Our proposed approach to mitigation has technology leading carbon pricing. As explained in section IV, carbon pricing plays two roles: first, the role of funding R&D and technology change; and second, committing to the slow but steady increase in the carbon price, thereby signaling adoption of on-the-shelf, ready to deploy, and scalable energy technologies. Thus, in our approach, technology and mitigation are linked via carbon pricing. But they are not linked via today’s carbon price, but rather via tomorrow’s carbon price. In our approach, carbon pricing initially plays a largely passive and ancillary, albeit important, role. But as time passes, carbon pricing plays a more active role by sending a “forward price signal” as a result of commitments to its slow but steady rise.Thus, the energy R&D strategy proposed by Galiana and Green actually includes a carbon tax as a necessary element of the proposal for capitalizing on the energy R&D. Galiana and Green do turn the role of a carbon tax on its head from most proposals, by arguing for a low tax to start and rising over time, but it is strage to see Lomborg's economists cleave the teax from the R&D proposal given that the R&D strategy that was proposed to them depened upon it.
Thus it is not correct to interpret our approach as emphasizing R&D but not mitigation. The two are inextricably intertwined. Also it is not correct to say that we all but ignore carbon pricing. Indeed, carbon pricing plays two important roles, one financial, one signaling. Moreover, a carbon price that starts at $5.00/t CO2 in 2010, and doubles every 10 years, reaches $80/t CO2 in 2050.
The Galiana and Green paper is absolutely excellent and it alone makes Lomborg's exercise worthwhile. A shame though that the experts decided to pick cherries on this topic as well as on geoengineering.
7 comments:
Roger,
What is most surprising about Bjorn Lomborg's panel is he includes Nobel Winning Economist Thomas Schelling in it. You wrote about him on August 14, 2009:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-some-thoughts-best-left-unsaid.html
'Find ways to exaggerate': Nobel Prize-winning economist wishes for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of global warming threat!
Schelling's climate views are frightening. Why hasn't Lomborg publicly repudiated Schelling's comments? Why has not Schelling apologized or "clarified" what he meant? Schelling's thoughts are bordering on lunacy.
Memo to Mr. Lomborg: It is time for you to address Schelling's comments wishing death and destruction on people to help convince them of climate fears. Until this is done, Lomborg's Nobel Panel with have a tainted air surrounding it.
Thanks
Marc Morano
I just wrote a Climate Depot Editorial on this:
Death Wish: Lomborg's 'Copenhagen Consensus' Tainted By Inclusion of Nobel-Winner Who wished for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of climate threat!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2780/Death-Wish-Lomborgs-Copenhagen-Consensus-Tainted-By-Inclusion-of-NobelWinner-Who-wished-for-tornadoes-and-a-lot-of-horrid-things-to-convince-Americans-of-climate-threat
Thanks
Marc
-2-Marc
I don't think that you need to resort to "taint" to critique the exercise, you just have to evaluate what they did on the merits.
Roger,
"Taint" is exactly what Lomborg is allowing unless he addresses this issue. Lomborg's group is supposed to be respected and giving out the best available information. When one key member of the group is not called on the carpet for an over the top assertion, it "taints" the whole process.
Thanks
Marc
Roger
I think you can both evaluate results on the merits and evaluate the evaluator. I learned something valuable from Marc's post. When avoiding ad hominem attacks on principle, we don't need to go hear-no-evil, see-no-evil. First, we ask "what did they say?" Later, it's reasonable to ask "why did they say it?" The field of climate change is weighed down with "why did they say it" problems.
My way of evaluating economists is to find out if they predicted the current economic crisis. If they fail that test (as indeed most economists do, including every Nobel winning economist except Stiglitz) then I can safely ignore everything they say because their guesswork is not any more useful this time around. Recently Paul Krugman and the Economist magazine jointly concluded that modern economic theory has done more harm than good. Here's a tip for economists - stop making predictions.
"'Taint' is exactly what Lomborg is allowing unless he addresses this issue. Lomborg's group is supposed to be respected and giving out the best available information. When one key member of the group is not called on the carpet for an over the top assertion, it 'taints' the whole process."
Nonsense. To start with, science is all about evaluating what is being said, not who is saying it.
And it's even more ridiculous to require everyone associated with an scientific exercise to repudiate or distance themselves from a single member who made statements that weren't even part of the exercise.
Post a Comment