Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • Latest Stories
  • Markets Map
  • Trends and Sentiments
  • Leading Topics
  • News Search
  • Comments and Analysis

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • About Us
  • The Ten Worst Reasons To Reject A Job Applicant
  • 5 Ways To Tell You're Being A Lousy Manager, And...
  • Cramer points to 'China's ultimate weapon...
  • Cramer tracks the 'very close' race to $1...
  • AT&T Chief Attacks Lawsuit to Block Time Warner Merger
  • F.D.A. Panel Recommends Approval of Cannabis-Based Drug...
  • Umpqua Holdings Corporation's (UMPQ) CEO Cort O...
  • The Triangle Capital Transaction Offers Low-Risk 10%...
  • Reports: Wells Fargo to be fined $1B as early as Friday
  • Surfing legend Hamilton rescues people from floods in...

    Is it cheaper to just let the planet heat?

    Tue, 07/06/2010 - 10:38 EDT - Ezra Klein - Washington Post
    • climate change
    • Comments

    Before getting into the debate that Jim Manzi and Brad Plumer are having on the costs of mitigating global warming, it's worth highlighting this bit from Manzi, which is slightly off-topic to the actual disagreement, but could be the most important thing you'll ever read:

    The consensus scientific estimate is that there is a 1-in-10,000 chance of an asteroid large enough to kill a large fraction of the world’s population impacting the earth in the next 100 years. ... The U.S. government currently spends about four million dollars per year on asteroid detection (in spite of an estimate that one billion dollars per year spent on detection plus interdiction would be sufficient to reduce the probability of impact by 90 percent).

    Why aren't we spending this money? Are we really that good at interdiction? If so, is it because of technology, or because of Bruce Willis?

    As for the actual debate, Manzi argues that the likely costs of substantially reducing global warming emissions over the next century outweigh the likely costs of global warming over the next century. Plumer is less convinced, citing the possibility that global warming will be far worse than Manzi's numbers suggest; noting that environmental regulations have frequently been much more effective and less costly than naysayers predicted; and arguing that the distributional reality is that the costs of doing something fall heavily on developed nations but the costs of doing nothing fall heavily on undeveloped nations, and as such, we who've created the problem have a moral obligation to do something about it.

    But they both ignore a point that's central to Manzi's argument: What happens after 100 years?

    Letting greenhouse gases build in the atmosphere is a bit like letting a tree grow roots beneath the foundation of your house. It may not be that bad this year, or next year, or even the year after that. But with each year that goes by, the problem becomes incrementally more severe, and harder to reverse. So even if Manzi is right that the costs are manageable into 2100 -- a century, after all, is a long time for a human, but not for the atmosphere -- what does that do to our descendants who have to deal with a scorching planet between 2100 and 2200? And then into 2300, and then 2400?

    I think Manzi's answer is that technology will save us by then. And maybe he's right. But maybe he's not. And if he's not, then we've let the problem become unimaginably bad for our descendants. If you bet on technology and you're wrong, it's not like we've got another of these planets waiting in the back somewhere.

    The appropriate technological approach, it seems to me, is to pair a strategy of aggressive emissions reduction with a huge effort to develop technological solutions. Then, if the research begins to pay off, we can transition over to those technologies and ease up on the regulations. But if we don't so mitigation and instead trust in technology, we may let the situation get so bad that by the time we're ready to do mitigation, the problem is essentially irreversible.




    Environment - Jim Manzi - Opposing Views - Climate change - Climate Change Skeptics

    • Original article
    • Login to post comments
     

    Related

    • Jim Manzi makes the case for higher petrol taxes

      JIM MANZI does not think that it's a good idea to use Pigovian taxes to reduce emissions or, it seems, to cut oil consumption. I've always found his arguments interesting but wholly unpersuasive. Here's a small dose, in reaction to a Kevin Drum on the relatively small estimated elasticities of demand for oil produced in a recent IMF study:

    • The Jim Manzi Era

      Back when the idea first launched, I was skeptical of the merits of The New Republic launching a special “in-house critics” blog in which Michael Kazin and Jim Manzi would offer critiques, from the left and from the right respectively, of TNR content.

    • Time running out to reach 2 C warming target: UN experts

    • Earth’s Greatest Extinction Caused by… Climate Change?

      This post Earth’s Greatest Extinction Caused by… Climate Change? appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

    • Here Are The 1400 Potentially Earth-Ending Asteroids Circling Our Planet

      There are more than 1,400 potentially dangerous asteroids orbiting alongside the Earth, and any one of them is big enough to end humanity. Fortunately, NASA keeps an eye on them for us — and they've mapped them all out here in this image from NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, made using data from the Near-Earth Orbits List:

    • Mountain-sized asteroid to skim by Earth

      Miami (AFP) - An asteroid the size of a mountain is about to shave by Earth, in a rare type of flyby that will not be seen for another decade, astronomers said Monday.

    • Why Big Companies Spend So Much Money On Washington: It Works Even Better Than You Think

      (darrenleno)

    • Global Warming: Who Pressed The Pause Button?

      The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained.

    • Ron Paul: "It's Going to Get Much, Much Worse"

      Submitted by Adam Taggart of Peak Prosperity blog, Dr. Ron Paul has long been a leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, civil liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policies.

    • Climatologists Can't Explain Why Global Warming Has Slowed Down

      The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away.

    Latest

    Silver On The Verge Of A Break-Out
    Silver On The Verge Of A Break-Out
    John Ivison: Bernier and Simms offer a tale of two whips
    John Ivison: Bernier and Simms offer a tale of...

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 2579.37 0.16% FTSE: 7487.96 -0.07% Nikk.: 22420.08 1.82% DAX: 13465.51 1.75% HSI: 28594.06 1.22% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1401 USD/EUR: 1.1618 JPY/USD: 114.1510 Commodities: Gold: 1276.1000

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • About Us