MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Paris climate agreement’

What Universities Won’t Teach College Students About the Economics of Climate Change | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2019

projects that if governments “did nothing,” total global warming would reach about 4.1 degrees Celsius. In contrast, if governments implemented the “optimal carbon tax,” as Nordhaus would recommend in a perfect world, then total warming would be about 3.5 degrees Celsius.

And yet, Nordhaus’ own work—not shown in the figure above, but I spell it out here—clearly concludes that such an aggressive target would cause far more damage to humans in the form of reduced economic output, that it would be better for governments to “do nothing” about climate change at all.

https://mises.org/wire/what-universities-wont-teach-college-students-about-economics-climate-change

I recently gave a talk to a student group at Connecticut College on the economics of climate change. (The video is broken up into three parts on my YouTube channel: onetwo, and three.) In this post I’ll summarize three of my main points: (1) There is a huge disconnect between what the published economics research actually says about government policies to limit global warming, and how the media is reporting it. (2) President Trump taking the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement doesn’t really affect anything on the margin, even if we stipulate the alarmist position on climate change. And (3) If I’m wrong, and human-caused climate change really does pose a dire threat to humanity in the next few decades, then scientists are currently working on several lines of research of practical ways to actually deal with the problem.

The “Consensus Research” Does Not Justify Radical Political Intervention

I first clarified to the students that throughout my talk, I wasn’t going to grab results from right-wing think tanks, or from “fringe” scientists who were considered cranks by their peers. On the contrary, I would be relaying results from sources such as the work of a Nobel laureate William Nordhaus (whose model on climate change policy had been one of three used by the Obama Administration) and from the UN’s own periodic report summarizing the latest research on climate change science and policy.

To demonstrate just how wide the chasm is between the actual economics research and the media treatment of these issues, I described to the students the spectacle I observed back in the fall of 2018, when on the same weekend news came out that William Nordhaus had won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change and that the UN released a “Special Report” advising governments to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The media treatment (sometimes in the same story) presented these events with no sense of conflict or irony, leading regular citizens to assume that Nordhaus’ Nobel-winning work supported the UN’s goals for policymakers.

But that is not true at all. Here’s a graph from a 2017 Nordhaus publication that I included in my presentation:

slide-2.png

As the figure shows, Nordhaus’ model—and again, this isn’t cooked up by the Heritage Foundation, but instead was one selected by the Obama Administration’s EPA and was the reason he won the Nobel Prize—projects that if governments “did nothing,” total global warming would reach about 4.1 degrees Celsius. In contrast, if governments implemented the “optimal carbon tax,” as Nordhaus would recommend in a perfect world, then total warming would be about 3.5 degrees Celsius.

Anyone remotely familiar with the climate change policy debate knows that such an amount of warming would terrify the prominent activists and groups advocating for a political solution. They would quite confidently tell the public that warming of this amount would spell absolute catastrophe for future generations.

My point here isn’t to endorse Nordhaus’ model. My point is simply that Americans never heard anything about this when the media simultaneously covered Nordhaus’ award and the UN’s document calling for a 1.5°C limit. And yet, Nordhaus’ own work—not shown in the figure above, but I spell it out here—clearly concludes that such an aggressive target would cause far more damage to humans in the form of reduced economic output, that it would be better for governments to “do nothing” about climate change at all.

With or Without the United States, the Paris Agreement Was Going to “Fail”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Delingpole: Trump Vindicated as Paris Climate Agreement Unravels

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2018

Western countries don’t want to stump up for what is essentially an attempted shakedown by poorer countries demanding more handouts in the name of “climate justice.”

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/05/delingpole-trump-vindicated-as-paris-climate-agreement-unravels/

by James Delingpole

The Paris Climate Agreement is a dead non-binding treaty walking. All the signatories know this, none of them will admit it. So instead, we have to endure the ritual spectacle of UN delegates racking up yet more air miles and dumping their carbon footprint on a new location in order to wail hysterically that much, much more needs to be done to save the planet from the greatest threat evah.

This week the UN’s clown caravan has moved to Bangkok, Thailand – the preliminary to an even bigger meeting, COP24, in December in Katowice, Poland.

As the South China Morning Post reports, the auguries aren’t good:

Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, United Nations climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkokmeeting, as rich nations were accused of shirking their responsibility for environmental damage.

That’s because – just as they were in Paris 2015 – the negotiations are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Western countries don’t want to stump up for what is essentially an attempted shakedown by poorer countries demanding more handouts in the name of “climate justice.”

Developing economies – as they have cunningly managed to designate themselves – like India and China and the rest of the BRICs have absolutely no interest in hampering their economies with carbon emissions cuts, not least because they recognise that “global warming” is just a scam invented by Euro Weenies who want to decide how the world is run.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE PARIS AGREEMENT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL TREATY

Posted by M. C. on June 2, 2017

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266881/paris-agreement-was-unconstitutional-and-illegal-daniel-greenfield#.WTHcMbIKuvc.wordpress

Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Full stop. Obama unilaterally made an illegal agreement without bringing it to the Senate using a mixture of lies and word games. This is the same way that he illegally went to war in Libya, implemented illegal alien amnesty and did a whole raft of other things illegally and unconstitutionally.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The Paris Climate Agreement – Aussie Conservative Blog

Posted by M. C. on June 1, 2017

https://aussieconservative.blog/2017/06/01/the-paris-climate-agreement-2/#respond

They want to take your MONEY and control your life.

Like the climategate emails demonstrated, the environmental MONEY machine can’t even tell us why things happened in the past let alone what the temperature reduction will be due to the Paris agreement.

Terrorism and environmentalism are a lot alike, just as… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »