Costs Are Not Benefits

A Nobel price winning economist who does not recognize the broken windows fallacy when he is proposing it himself. Interesting, to say the least.

Ricardo Reis' EconTalk comments in response to Russ' question on Krugman need to be listened to by everyone who supports Don's wailing against fellow economists.

Moreever, Don's environmental position is striking in the face of his willingness to accept as a foregone conclusion his predicted future effects of government spending while claiming any future environmental consequences are merely theoretical.

Is there any way to revoke a Nobel prize based on the receipents continued demonstration of his ignorance of the subject to which the prize was won?

Capital investment and the subsequent operating cost for non-productive assets is simply a cost that either must be covered through higher prices or reduced returns in the form of profits. Neither outcome is an economic benefit for either the consumer nor the investor.

What Mr. Krugman is doing again is using his past glories to rationalize the irrational. A good lie may be believed by some but in the end it is still a lie.

... making resources go farther in their capacity to satisfy human desires.

Krugman is human, and he desires decreased carbon emissions. If he manages to get it, I suppose he's entitled to it, and the rest of us have no business complaining, because he's entitled and we aren't. If we have less of what we desire by comparison, so what?

All of this silly egalitarianism is incredible.

I am still just a street guy and I think Krugman is a dipstick on this one (of many).

"It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity""

Without a degree or a nobel prize, I understand the purpose of a business is to make money for its owner(s), period, end of story.

Krugman thinks that businesses look for, or benefit, from investment in new equipment and facilities that in effect produce nothing the business can sell?

Egads!

Rob,

In my letter, I neither railed against a fellow economist nor took any position on the environment.

I railed against the notion that making resources scarcer promotes economic vigor.

The instance that Krugman happened to raise in his column was an environmental one, but I would have said exactly the same thing in response to Krugman (or to anyone else) had he argued that, say, a statute requiring that no jet liner carry more than ten passengers per trip would benefit the economy by giving firms "a reason to invest."

What Mr. Krugman is doing again is using his past glories to rationalize the irrational.

He's the authority making an argument from authority.

on's environmental position is striking in the face of his willingness to accept as a foregone conclusion his predicted future effects of government spending while claiming any future environmental consequences are merely theoretical.

Don's "environmental position" is irrelevant as, in either case, the expenditure of resources (in pursuit of AGW mitigation) is a cost and not a boon to the economy.

We've already hashed out the AGW and climate issue here.

Keep trying, maybe you'll earn a YASAFI too.

Without a degree or a nobel prize, I understand the purpose of a business is to make money for its owner(s), period, end of story.

Where did you get this idea? Businesses make money for employees, particularly corporate officers, bond holders, tax collectors and many other interests.

Krugman thinks that businesses look for, or benefit, from investment in new equipment and facilities that in effect produce nothing the business can sell?

No. He thinks that if statesmen order businesses to march in some direction, they will. If the statesmen promise the businesses "profits", by arranging forcible propriety to channel money toward them, they'll march even faster.

Martin, your cynicism is showing.

Ah well, it certainly isn't misplaced.

I think Krugman may have been talking about the spending effects, not the efficiency effects.

We don't know the efficiency effects of reducing CO2 emmisions. It ranges from a complete waste of money, to nessesary for life.

Can we now declare that Krugman is the most incompetent practitioner of "the economic way of thinking" to ever have won the Nobel Prize?

(and the standard is, sadly, not that high).

These guys win the Nobel for the math, not for their ability to use the economic way of thinking -- most especially, almost none of them applied the economics way of thinking to heterogeneous production goods that take more or less time -- the most important part of economics for understanding capitalism.

Carbon regulations simply provide power to the political class to reward friends and punish enemies. Rather than through direct regulation, I propose a revenue- neutral tax shift from payroll taxes, which have known negative impacts (less employment) to a carbon based tax on all fossil carbon. This Carbon Added Tax (CAT) could be set up like a value added tax (VAT), i.e., refunded on exports and added to imports, thereby not impacting domestic competitiveness. A CAT would be a more efficient and powerful disincentive to consume carbon than a complex web of regulations.

A CAT would create investment incentives for everyone in the society, not just a select group of businesses (you cannot avoid payroll tax, but you can avoid CAT by investing). All citizens could increase the productivity of their carbon use with no limits on their imaginations. A revenue-neutral CAT would neither increase the government debt nor require printing money. However, it would still achieve a stimulus effect of increasing investment, along with increasing carbon utilization efficiency.

Rep. Inglis has such a proposal. It needs a lot of support.

http://inglis.house.gov/issues.asp?content=sect...>

@greg, I like your idea much better than cap and trade. Cap and trade does not guarantee CO2 emmisions will decrease. It only says that costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Stopping economic activity is not the way to lower CO2 emmisions. Lowering CO2 emmisions can actually be done by moving away from fossil fuels for low-speed transportation.

CO2 is a threat to us, and we should be ramping up for war.

Is there a story as to why there is no link to Mises in the blogroll?

Am I missing something?

Erecting a wind turbine or a solar panel array and passively allowing them to collect energy to power our economy seems an efficiency over fighting trillion dollar wars for oil that needs transportation and refining and blowing off mountaintops to extract coal to run steam turbines. Massive externalities of the latter not even mentioned. Massive numbers of high tech jobs to transform the energy sector not even mentioned. Also restructuring the national grid will be a massive improvement in efficiency form the current grid. But of course all this will require "planning" that scary dangerous heretical word that apparently threatens our very existence.

This blunder is one that Krugman has repeated in a variety of statements. I recall his arguing that a benefit of the 9/11 terrorist destruction of the Twin Towers was that it would provide jobs to construction workers. Certainly every disaster implies private benefits for some people, but economists, who think in terms of scarcity, recognize the distinction between private and social benefits and costs. Ultimately, this is the Luddite fallacy over which Krugman has tripped. We want employment to create wealth because of scarcity, we do not want or need to increase scarcity to great employment (or investment). Krugman has it exactly backward.

Can we now declare that Krugman is the most incompetent practitioner of "the economic way of thinking" to ever have won the Nobel Prize?

Posted by: Greg Ransom

You can declare anything you want. Just remember Krugman wrote a book years ago predicting the current economic crisis while some other economist have been, until just a few months ago been telling us how grand everything is.

Having solid economics intuition is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a Nobel Laureate in Economic Science.

Erecting a wind turbine or a solar panel array and passively allowing them to collect energy to power our economy seems an efficiency over fighting trillion dollar wars for oil that needs transportation and refining and blowing off mountaintops to extract coal to run steam turbines.

Wind and solar power are not without environmental impact.

Wars are not needed over oil.

You are supposing that there is no ideological basis behind U.S. foreign policy and military strategy.

These policies and strategies have been implemented by people with only the most rudimentary understanding of markets, but are firmly grounded in blue pill ideologies.

"a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction” should not “in the short-to-medium run… give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity" but to invest plentiful in the research needed to find viable solutions.

In the midst of a financial crisis and an upcoming climate change crisis, to advocate wasting resources in economically inefficient solutions is pure madness. At this moment the only bridge between the scarcity of resources and the need to urgently fight the climate change is nuclear energy… as all the official projections show but where no green dares go.

One would expect those being most concerned with climate change being the most concerned with each cent being spent as wisely as possible… but the opposite seems to be the case.

Whenever I read misguided Krugman-like comments like the one Don points to, I wonder how much the writer really knows about economics. I'm reminded of a statement written by the author of a Math Econ text I used in college. I can only paraphrase, but in the preface, the author warned readers that math is a tool, and should be treated as the slave, not the master by the economic analyst. He went on to suggest that some math geeks who call themselves economists may know all the ins and outs of Frobenius matrices, but would be hard pressed to explain why apples are lower priced after the harvest than they were before.

At this moment the only bridge between the scarcity of resources and the need to urgently fight the climate change is nuclear energy… as all the official projections show but where no green dares go.

So, who cares about them. Until they can come up with a compelling alternative, they should complain amongst themselves.

We need energy. That is a fact.

It can't release greenhouse gasses. That is a fact.

It doesn't take a scientist to see that the earth re-radiates as much energy as it receives, and in fact radiates a little more if you include radioactive decay.

It doesn't take a scientist to realize the earth re-radiates the energy in a higher-entropy state as long as any work or organization is done on the planet.

If outgoing energy is not transmitted as efficiently as infalling energy, then even Krugman would agree the loss of efficiency would be manifest as heat.

It doesn't take a scientist to realize the energy absorption of CO2 is far greater in the re-radiated energy spectrum than in the infalling energy spectrum.

Alright; maybe it did take as scientist to measure the CO2 absorption spectrum. But so what, says the uninformed; temperatures rise a few degrees, new maps are drawn with different coasts... big deal.

That would be the extent of the problem except for a couple of little things that lead to a runaway positive feedback loop with increasing temperatures.

CO2 absorption by the ocean is a function of temperature, with higher temperatures leading to less absorption of CO2, which leads to higher temperatures. Rinse, spit, repeat.

Also, eons of infalling energy have been stored in batteries called plants. They give up their energy when they die. They do this through decay. Microbes convert the carbohydrates into even simpler organic compounds, such as methane and other hydrocarbons.

There are massive amounts of dead plants that have not decayed which are locked in the permafrost in Canada and Russia. The permafrost was maybe named prematurely, as it has been shown that heat can thaw it out.

That's very bad, because if it thaws even a little, it will begin to release large amounts of CO2 and methane, which heats the atmosphere more, which thaws more permafrost... Rinse, spit, repeat.

Methane is 25 times more absorbent of the re-radiated energy spectrum than CO2, but is removed from the atmosphere faster. A Lot is removed by the ocean, where it is absorbed and sinks. If allowed to sink far enough, the pressure causes it to form solid methane hydrate, which has collected in huge quantities in the deep parts of the ocean.

If the ocean depths begin to warm, and they will if the atmosphere does, then guess what substance will release absolutely huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere.

The good news is that once all life has been stripped from the planet, the average color of the planet will be lighter and more reflective so greater amounts of infalling energy will re-radiate in a low-entropy state and things will cool off once again.

The earth will be fine. It will still orbit the sun.

Mr/Ms Ackermann, you forgot to tell us how long we have until we pass the tipping point into this runaway positive feedback loop. I recommend something on the order of 50-75 years. Anything less, and people might just decide to live it up because there's no fixing it. Anything more, and it's the next generation's problem.

You might also include something about why China and India will go along with any of this. On the other hand, that might cause people to think about whether CO2 emissions can be reduced at all. Nobody wants that. I recommend a declaration that they will go along with it, so as not to conflict with the style or substance of rest of your pitch.

Other than that, bang-up work. You should run for office.

He went on to suggest that some math geeks who call themselves economists may know all the ins and outs of Frobenius matrices, but would be hard pressed to explain why apples are lower priced after the harvest than they were before.

Is "math geek" the same as a person who is proficient in mathematics?

I've wondered what would happen if someone with great command of math applied ever went into the field of economics - what hind of insight they might turn up.

Someone like Kurt Gödel, who had a habit of destroying what were thought to be consistent formulations or systems of such. As a mere birthday present, Gödel gave Einstein a model that proved Einstein's field equations of general relativity were inconsistent.

Of course, Gödel died of starvation in New Jersey. He forgot to eat to death.

"Massive numbers of high tech jobs to transform the energy sector not even mentioned. Also restructuring the national grid will be a massive improvement in efficiency form the current grid."

-Muirdog

Wow, it sounds like a great idea. I wonder why all those greedy wall street types you love to talk about aren't lining up to take advantage of all the money that's gonna be made.

I say start mining methane hydrates full blast, lets get runaway AGW going and open up new farming land in Siberia!

Leave it to muirgeo to not understand the subtleties of business plans.

Dallas: How will your CAT (carbon added tax) pay for national health care, though? I mean, that is the real purpose behind cap-and-trade isn't it?

No mulberry bush chasing here Martin. Have you ever read a Playboy holding it in two hands, Martin?

"No. He thinks that if statesmen order businesses to march in some direction, they will. If the statesmen promise the businesses "profits", by arranging forcible propriety to channel money toward them, they'll march even faster.

Posted by: Martin Brock | May 3, 2009 11:05:40 AM

But, what if thinks he statesman forcibly business proprietary arranging money marching to direction faster? What then then what? It seems that you think he thinks that's what I think, or maybe not. Yada yada Yada.

I'll just go with what I said. Seems straightforward enough to me, without inserting useless preaching to a choir of one.

Actually, "math geek" was my term. I believe what the text author had in mind was that some muscle-bound symbol flippers confuse mathematical elegance with economic insight. The quest to represent every economic problem in closed-form algebra often leads to "models" that bear no resemblance to the issue the analyst claims to be investigating.

K Ackerman wrote:

That would be the extent of the problem except for a couple of little things that lead to a runaway positive feedback loop with increasing temperatures.

This is false. The climate is dominated by negative feedbacks that prevent the sort of "runaway" positive feedback loop you attempt to frighten us with. The proof of this is that in the past, CO2 levels have been as much as 17 times higher than at present, with global temperatures 10 degrees hotter -- yet there was no "runaway".

What's more, the case for global warming is seriously weakened by certain data the main stream media never talks about or publicizes. Let me acquaint you with just one fact.

All of the global climate models that form the backbone of the predictions about the effects of rising CO2 on temperatures show that the greatest heating will occur in the tropical troposphere. Here the heating is -- according to these models -- expected to be significantly greater than the heating that shows up in the surface record.

Yet all of the satellite and weather balloon observations of the tropical troposphere taken since 1979 -- when the first satellites went into service -- show that tropical troposphere temperatures today are NO HIGHER than they were 30 years ago when the satellites first started measuring it. Go here to see a graph of these temperatures for yourself:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5756
</p>

The expected heating of the tropical troposphere has not occurred.

The graphs shown by the popular media is almost always the surface temperature record, which does show about .7 ( that’s 7/10ths of 1 degree) warming over the past 100 years. However, there are problems with this record. For one thing, it is still contaminated by urban heat island effects. A survey of the weather stations used to take these readings show that in many cases, the thermometers are located in the middle of paved parking lots. The man who heads up this surface record, the notoriously biased James Hanson, claims that all UHI effects have been “adjusted out” -- yet, he refuses to release any details on exactly how these adjustments have been done. And if you study the temperatures before and after his “adjustments”, you find more stations adjusted UPWARD than downward -- the exact opposite of what should occur if one is correcting for urban heat island effect.

Another problem with the surface record is the loss of thousands of reporting stations in the 1990s. These stations were lost when the U.S.S.R. collapsed and could no longer afford to staff these stations. Most of the lost stations were -- you guessed it -- in places like Siberia. So the entire network of stations was shifted toward a mix that contained far more stations in warm areas than in cold.

So what you are always shown is this flawed, questionable surface record -- when the real place that should be showing the most heating, the tropical troposphere, which shows no heating over the last 30 years -- is never shown to you.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of dishonesty one can find with even a little study of the alleged “science” of global warming.

And as for the claim that there is a strong “consensus” among scientists, here is a web site where over 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition disagreeing with global warming theory. Here is the web site:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Be sure to read the petitioner's article titled “Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research”, available at this link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Global warming from human CO2 emissions is far, far from proven -- and is contradicted by most of the available evidence.

@kevin - excellent point about expectations. Rational choice has so many directions that are... rational.

We are lousy at thinking for the long term.

With their 10-year investment plan, there is a 30% chance it will lose all your money. With our 10-year plan, there is only a 3% chance of losing all your money in any given year.

Now, let's talk about the 33-year plan.

"muscle bound symbol flipping." Sounds alot like mental masturbation.

You can always count on Krugman to turn things upside down. So, although Earth somehow got out of the ice age without fossil-fuel-burning, junk-science-junkie knuckle-draggers with gas-guzzling SUVs around, global warming is certainly man-made. Accordingly, the current economic mess is an equivalent of a natural disaster - it just happened. Who could have possibly though it would? For, had humans caused it, we certainly would not entrust the same people who had their fingers in the pot to provide a solution, would we?

If there ever was a living example of Ellsworth Toohey, it's Krugman.

Paul Krugman: our version of Lysenko.

Under Paul Krugman economics is guided not by well thought out theories backed by empirical evidence but by ideology.

Economics, according to the moral ciphers in power at the moment, is to be practiced in service to the modern day left wing ideologues.

Quote from K. Ackerman: "Now, let's talk about the 33-year plan."

How about we talk about the voluntarily funded non-governmental plan that is free to do whatever it wants with money from whom ever it can talk into contributing.

Yet all of the satellite and weather balloon observations of the tropical troposphere taken since 1979 -- when the first satellites went into service -- show that tropical troposphere temperatures today are NO HIGHER than they were 30 years ago when the satellites first started measuring it...

Yes, I'm trying to frighten you because I have some ulterior motive to do so. The people who think up this science stuff should stop telling people about it. It scares them.

In your mind, are those temperature readings that you didn't link to conclusive proof that global warming is not/will not take place?

Maybe this is why some economic models fail. They look at first-order data and come to a conclusion.

Let see... what could keep the troposphere temperature constant in the face of larger concentrations of heat-retaining gasses in the atmosphere?

Some unknown explaination.

Some unknowable explaination, such as God.


Maybe higher wind speeds would improve heat convection to the stratosphere, or take a larger volume of air over the poles.


Maybe more frequent and severe storms would dissapate energy.

Someone would tell us if the measured temperatures have been warmer at the poles, and we would notice things like more frequent and severe storms.

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings? I only ask because maybe they were events that caused spikes, but then flattened out because there was no year-after-year sustained elevations of CO2. That's just a thought.

Also, how much permafrost was around at the time of these events?

Also, if a CO2 event could in fact cause dramatic changes, one has to wonder if sustained CO2 elevations might cause even more dramatic changes.

It's just a thought, but I'm not saying you have to think about.

I can't say much about Krugman's economics. I only had one university level class in that subject, but I vividly recall the prof discussing the broken window fallacy.

I can say something about his claim that to disagree with the global warming ideology is "junk science." Mr. Krugman, the earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, give or take a few billion. Over that time, there have been periods during which the earth was much warmer than now, and periods in which there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth's dynamic systems have cycles, including the carbon cycle. Now human beings have been around in the modern form for less than 100,000 years give or take a few (in deep planetary time this is the blink of an eye), and our brains became fully modern only during the most recent glacial advance. Civilization started with the end of the most recent glacial advance. So where do we get the idea that the earth's climate must now remain constant because we are here?

Ackerman asked:

In your mind, are those temperature readings that you didn't link to conclusive proof that global warming is not/will not take place?

I would never claim that temperatures "I didn't link to" prove anything. I didn't claim that global warming is NOT occurring -- I simply noted that it is not PROVEN -- despite the fact that it is generally proclaimed to be -- and that the facts, in many cases, contradict the global warming claims.

He also wrote:

Let see... what could keep the troposphere temperature constant in the face of larger concentrations of heat-retaining gasses in the atmosphere?

Some unknown explaination.


Some unknowable explaination, such as God.


Maybe higher wind speeds would improve heat convection to the stratosphere, or take a larger volume of air over the poles.


Maybe more frequent and severe storms would dissapate energy.

I did not -- and would not -- -propose any of those (mostly) fallacious and foolish “straw man” “explanations” you offer in a lame attempt to discredit the facts I offered -- instead I offer the simpler explanation -- that the surface record is distorted and that the global climate models that predict tropical troposphere warming underestimate NATURAL variability and fail to account for natural, i.e. non-man-made, causes of climate variations.

You then followed up with this claim:

Someone would tell us if the measured temperatures have been warmer at the poles, and we would notice things like more frequent and severe storms.

Sure, someone would tell us. But would those who tell us arctic temperatures hit “new highs” also tell us that Antarctic ice is increasing? See here for that story: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_...>

Or just “Goggle” it for yourself. You’ll find lots of stories -- and lots of scientists -- showing the Antarctic ice thickness is increasing.

You then continued:

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings? I only ask because maybe they were events that caused spikes, but then flattened out because there was no year-after-year sustained elevations of CO2. That's just a thought.

No “year-after-year sustained “elevations of CO2”? Are you kidding? There were CENTURIES of “sustained, year-after-year of CO2 elevations”. But two facts stand out -- first, that the increases in CO2 levels seen in the ice core samples, throughout the historical record, CAME AFTER, and FOLLOWED, the increase in temperatures, by some 800 years. This is one of Al Gore’s most egregious lies -- he shows the CO2 levels rising along with temperatures, but he glosses over, and evades, the fact that temperature changes occurred LONG BEFORE the CO2 concentration began to change.

There is a good, and logical, explanation for this phenomena, known to all climate scientists. If the world warms, for ANY reason, even for a reason having nothing to do with CO2, then as the oceans warm, they will release CO2 into the atmosphere. Warm water holds less of any dissolved gas, including CO2, so as the oceans warm in response to atmospheric warming, they will emit CO2, and its concentration will rise.

The exact opposite will happen, during periods of cooling. And the record shows this as well -- as global temperatures decline, CO2 levels decline -- beginning some 800 years AFTER temperatures start to fall -- and they do so because the cooling oceans can hold more CO2.

So, the ice core data, if is proves or indicates anything, shows that CO2 levels FOLLOW -- and RESULT FROM -- temperature changes, as opposed to causing those temperature changes.

Ackerman concluded:

Also, if a CO2 event could in fact cause dramatic changes, one has to wonder if sustained CO2 elevations might cause even more dramatic changes.

It's just a thought, but I'm not saying you have to think about.

Trouble is, the historical record -- as I’ve just pointed out -- indicates that CO2 changes lag behind -- and thus trail -- and thus cannot cause those “dramatic changes” you’d love to link them to.

Once again, we see that a (mostly) cursory examination of the data and the facts shows the fallacies in the global warming theories -- as well as exposing the dishonesty of its promoters.

OK, the topic here was not supposed to be about AGWCT, but I suppose the economic argument has been dealt with.

If there is a warming tipping point and a cascade effect leading to catastrophe (positive feedback) then the question that needs to be answered is why it has not happened already, say during the medieval optimum or any other period with sustained warming.

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings?

These readings are from ancient times.

There is evidence to indicate that warming precedes elevated CO2 levels.

I will re-post a previous comment of mine:

I suspect the field of climate science has been populated by those who were propagandized in public schools on how evil capitalism is destroying the environment, so when they think about their careers, they decide to go into environmental sciences to stop the bad guys and save the earth.

They latch onto AGW because it is what they, more or less, already believe.

AGW isn't their discovery, it is their premise.

I'm a little bit confused with Don and Paul's orginal argument (not the AGW sidetracking). I initiallly thought (hoped) Krugman was more or less saying "it'd be good to invest in new&improved technology for the future" however he actually says "spending money on different things just for the sake of spending money will stir the economy". However I thought 'continued investment' maintains 'economic vitality'. But then, investing in the short-term is an outright expense - you don't know the investing was a nett gain unless it pays off, if it pays off at all.

Am I missing something? - muirgeo

Best comment ever.

Can I just say Wow! How far off the beaten path must we go just to hear our own voices.

Don's analysis is right on target. Keep the inside info coming!

Let me try another approach. I always like to learn from first principles and not faith. Sometimes faith is unavoidable when not enough data is present.

Is global warming possible? I don't mean in some wishy washy way, I mean with the sun being invariant, what does the black-body system look like to allow for an increased equalibrium temperature.

If the sun's output is constant, then the only thing that can cause the average temperature to increase would be a change in the efficiency that the planet re-radiated the infalling energy.

Since the sun is not changing, then an increase in the characteristic temperature would imply either an internal source of new energy, or a decrease in the efficiency in the re-radiated spectrum that somehow did not decrease the efficiency of the absorption spectrum. Something that is more transparent to the incoming energy, and less transparent to the outgoing energy.

Energy falls in and heats up the body. The body reaches a point of equalibrium and begins throwing off the same amount of energy it receives, but the band of emission is purely a function of temperature and has no relation to the frequency spectrum of the incoming energy.

Since infalling energy is constant, any change to the equalibrium temperature must be due to a change in either the rate of absorption or emission of energy in different bands. Conversely, any change in the absorption or emission of energy in different bands must change the characteristic temperature of equalibrium.

This we have to agree on.

CO2 fits that bill. It is more transparent to high frequency visible light than to infrared light. This is beyond faith. It has been measured under just about every condition that affects absorption and emission for the full range of frequencies we are talking about here.

If we can agree to this, then we can begin to ask how larger concentrations of CO2 will not result in a higher characteristic temperature. If we can't agree, then fundamental science is less understood by one of us.

I'm not saying anything about effects, or if it can be countered; I'm just stating my belief that elevated levels of CO2 must result in a higher equalibrium temperature, bar some exotic possibilities that are not worth discussing.

Then the discussion becomes one of temperature vs. quantity. Denying that, then the mechanism which changes the emission spectrum to a more transparent band has to be put forth. Energy doesn't just disappear.

What Krugman also misses is the law of unintended consequences. Krugman just blindly assumes that the business person has only one option - invest in non-carbon energy sources. But if that was a real cost effective option wouldn't they be doing this already? The reason they don't is because the green energy alternatives are substantially more expensive than the current carbon based sources. So the environmental response is cap and trade - artificially increase the carbon sources cost and the transition will be to green energy.

But let's understand the cap and trade process. In order to produce and consume energy I must purchase a carbon permit that allows me to emit CO2. Now I have three choices - 1) go about my normal business and incur this higher cost; 2) replace as much of my carbon based energy with green energy and then sell the saved CO2 emissions to someone else who is following along option #1; or 3) move my production to a lower cost venue where there is no cap and trade taxes. I suspect that if the business person is a rational being - option 3 seems pretty attractive.

You got your broken window and you got your broken window. Such a fallacy has a double life, and two sides to its coin. The younger and wealthier would have perspective of environment being more broken than new limousine. Environmental repair has now become the economic activity of the day and perhaps of the morrow. Feliz Cuatro de Mayo, Kent.

"

desperately I sought the morrow.


"


~~E A Poe~

I'm not economist, but I know a thing or two about software. One thing I know for sure is that computer programs do what the programmer tells them to do, and computer programmers do what their customer tells them to do.

If the customer wants computer models that will predict the end of the world, that's what they get.

You've got an end of the world prediction of the future, an evil enemy called fossil fuels, a salvation in the form of technology that hasn't been invented yet, and the solution requires extreme international government intervention.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a doomsday cult.

I am sure Mr Krugman makes error sometimes, as everybody in this forum does. Now it seems a bit preposterous to me to suppose a man of intelligence (I guess we can agree on that) is not able to understand his rather simple sentence incriminated here can be understand in different ways, and that the (sophisticated to me) sticker some are trying to put on it. Could'nt we stay simple and consider the possibility, that green house control inspired rules will create a market, that this market, in its current state, supposes investment in production facility, and that, at its inception, the spending in investments will be greater than the costs to those having to submit to the rules? Or am i missing sth?

The Oracle has spoken.

I have looked into the Oracle and seen the end.


If we do not cease burning the oil and coal provided by those evil rich men, then we will perish in the fire.


Everyone must change their ways, and if that means force then it means force.


Only one higher power can apply the necessary force, and that higher power is government.


Technology can fix this, technology that doesn't exist yet, but government can invent it. Government can do anything.


It will cost money for government to invent this technology, but that can be solved through punishing deniers with punitive taxes.


Only government can save us from ourselves.


I have seen in with my own eyes.


The Oracle has spoken.

... option 3 seems pretty attractive.

The obvious next step for Cap and Trade regimes is a tariff on imports from states that don't play.

Since Krugman concedes the higher cost, why wouldn't competitors, not required to own the credits to emit, buy the credits anyway? They buy the credits not to emit carbon but to invest in a cost imposed on their competitors. Maybe Chinese monetary authorities, selling discounted yuan for dollars to pursue a mercantilist trade policy, decide that these credits are a better investment than Treasury securities. Both are entitlement to rents imposed on U.S. production.