GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Dion's Premature Ejaculation...

A good analysis of why Dion's Green Shift misses the mark...
Dr. Nordhaus takes global warming seriously, anticipating that it may well "cast a shadow over the globe for decades, perhaps centuries, to come." When he says centuries, he means centuries. In his highly sophisticated computer analysis of global warming strategies, he includes the option of doing nothing at all for 250 years - and found that it delivered the same result (measured in global emissions of carbon dioxide one century hence) as the Kyoto Protocol with or without the United States.

He includes, as well, a 50-year delay and got an intriguing assessment. Implement the right climate change strategy in 2055 and you still get - by 2105 - precisely the same reduction in CO{-2} that you get with the computer-designed "optimal strategy," a go-slow, go-frugal approach that begins modestly in the next decade and expands incrementally through the rest of the century.

In a brilliant analysis of carbon strategies - The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, published last year - Dr. Nordhaus observes that the complexity of global warming rules out absolute certainty of any kind, whether academic or ideological. "Whatever goal we set will probably be incorrect." Given this caution, it is essential to adopt a strategy that can be quickly adapted to changing circumstances and changing technologies, he says.

Dr. Nordhaus notes that a single technological advance in 2050, or in 2100, could render redundant trillions of prematurely invested dollars. This is one of the reasons why the most aggressive climate change strategies - the celebrated Stern Review proposals, the controversial dictums espoused by Al Gore - badly flunk the Nordhaus computer analysis test.

When countries "front-load" investment in carbon reduction, Dr. Nordhaus says, they merely ensure that opportunity costs will rise to unacceptable levels. In his work, for example, British economist Nicholas Stern, for example, requires peak investment (with expenditures of 2.75 per cent of global GDP) by 2012. Mr. Gore requires less investment in the first 20 years, but both merge in 2035 (with expenditures equal to 2.5 per cent of global GDP). Dr. Nordhaus, in contrast, calls for much more gradual increases in expenditures, rising from 0.3 per cent of global GDP in 2010 to 0.5 per cent in 2015 to 0.6 per cent in 2020 and peaking at 0.9 per cent almost 50 years later in 2065.

The Stern-Gore strategies thus tilt decisively to early peak investment - and imply that they would deliver early carbon reductions. In fact, Dr. Nordhaus says, these strategies incur net costs (including opportunity costs) of as much as $22-trillion (U.S.) - significantly more than all the damage that scientists expect global warming will cause in the next 150 years. Stern-Gore, in other words, is worse than doing nothing at all.

Further, Dr. Nordhaus says, front-loaded strategies exempt some countries from participating in a strategy that must be global. Implement Stern or Gore with the participation of 50 per cent of world population, he says, and you incur an extra $2-trillion in economic losses; implement them with only 30 per cent of the world population and you incur an extra $3-trillion.

An optimal strategy, Dr. Nordhaus says, permits no free rides. As well, it answers three questions: How sharply should countries reduce CO{-2}? What should be the time profile of these reductions? How should reductions be distributed?

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's Green Shift strategy fully answers none of these questions. It promises to reduce Canada's carbon-related emissions to a defined level (20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020). It does not hazard a guess at the relevance of this reduction in terms of atmospheric CO{-2}.

3 Comments:

Blogger Mark Francis said...

That's Reynold's 'take' on Nordhaus' work, but if you read the study, Nordhaus' finding is that carbon needs to be priced at about $42/tonne by 2015... almost what Dion is proposing with the Green Shift (which is $40/tonne by 2012).

"The optimal policy has a carbon tax of $34 per metric ton carbon in 2010 (all calculations are in 2005 international U.S. dollars). The optimal tax rises in future years, reaching $42 per ton in 2015, $90 per ton in 2050, and $207 per ton
carbon in 2100. For reference, a $20 per metric ton carbon tax will raise coal prices by $10 per ton, which is about 40 percent of the current U.S. mine-mouth coal price in 2005. Further, a $10 per ton carbon tax would raise gasoline prices by about 4 U.S. cents per gallon."

"In the author’s view, the best approach is one that gradually introduces restraints on carbon emissions. One particularly efficient approach is internationally harmonized carbon taxes – ones that quickly become global and universal in scope and harmonized in effect. A sure and steady increase in harmonized carbon taxes may not have the swashbuckling romance of a crash program, but it is also less likely to be smashed on the rocks of political opposition and compromise. Slow, steady, universal, predictable, and boring
– those are probably the secrets to success for policies to combat global warming."

Nordhaus admits in the study there are major issues in modelling economics, plus many value calls had to be made. By analogy: It's easily pointed out that if a purely economic analysis had argued that surrendering to Hitler was cheaper than fighting, that we would have fought anyway. There was a lot more at stake than money.

12:13 PM  
Blogger Sofia said...

"Accelerated ejaculate" - is mostly psychological problem and can be easily treated with the help of psychiatric treatment. http://www.viagrathunder.com

12:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Premature ejaculation is one of the most common sexual dysfunctions in men under a certain age.There are multiple methods of treatment when
it comes to premature ejaculation, some of them in the form of medicines, some in the form of specialized techniques, and some in the form of
herbal supplements.

4:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home