcohol in gasoline). Yet no Government will implement the policy with the necessary ruthlessness and doggedness required to get the positive results.

Like when Steve McIntyre looked into Mann’s hockey stick, what looks superficially to be robust falls apart when you start looking at it the totality. If absolute minimum for policy is to be an justifiable expectation of improving the likely future state as a result of taking action, then there should be some top-level independent auditing. As no independent review has taken place – like a bank reviewing a business plan to justify a loan – any major gaps or faults in any area potentially undermines the whole case for taking action. But when if the minimum requires accelerating warming, strong positive feedbacks; along with cheap and effective policies and zero issues with policy implementation or cost overruns; then there is a serious problem. So it is only by making a number of extreme and untenable assumptions that the consensus policy be supported. The overall solution is likely to be worse than the actual problem.

How does this relate to California’s state parks? Unlike for global warming, the case for action is clear. The parks need new funding for maintenance. The proposed policy would be ineffective in this, as it is not just funding levels at issue, as part of the cost problem is ineffective management. The solution of separating revenue from paying customers (or the electorate) will exacerbate the management issue. Furthermore, free access to all will increase visitor pressure, potentially hampering conservation efforts, whilst having an element of unfairness towards the inner-city poor. The overall solution is likely to be worse than the actual problem.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 29/10/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Beancounting Methodology, Climate Change Analysis, FCPO Grid
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 29/10/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/10/29/cure-worse-than-the-problem-%e2%80%93-global-warming-and-california-prop-21-compared/

Newer Posts »