[tvchurch]

While the full article is gated at WSJ, John Cochrane and David Henderson write about the lack of quantifying economic costs when it comes to addressing climate change. Their last paragraph:

Climate policy advocates’ apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable. It follows that the costs of genetically modified foods and modern pesticides, which can feed us with less land and lower carbon emissions, might be bearable. It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable. And it follows that symbolic, ineffective, political grab-bag policies should be intolerable.

Here's Cochrane's write up about the op-ed: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/07/on-climate-change....

[mcguire]

I mostly agree with his paragraph above. But from your link,

"No. Healthy societies do not fall apart over slow, widely predicted, relatively small economic adjustments of the sort painted by climate analysis. Societies do fall apart from war, disease or chaos. Climate policy must compete with other long-term threats for always-scarce resources."

"Small economic adjustments?" How many large scale resources does preventing war or pandemics require? Is chaos a real threat?

Most of what he lists are effects, not causes. Here's an economic question for him: what happens when the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies returns to being an unusable semidesert? (That's not an if. It is all irrigated.)

And I'll just leave this comment here: "As I favor a uniform VAT in place of the idiotically complex income and corporate tax system."

[jessaustin]

what happens when the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies returns to being an unusable semidesert? (That's not an if. It is all irrigated.)

Here in Missouri, there is actually fairly little irrigation. There's a 1.5 hour drive through rural farmland I take regularly, and I see one irrigation setup on the whole trip. The other irrigation I can think of off the top of my head is just north of Jefferson City, 100 yards from the Missouri River, and that's for a sod factory that turns its fields over every couple of months.

This year the rain has been fantastic. We put up more hay than we ever have. July was hot, as July often is, but the first week of August will be our coolest in memory. If this is climate change, I vote for more of it. b^)

[mcguire]

I was being hyperbolic. :)

But a large part of that region was known as the Great American Desert before the invention of suitable irrigation. And water is being removed from the aquifer much faster than it is being replaced.

[jessaustin]

Yes, things that can't continue forever, won't. Eventually much of the Great Plains will be native grassland again. That is its natural condition. The parts of Arizona and California that currently host alfalfa fields will be actual desert again, and the dairy industry will return to the Midwest where it belongs.

Even when being hyperbolic, however, you could move your border west a whole state. I doubt Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, or Louisiana are any more worried about the next Dust Bowl than we are. My impression is that Missouri is the driest of the states on our longitude.

[pm90]

Climate change would affect rainfall patterns as well (I assume).

[mcguire]

The last projection I saw had the Midwest becoming drier once things stabilize.

[ABCLAW]

His argument is almost tautological, because it is conditional on the basis that the society is healthy.

Societies fall apart over slow, widely predicted economic adjustments all the time, because healthy societies have buffering homeostatic functions.

Once the adjustment exceeds the ability of the society to buffer, the adjustment rapidly moves from the 'slow and widely predicted' bucket to the 'war, disease and chaos' bucket. One might note that this process leaves the society looking healthy until the moment when suddenly it isn't.

[mseebach]

Relatively small. Compared to "war, disease or chaos", keeping "the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies" irrigated will be (is) expensive, but it's a relatively small expense.

[mcguire]

Total war between large nations is very bad. Large scale pandemics on the order of the medieval black death are catestrophic.

But how much do you spend to prevent war? How much do you dump into the CDC? Is there a Bureau for the Prevention of Chaos?

And how do you irrigate the Midwest once the aquifers get low? Piping desalination water from the Gulf?

[mseebach]

> Is there a Bureau for the Prevention of Chaos?

Decent government. Stable institutions and mostly fair and equitable justice and law enforcement. The US and Europe have their challenges, to put it mildly, but have been fairly successful in averting chaos, and things are going pretty damn well, judging by even relatively recent historical standards.

> But how much do you spend to prevent war? How much do you dump into the CDC?

A lot. So that means that things can be very expensive and still be relatively cheap.

> And how do you irrigate the Midwest once the aquifers get low? Piping desalination water from the Gulf?

I don't know. Perhaps. Or perhaps redirecting water from the Hudson Bay drainage basin. Human ingenuity is pretty great.

[hwillis]

> It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable.

Problem: the balance of the planet has been seriously disturbed in largely unexpected ways due to very complex processes.

Solving this problem by a method other than reversing out changes is an extremely risky proposition and is virtually guaranteed to produce unanticipated fallout. Even at the small scale when we try simple solutions to complex problems, they are fraught with effects that are often worse than the problem was.

[QAPereo]

Climate policy advocates’ apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable.

I agree, but I'd also consider myself to be a "Climate policy advocate" with an "apocalyptic vision" so maybe he's conflating different groups for the purpose of argument?

[bluGill]

What is the cost of genetically modified foods and modern pesticides? Sure you can imagine B-movies plots of bad things that we can do, but in the real world none of them have happened yet, and even if they do it would be a mad scientist who already has all the knowledge needed to do his evil scheme so this has no bearing on real uses.

[mathattack]

Cochrane is an awesome thinker

[awkwarddaturtle]

> Climate policy advocates’ apocalyptic vision demands serious analysis, and mushy thinking undermines their case. If carbon emissions pose the greatest threat to humanity, it follows that the costs of nuclear power—waste disposal and the occasional meltdown—might be bearable. It follows that the costs of genetically modified foods and modern pesticides, which can feed us with less land and lower carbon emissions, might be bearable. It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake, adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable. And it follows that symbolic, ineffective, political grab-bag policies should be intolerable.

If climate change alarmists truly believed what they were saying, they wouldn't be using smartphones, internet or driving SUVs.

The climate change movement is nothing but globalists and the "clean" energy industry exploiting the environmental fanatics to get more grants/money for themselves.

The climate change movement is really the globalist "carbon energy/tax movement". It's a way for the political elite to control world energy use and energy production.

Just like the "priests" of olden times used the threat of "earthquakes/natural disasters" to dupe the masses into doing their bidding ( virgin sacrifices, building monuments, etc ), the globalists are using climate change as a scare mongering tactic to put the world's energy/industry/etc under their control.

If truly the crazy climate predictions are true and humanity's existence was at stake, would we stop mass production of trucks, SUVs? Wouldn't we immediately stop international trade and air travel. After all, container ships are the largest producers of carbon pollution.

[hwillis]

>If climate change alarmists truly believed what they were saying, they wouldn't be using smartphones, internet or driving SUVs.

Nearly all CO2 emissions in the US come from heat, electricity, and transportation. "Climate alarmists" drive hybrids or electric cars and have solar panels and heat pumps. The internet and smartphones are totally besides the point. Not to mention that you're inventing a strawman.

>The climate change movement is nothing but globalists and the "clean" energy industry exploiting the environmental fanatics to get more grants/money for themselves.

ugh, just... fuck off. "globalists". You're a fucking conspiracy hound.

>The climate change movement is really the globalist "carbon energy/tax movement". It's a way for the political elite to control world energy use and energy production.

idiot

>Just like the "priests" of olden times used the threat of "earthquakes/natural disasters" to dupe the masses into doing their bidding ( virgin sacrifices, building monuments, etc ), the globalists are using climate change as a scare mongering tactic to put the world's energy/industry/etc under their control.

go away

>If truly the crazy climate predictions are true and humanity's existence was at stake, would we stop mass production of trucks, SUVs? Wouldn't we immediately stop international trade and air travel.

truth has very little to do with what people believe. I'm sure you agree with that

>After all, container ships are the largest producers of carbon pollution.

Idiot. It's 2.2% of carbon emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...

You seriously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about at any level. You have made your conclusions and taken zero steps to verify them. Start here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

[awkwarddaturtle]

> "Climate alarmists" drive hybrids or electric cars and have solar panels and heat pumps.

Except that hybrids, electric cars requires tons of CO2 pollution to create. Not to mention that climate alarmists like dicaprio fly on private jets and have huge mansions/yachts/etc.

But that's not my point? If truly, we are at a human extinction level, why are climate alarmists even driving hybrids/electic cars? Why are they even using solar panels? Shouldn't they give up all these luxuries to save the human species?

> ugh, just... fuck off. "globalists". You're a fucking conspiracy hound.

No need for that. If you want to discuss this, then fine. If you are going to toss around insults, then I won't respond any further. And it isn't a "conspiracy". It is a FACT. To put the entire carbon/energy system under global centralized control.

> truth has very little to do with what people believe. I'm sure you agree with that

Yes. And the truth is that the alarmists have been proven wrong OVER AND OVER again. The climate change people are no different than the peak oil fanatics.

> Idiot. It's 2.2% of carbon emissions:

The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems shows you have no argument. And 2.2% ANNUAL emission is significant.

> You seriously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about at any level. You have made your conclusions and taken zero steps to verify them.

I'm sure you do. Feel free to run around screaming that the world is going to end. Why are you using the internet or a computer? The world is going to end right? Shouldn't you do your part and try to prevent it?

And I'm the "conspiracist" right?

[anigbrowl]

Except that hybrids, electric cars requires tons of CO2 pollution to create.

As do regular cars. If you're asserting that hybrids require far more emissions to create than gas-powered equivalents, and that that this excess exceeds the pollution saving over their operating lifetime, then cite your sources. Because otherwise it would still be a good idea.

[awkwarddaturtle]

>As do regular cars.

Yes. That's my point. If truly we are facing human extinction, shouldn't we ban even EV/hybrids?

You would think all these alarmists claiming end of the world wouldn't be driving ANYTHING.

[hwillis]

>Except that hybrids, electric cars requires tons of CO2 pollution to create.

Utterly wrong: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cle...

"Comparing an average midsize midrange BEV with an average midsize gasoline-powered car, it takes just 4,900 miles of driving to “pay back”—i.e., offset—the extra global warming emissions from producing the BEV. Similarly, it takes 19,000 miles with the full-size long-range BEV compared with a similar gasoline car."

Again, do some fucking research before making claims that you know nothing about.

>Not to mention that climate alarmists like dicaprio fly on private jets and have huge mansions/yachts/etc.

He drives a Prius, a Tesla Roadster, and a Fisker Karma. Big houses don't produce more CO2 unless they use more electricity, and he has solar. Flying produces less CO2 than driving, and is required for his job, so he can spend money on things that globally reduce CO2: http://www.businessinsider.com/leonardo-dicaprio-eco-resort-...

And note that there are no subsidies to be gained in Belize from using solar.

>But that's not my point? If truly, we are at a human extinction level, why are climate alarmists even driving hybrids/electic cars? Why are they even using solar panels? Shouldn't they give up all these luxuries to save the human species?

No, because coordination problems exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_failure_(economic...

You have two choices if you believe in climate change, and one is much more attractive than the other:

1: Live an awful, shitty life as an ascetic. The majority of the world continues polluting and your suffering is without purpose. Hope that enough of the world embraces asceticism to reduce climate change.

2: Try to convince everyone else to pay just a little more for cars and electricity, because a small sacrifice will totally avert global warming. Your suffering is small, and more likely to attract others to do the same.

>No need for that. If you want to discuss this, then fine. If you are going to toss around insults, then I won't respond any further. And it isn't a "conspiracy". It is a FACT. To put the entire carbon/energy system under global centralized control.

The cognitive gymnastics required to come to that conclusion are incredible. The carbon/energy cycle is under centralized control, because it's attached to the grid. Solar power lets you detach from the grid. All global climate change agreements have been completely distributed and countries are in charge of meeting their own goals. Basically, what the hell are you talking about?

>Yes. And the truth is that the alarmists have been proven wrong OVER AND OVER again. The climate change people are no different than the peak oil fanatics.

Right... could you link me to some proof? Because I already linked a 5000 page report of proof, and I've got plenty more where that came from. The temperature of the earth has changed and is changing. There's no controversy over that.

>The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems shows you have no argument. And 2.2% ANNUAL emission is significant.

Of transport-related CO2, 74% is from road transport. 12% is from airplanes[1]. 2.2% is from all ships. Oceangoing ships are literally the smallest source of concern with transport related greenhouse gases. You are totally wrong.

[1]: http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

>I'm sure you do. Feel free to run around screaming that the world is going to end. Why are you using the internet or a computer? The world is going to end right? Shouldn't you do your part and try to prevent it?

My computer, running 24/365, uses 1,300 kWh, about as much as a car driving 1500 miles. The average American drives ten times that. If I can convince one person every six years that they should buy an electric car, I've made up for using my computer. Go buy an electric car.

[awkwarddaturtle]

> Again, do some fucking research before making claims that you know nothing about.

You might want to learn instead. My point was that BUILDING Hybrids/EVs cause pollution. Not that gas powered cars as less polluting. What you are doing right now is building a straw man.

> He drives a Prius, a Tesla Roadster, and a Fisker Karma. Big houses don't produce more CO2 unless they use more electricity, and he has solar. Flying produces less CO2 than driving, and is required for his job, so he can spend money on things that globally reduce CO2

Everything you listed produced CO2. You need fossil fuel to BUILD prius, Tesla, etc. The housing material was made via producing carbon. The trucks/etc used to transport and build the mansions used carbon.

I can't believe you used di caprio's resort as an example of being "green". Wonder how much pollution is generated just to visit the resort.

> 2: Try to convince everyone else to pay just a little more for cars and electricity, because a small sacrifice will totally avert global warming. Your suffering is small, and more likely to attract others to do the same.

I thought we aren't using that word "global warming" and using "climate change"? Also, I thought alarmists have said it is already too late.

>Right... could you link me to some proof? Because I already linked a 5000 page report of proof

You haven't link anything other than a straw man and a silly PR piece about dicaprio.

> The carbon/energy cycle is under centralized control, because it's attached to the grid.

You can't be like this. That's not what I mean by "centralized control".

> My computer, running 24/365, uses 1,300 kWh, about as much as a car driving 1500 miles. The average American drives ten times that. If I can convince one person every six years that they should buy an electric car, I've made up for using my computer.

No you haven't. The pollution is STILL there.

It's funny how you alarmist can't even get your stories straight. "It's too late". "It's not too late". "We need a complete overhaul". "We can do this incrementally". "We need to reduce carbon emissions". "We just need to maintain it at this level".

Listen. I know you "googled" and want to push your agenda. I get that people like you need a religion and it's difficult to accept old religions like christianity. So you cling to "climate change" and it's "revelations" and end of the world nonsense.

Your religion isn't any more valid than christianity. I know you are going to be upset because the truth hurts. I used to be exactly like you. A global warming fanatic. But I eventually matured and left my teenage years behind me.

So worship Elon, pray to him everyday and read the scriptures of the climate change bible. Life will go on. And you will grow out of this silly phase.

Fanaticism isn't a good thing.

[hwillis]

Right. You are having some real difficulty with a coherent argument and I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with your ability to... process reality, or something. You remind me a lot of schizophrenics I've met over the years, so I'm done.

In case you ever feel like reading, here's that link again: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[anigbrowl]

It's a way for the political elite to control world energy use and energy production.

Like energy production and other sectors of the global economy aren't already under the control of elites.

[awkwarddaturtle]

Not on a global scale. The elites control national/regional.

China controls theirs. Russia controls their. EU theirs. We control ours.

That isn't global.