Is the potiential cost of limiting CO2 emissions overshadowing the debate?

A common theme in this disscussion seems to be that not doing anything would be expensive in the long run. Is that true if it results in an approach that leaves China and India growing like weeds, and leaves at the curb an alternate approach that could incent them to participate?

More to the point, how is a vague plattitude about future costs an informed, intelligent or effective argument in favor of the specifics of any individual bill, including but not limited to Leiberman-Warner? There are many paths towards future reductions, and this one is not adequately justified as the best one.

Any global warming bill has to stand on its merits. If a bill has to get defended with plattitudes, that's a red flag. If there's no indication that it will achieve a reduction in warming, that's a red flag. If it is not compared side by side with other options (reducing black soot for example), that's a red flag. If there's not a reasonable economic analysis showing that it's cost effective, that's a red flag. Everything about the arguments usde to promote this bil points to an empty, feel-good measure that is unlikely to yield results and can be seriously abused.

We can all jump on a bandwagon and beat a drum in tune with one side or the other, but I don't see any tangible details that would lead me to do so, in either direction.

Show me the money, show me the projected results, and show me how they're better than other options. That's entirely reasonable. Anyone who is not interested in those components is not making or advocating an informed decision.

As for this article, the woman makes the wild claim that technology will save us, saying who would have imagined PDAs 20 years ago. Apple Newtons were shipping 15 years ago, and so her comment leads me to question her intelligence (or at least her judgement). Furthermore, using an example from the electronics industry, which benefits from "Moore's Law", smacks of deliberate deceptiveness, since electronics technology advancement doesn't even remotely resemble a reasonable expected development rate in the basic physics that's needed to sequester carbon.

Blithely glossing over a $0.68/gallon increase neglects to consider how the the nearly $2.50 increase since 2000 (when gas was $1.54 according to Barbara Boxer) is affecting average American families already. It also recklessly, or perhaps intentionally, omits the compounding effect that rising gas costs have on the cost of all other goods and services (as does the $2.50 still getting worked into our prices, and the additional $1 coming by the end of this year).

If she can use "gas rose $0.68 last week" as if that's cause to not be concerned about the cost fo the tax, she clearly is not an averge American living in a household of four living on $46,000 per year. It makes her come across as another rich leech riding on the wealth of the politics industry, out of touch with the realities of most citizens. She is efectively telling everyone else, whose challenges she can't even fathom, to just suck it up. For someone influencing public policy, she has an incredible lack of perspective. As I read the interview, I keep expecting her to be asked what people should eat, and to see her reply, "Let them eat cake".

The cost of the war is no excuse to add a carbon tax; it's a reason to tighten our belts (perhaps reduce other overinflated Pentagon budgets to help pay for it). Our country has some really bizarre spending priorities that could easily be reassessed. Our population does not have a high birth rate, but we're planning 100 new coal power plants to handle the 1 million immigrants we accept each year. We have to build schools, roads, sewage treatment plants, tap our water supplies, and import oil for them as well. In many major Arizona cities 2/3 of new babies born are to illegal immigrants. Their healthcare is free, while mine is $2000/year for a policy that makes me pay about 50% of costs (so I effectively can't use it). Now I have to offset their carbon load, including offsetting those 100 new power plants I was taxed to pay for as they arrived! If carbon reductions are this critical, tightening immigration is a dead-obvious necessessity. Why is that not reflected in the bill?

Back to the article, here Ms. Peace admits to having no clue about the benefits:

"PEACE: (laughs) None of the models include the benefits. The benefits side of the story is probably the least studied of this whole question. But for the most part, I think people – at least the folks that I deal with – tend to agree that there's no doubt that the costs of inaction are expected to be widely, or much higher, than the cost of taking action."

So the claim of lower cost than not implementing the bill is apparently based on conversations with people that she deals with (people employed at her think tank and politicians)! That's a low burden of proof. From an economist who admits that no one has even tried to model any benefits or other results that might come from these expenditures. The development of new technologies to sell glboally is mentioned, but something tells me that those families living on $46,000 who payed for that development are note goin to receive the money that generated.

This is a seriously regressive tax that will slam the lower 3/4 of American households, a real shocker to see coming from Democrats.

I'm all for a productive attack on climate change, but if this is the best analysis that proponents can come up with, and people seeing this type of argument are willing to accept plattitudes and set aside all due dilligence, we truly are screwed. It's weird to see otherswise intelligent people get swept up by oversimplistic rationale that masks (so transparently!) a lack of due dilligence and a resulting a lack of appropriate strategy and tactics.

This step, at this time (given gas prices and their compounded effect on our lives), should not be taken lightly, and not without exhausting all other forms of conservation and fiscal restraint first.

Now that you mention it, CO2 emissions policies really seem to be a moot point. The kinds of things you are talking about is stuff I've been aware of for a while now. I had even heard talk about these kinds of issues from a politician called Ron Paul. Just hearing the amount of the US deficit is shocking. But the fact is that the US could easily pay for the all energy it could ever want if the various governments which have been in power knew how to manage money. Unfortunately, there is too much corruption and poor policy going on (and it ain't just in the US) to the point where I wouldn't even let these tools in power/have been in power manage a chook raffle...they are THAT incompetent. Just look at all the special benefits (like pensions) politicians have been able to get and how they must be laughing so hard all the way to the bank. The people themselves are also at fault because they seem to be too blinded by political ideology/dogma. To relate with this question, I'll use an example of the US - I actually find it kind of laughable you can actually have states which can be considered 'blue' or 'red' which ultimately concludes that this is how the population tends to vote. This kind of thing seems to go on where I live and I actually believe this is all true just based on the kinds of statements people say. I've actually heard reasoning (even in my country) such as 'my family have always voted [insert one of major parties here]'. Who really knows what is gonna happen to the US. It sounds to me like their balls are in a vice though, so maybe it's only a matter of time until someone (like China for example) flicks the switch and let's it rip.

The cost of Government resolving most problems is to high, that's why our country was founded on the idea limited government. I would much rather the leaders in Washington call in people from the private sector and have them come up with solutions to our energy needs that will not hurt the pocket book of the average American tax payer. Right now if anything our current government is way to large we need to get back to the intent of our founders. Limited Government.

The high cost being proposed for CO2-limiting programs is of major concern in light of the fact that 'Man-did-it' global warming has yet to be proven.

It seems that we still haven't learned our lesson from the Ethanol fiasco.

Yes, and the economic fear-mungers have it backwards. The most respected economic analysis of this issue clearly show that the cost of NOT responding to global warming (given the climate scientists consensus view, not the extremist views) far exceeds the cost of acting now to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's much cheaper to pay for an effective quit-smoking program now, than to pay to treat lung cancer 30 years from now. The same is true regarding global warming. The longer we wait to act, the more negative economic impact it will cause.

Most economics report estimate just 1% GDP would sufficiently address the problem now. If we wait 10 - 20 years, estimates go as high as 5 - 20% of GDP.

Politics as usual Amy L. I found it completely stunning that GWB actually decried the bill as "costing future generations" and "mortgaging the future of our children".

What a load of hypocritical crud. As if... well you know that whole war thing... gaaah I'm speechless.

It's way different as previous answers have pointed out - we actually have evidence that the cost of doing nothing outweighs... and the fact that we generate green jobs and... creating a sustainable, efficient, stable economy not dependent on imported oil in the hotbed of world conflict....

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!

Oh I just have to stop - it should almost go without saying - it's just so silly for these jerks to be using this argument. I am losing faith here and simply tired of the whole bag of crud.

Only to the working people. If you are on a gov. Check then you don't give a flip now do you?

We understand completely.

The issue is raising taxes to fund a completely irresponsible fiscal and social nightmare called big government.

No doubt about it. The only reason not to pass the Lieberman-Warner bill is

a) It only proposes a 66% cut in GHG emissions by 2050, which is too conservative (other bills propose 80% as scientists recommend).

b) The argument the Republican senators (and president) are making, that it's too costly.

The latter reason is frustrating for 2 reasons as well:

a) This is the more conservative bill - if we can't pass 66% reductions, I don't see how an 80% reduction will get past congress.

b) They say 'oh no it's going to cost trillions of dollars', but over 40 years that's only a few percent of our GDP per year tops! We have 3% GDP growth per year, so essentially it's just going to slow our economic growth down (not cause an economic crash) while preventing huge global warming mitigation costs in the future of 5-20% GDP every year!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_0...

It's amazing that we're prepared to spend any amount of money to "protect our country from terrorists", yet when it comes to the future of the entire human race, suddenly the purse strings get tight.

The problem with Bob's claim is what is the assumption of what damages will occur if we do nothing.

From his second link:

# Hurricane damages: $422 billion

# Real estate losses: $360 billion

But does increases in temperature increase hurricanes? The evidence is now saying no.

"Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday."

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080518/BREAKING...

The property damage is based on what? Is it on Al Gore's claim of sea level rise, or the two feet by the IPCC?

Notice that my claims id based on the assumption that AGW is real (which I do not believe).

Claim of droughts. My understanding is that precipitation has increased in the U.S. So why are they saying droughts will be more common?

No, the general public would be quite happy to make some concessions to the environmental activists if it didn't cost much money.

Nobody complained about the gradual phase out of CFC's from developed countries because, while the science was doubtful, the cost to the consumer was perceived to be minimal.

If you want to make some changes based on doubtful science that are going to cost a lot of money (like 1% of world GDP which Nicholas Stern of the world bank wants) - it's just not going to happen.

(edit)

Bob, your idea of an expert is someone who pulls numbers out of the air that happen to support your beliefs. All these numbers that various people quote (like Nicholas Stern's it will cost 20% of world GDP to do nothing) come straight out of the air. There are no calculations involved in deriving these numbers.

(edit)

Bob,

These people are political activists, they are trying to be alarmist, not accurate. First they start with a number that sounds good, then do some breakdowns to try to make the number sound credible.

Your researcher claims an additional 1 trillion dollars per annum will be spent on water. That's twice the entire US defence budget. I think it's safe to say that number was pulled out of the air.