Opinion: Global warming not worth the fight (not a 'denier')

[Abdul Alhazred]

Opinion: Global warming not worth the fight
The Tech (MIT student newspaper)

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?

Very little, if anything at all.

...

It is not in our national self-interest to try and bear the costs of global warming by ourselves. For a wealthy, cold, non-agrarian, stable country such as ours, it is unclear whether we even stand that much to lose from a rise in temperatures. There have been several studies that suggest the costs of mitigating climate change exceed the benefits in a country such as the United States — work by William Nordhaus and Robert Mendelsohn of Yale, Richard Tol of Carnegie Mellon, Melissa Dell and Benjamin Olken of MIT, and others, suggest this outcome is likely.

But even if we take the estimates provided by the advocates of aggressive action, the math comes up short. For example, the National Resource Defense Council estimates that if left unchecked, global warming will cost the U.S. 1.8 percent of its GDP by the year 2100. Meanwhile the Stern Review estimates the cost of carbon mitigation to total 2 percent of world GDP by the year 2100. It appears that the hot areas of the world should be bribing us to take action, not the other way around.

More to the point, unilateral action will not mitigate climate change. The U.S. is only a small fraction of total emissions. Even if all of the Annex I countries of the Kyoto Protocol agreed to binding constraints, they would account for less than half of the world’s total emissions, and a far smaller fraction of the expected growth in emissions between now and 2100. To act unilaterally, or even in conjunction with the rest of the developed world, would mean paying the full measure of mitigating climate change while receiving only a fraction of its benefit.

...

 

[Stylesjl]

Wonder what the economic effects will be on the US if their trading partners are affected by global warming related problems?

 

[Elind]

Unfortunately there is truth in this, and the argument applies even more to China and India who I believe now emit more CO2 than the USA, together at least, and individually within the near future.

China is the supporter of all the worst regimes on the planet, with Russia a close second. Thinking they will ever look beyond the survival of their present regimes is fantasy.

 

[theprestige]

Wonder what the economic effects will be on the US if their trading partners are affected by global warming related problems?

More of the US GDP will stay at home? Some things the US would normally have obtained from elsewhere, by trading away some of its GDP, will instead be produced domestically, putting the "domestic product" in "GDP"?

 

[a_unique_person]

It makes no sense at all. The it is much better as a species to cope with AGW than prevent it. In what sense? Why will be able to cope with it any better than we can prevent it? We are one species, what about the rest of the species on the planet?

 

[ddt]

Can anyone meaningfully comment on this sentence:

For a wealthy, cold, non-agrarian, stable country such as ours, it is unclear whether we even stand that much to lose from a rise in temperatures.

Calling the US "non-agrarian" obfuscates the fact that the US is a very big producer of agricultural products. What happens to the production of wheat and corn, for instance?

For another thing, global warming will also increase the incidence and intensity of tornadoes. Brace yourself for a Katrina every ten years (please, someone correct me with serious numbers).

And this snippet had me cracking up:

To act unilaterally, or even in conjunction with the rest of the developed world,

That's some chutzpah. The US has been, under the last government, fueled by denier propaganda, the biggest opponent of implementing Kyoto.

Wonder what the economic effects will be on the US if their trading partners are affected by global warming related problems?

Or cease to exist. The rational response of the Maldivians, for instance, would be to immigrate to the US, take advantage of that Second Amendment and by force take possession of enough dwellings to compensate for their losses at home.

Unfortunately there is truth in this, and the argument applies even more to China and India who I believe now emit more CO2 than the USA, together at least, and individually within the near future.

Little wonder: every stat acts out of self-interest, and the economies of China and India are just gearing up and still nowhere near Western levels - both countries have 3 to 4 times the population of the US.

 

[applecorped]

Opinion: Global warming not worth the fight
The Tech (MIT student newspaper)

 

[Elind]

the economies of China and India are just gearing up and still nowhere near Western levels - both countries have 3 to 4 times the population of the US.

China is now the world's second largest economy. Have you been sleeping?

 

[theprestige]

Can anyone meaningfully comment on this sentence:

Calling the US "non-agrarian" obfuscates the fact that the US is a very big producer of agricultural products. What happens to the production of wheat and corn, for instance?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge difference between an agrarian society and a society with a diversified industrial base, even one that does include a large and productive agricultural sector.

The former will have to divesify and industrialize pretty quickly, as changing climate steadily erodes its primary industry. The latter is already there. Which one would you bet on, for being better prepared to adapt to changes in global climate?

For another thing, global warming will also increase the incidence and intensity of tornadoes. Brace yourself for a Katrina every ten years (please, someone correct me with serious numbers).

Please, someone assume the responsibility for having made a serious quantitative claim, and back it up with serious numbers.

Also, Katrina was a hurricane. Hurricanes are not tornadoes. Even if you did have serious numbers about tornadoes, you'd still need to make a separate claim about hurricanes, and then back that up with serious numbers as well.

Also, if there's a Katrina every ten years, I imagine that people will stop trying to re-settle the low-lying areas along the Gulf Coast. I don't have any serious numbers, but I'm open to evidence that not resettling the New Orleans lowlands will have a greater impact on GDP than preventing global warming.

And this snippet had me cracking up:

That's some chutzpah. The US has been, under the last government, fueled by denier propaganda, the biggest opponent of implementing Kyoto.

Hilarious as it is, I don't see how it's relevant. Even the Kyoto signatories haven't been all that interested in actually implementing it. And even if they were, and even if the US did get on board, it would still be a losing proposition--which is the argument actually being made.

Or cease to exist. The rational response of the Maldivians, for instance, would be to immigrate to the US, take advantage of that Second Amendment and by force take possession of enough dwellings to compensate for their losses at home.

Going to war with the US, especially by the same strategy currently being employed by countless inner-city street gangs (with whom they would undoubtedly have to compete, if they employed such a strategy), would probably be the least productive and most irrational response.

The rational response would be for them to sue for UN refugee status, asylum, and reparations. Which is probably exactly what they'll do. And it'll probaly work, too. And it'll probably cost less of the US GDP to pay for it all, too.

Little wonder: every stat acts out of self-interest, and the economies of China and India are just gearing up and still nowhere near Western levels - both countries have 3 to 4 times the population of the US.

Which brings us back around full circle to the original premise: The best use of resources is to adapt to global climate change as it happens, rather than trying to combat it.

Of course, I don't have any serious numbers to back up such a premise, but I'm willing to consider evidence that it will be cheaper for the US (either unilaterrally or in cooperation with the Kyoto signatories) to carry the entire cost of combating China's and India's influence on global climate change, rather than simply adapting as it happens.

 

[ddt]

China is now the world's second largest economy. Have you been sleeping?

No. As I said, China has 3 to 4 times the population of the USA.

Per capita GDP (PPP):
USA: $46,381
China: $7,518
India: $2,941

 

[funk de fino]

The US is cold? Too funny. I guess the guy is a Notherner and won't care if all those pesky southerners perish. Be like Katrina all over again.

 

[Elind]

No. As I said, China has 3 to 4 times the population of the USA.

Per capita GDP (PPP):
USA: $46,381
China: $7,518
India: $2,941

So?

My point is that population is not directly related to global warming issues, but total GDP is.

What is your point?

 

[little grey rabbit]

In the end I assume we will eventually run up against some kind of peak oil and peak coal and maybe even peak minerals.

So global warming (although obviously nonsense) might be a good way to manage an inevitable transition to a low carbon economy. The alternative, with our exponential increases in consumption, might rapidly drying up supplies might be quite traumatic over a short period of time.

Either that or our elites are just stark raving bonkers.

(Actually the two explanations are not necessarily contradictory)

 

[Checkmite]

I think this is a completely rational and valid approach to the global warming problem. It's one that I've thought of myself even, and I've accepted the fact of global warming from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, global warming has been Hollywoodized, with many people subscribing to factoids such as:

For another thing, global warming will also increase the incidence and intensity of tornadoes. Brace yourself for a Katrina every ten years (please, someone correct me with serious numbers).

As long as doom and gloom is inextricably linked to AGW in the minds of most of its proponents, it's unreasonable to expect many to give the OP approach a fair shot.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Is there a steel encasing around the entire United States that prevents its output of CO2 from impacting the rest of the planet?

If not, that article is breathtakingly selfish.

 

[Neally]

Is there a steel encasing around the entire United States that prevents its output of CO2 from impacting the rest of the planet?

If not, that article is breathtakingly selfish.

Does the US have unlimited funds for mitigation of GW, the use of which would not impact those funds being used for other humanitarian purposes? If not, the article is breathtakingly practical and realistic.

 

[elbe]

It looks like it ignores just how much of our regular goods come from out of country. We aren't self sufficient so ignoring what happens to the rest of the world seems naive. We'd pick up the slack in supply for many of the important things, eventually, but not after a dramatic hit in quality of life. And there are things we just don't produce, like bananas.

Personally, I don't recall anyone saying the US should act unilaterally toward AGW, but our actions have an impact on other nations' choices: if the big boy won't even bother with it, then why should the smaller ones?

 

[marplots]

It looks like it ignores just how much of our regular goods come from out of country. We aren't self sufficient so ignoring what happens to the rest of the world seems naive. We'd pick up the slack in supply for many of the important things, eventually, but not after a dramatic hit in quality of life. And there are things we just don't produce, like bananas. Personally, I don't recall anyone saying the US should act unilaterally toward AGW, but our actions have an impact on other nations' choices: if the big boy won't even bother with it, then why should the smaller ones?

I think eventually with AWG we get bananas. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the OP as a significant side benefit.

 

[Checkmite]

I think eventually with AWG we get bananas. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the OP as a significant side benefit.

I think that's rather peachy.

 

[Rufo]

Is there a steel encasing around the entire United States that prevents its output of CO2 from impacting the rest of the planet?

If not, that article is breathtakingly selfish.

Does the US have unlimited funds for mitigation of GW, the use of which would not impact those funds being used for other humanitarian purposes? If not, the article is breathtakingly practical and realistic.

I think you're both right.

From a breathtakingly selfish perspective, the article is breathtakingly practical and realistic (at least in the international relations definition of realism).