- Cafe Hayek - http://cafehayek.com -

Some Links

Posted By Don Boudreaux On March 17, 2014 @ 9:11 am In Environment,FDA,Health,Media,Myths and Fallacies,Politics | Comments Disabled

David Friedman exposes a remarkable (if unrecognized) admission from William Nordhaus – a leading economist who supports action today to combat climate change – that the global cost of delaying action to combat climate change is vanishingly small relative to global GDP [1].  Here are a couple of slices:

His [Nordhaus's] final, and possibly most important point, is based on his own research, which he complains that the WSJ article is misrepresenting. He starts with a correct point—that it is the difference between benefit and cost, not the ratio, that matters. He goes on to summarize his conclusion:

My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.

What he does not mention is that his $4.1 trillion is a cost summed over the entire globe and the rest of the century. Put in annual terms, that come to about $48 billion a year, a  less impressive number. Current world GNP is about $85 trillion/year. So the net cost of waiting, on Nordhaus’s own numbers, is about one twentieth of one percent of world GNP. Not precisely a catastrophe.

I suggest a simple experiment. Let Nordhaus write a piece explicitly arguing that the net cost of waiting is about .06% of world GNP and see whether it is more popular with the supporters or the critics of his position. I predict that at least one supporter will accuse him of having sold out to big oil.
…..
In a world of certainty run by benevolent philosopher kings, the fact that the policy has even a relatively modest benefit is a good argument for it, but we do not live in such a world. In practice, policies aimed at reducing warming will be designed not by William Nordhaus but by political actors subject to political incentives. For a sample of what that is likely to produce, I suggest looking at the cap and trade bill that passed the House a few years ago but did not make it through the Senate. The farther the policies are from optimal, the higher the costs and the lower the net benefits.

UPDATE: From the comments on David Friedman’s post, I just noticed this much-earlier EconLog post from David Henderson regarding Bob Murphy’s critique of Nordhaus [2].

Here’s the Heritage Foundation’s Drew Gonshorowski on the continuing calamity that is Obamacare [3].

EconLog guest blogger James Schneider explores media bias [4].

Writing in Forbes, John Tamny counsels Republicans to get real about Obama and Clinton – and about themselves [5].

The always-wise Nick Gillespie calls for the F.D.A. to be killed before it can kill again [6].

Be Sociable, Share!
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]

Comments

comments


Article printed from Cafe Hayek: http://cafehayek.com

URL to article: http://cafehayek.com/2014/03/some-links-383.html

URLs in this post:

[1] David Friedman exposes a remarkable (if unrecognized) admission from William Nordhaus – a leading economist who supports action today to combat climate change – that the global cost of delaying action to combat climate change is vanishingly small relative to global GDP: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/contra-nordhaus.html

[2] this much-earlier EconLog post from David Henderson regarding Bob Murphy’s critique of Nordhaus: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/bob_murphys_cri.html

[3] Here’s the Heritage Foundation’s Drew Gonshorowski on the continuing calamity that is Obamacare: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/compensation-and-obamacares-impact-on-low-wage-workers

[4] EconLog guest blogger James Schneider explores media bias: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/the_popularity_1.html

[5] Writing in Forbes, John Tamny counsels Republicans to get real about Obama and Clinton – and about themselves: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/03/16/republican-obsession-with-obama-and-clinton-is-an-impoverishing-attitude-of-thought/

[6] The always-wise Nick Gillespie calls for the F.D.A. to be killed before it can kill again: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/kill-the-fda-before-it-kills-again.html

[7]

  • : http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Some%20Links%20-%20http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html%20

    [8]

  • : https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&to&su=Some%20Links&body=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&ui=2&tf=1&shva=1

    [9]

  • : http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&title=Some%20Links

    [10]

  • : http://www.google.com/reader/link?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&title=Some%20Links&srcURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&srcTitle=Cafe+Hayek+where+orders+emerge

    [11] Image: http://www.blinklist.com/index.php?Action=Blink/addblink.php&Url=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&Title=Some%20Links

    [12]

  • : http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&t=Some%20Links

    [13]

  • : http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&title=Some%20Links

    [14]

  • : http://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html&t=Some%20Links

    [15]

  • : http://sphinn.com/index.php?c=post&m=submit&link=http%3A%2F%2Fcafehayek.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsome-links-383.html

    [16] Tweet: https://twitter.com/share

  • Copyright © 2011 CafeHayek.com. All rights reserved.