tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post1100367727509404452..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Hmmm, The 50 to 1 Project - are they serious?citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-5254455004865436422013-09-30T05:13:39.518-07:002013-09-30T05:13:39.518-07:00It might seem accurate at first glance (they sure ...It might seem accurate at first glance (they sure do their best to make a comprehensible and convincing story). However, a source check tells a whole different story. <br /><br />The Stern Report from 2006 actually states that the estimated costs for dealing with the damage of climate change of '1.5% GDP' is old and was too optimistic (page ix of <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">the Executive Summary</a>). It currently predicts costs between 5 and 20%, more likely on the upper than lower side (page x & xi). This would change the project's tagline to The 5:1 Project.<br /><br />However, the Stern Report also thoroughly calculated the costs of intervening and predict it around 1% GDP (page xiii). So according to the report, we would end up with '1:15 Project' in which letting everything play out costs 5-20% more than intervening now. It actually suggests we should intervene as this is most likely the cheapest option. Quote on page x/xi:<br /><br /><i> Much (but not all) of the risk can be reduced through a strong mitigation policy, and we argue that this can be achieved at a far lower cost than those calculated for the impacts. In this sense, mitigation is a highly productive investment. </i><br /><br />The reason that this report comes to a different conclusion than the 50:1 Project, is because the project only looks at the costs of the Australian carbon tax. Perhaps that tax is indeed not a cost effective measure, but there are many more measures that can be taken which are neglected in 'the project' but included in the Stern Report's calculation. SourceChecknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-7022622202479928702013-09-14T07:11:29.739-07:002013-09-14T07:11:29.739-07:00Earthling, your comment about the "minuscule&...Earthling, your comment about the "minuscule" amount of atmospheric CO2 reveals a profound ignorance about Greenhouse gases in particular and also biological functions in general.<br /><br />"Minuscule" amounts of elements and chemicals play essential key rolls in all sorts of processes - but then you would have to have some genuine curiosity and desire to LEARN to find out about that stuff.<br /><br />In short, dear Earthling you speak from ignorance - <br />tragic part is you seem proud to embrace <i>willfully ignoring</i> the evidence at hand.<br /><br />Get an education:<br /><br />https://spark.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/pliocene-snapshot.html<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-2742577774850497852013-09-12T04:18:30.429-07:002013-09-12T04:18:30.429-07:00The 50 to 1 Project seems accurate to me.
Reducing...The 50 to 1 Project seems accurate to me.<br />Reducing an already minuscule amount of atmospheric CO2 to slow warming that's already stopped might just be a complete and utter waste of money that could be put to much better use.Earthlingnoreply@blogger.com