(Op-Ed) George Monbiot: "Climate change deniers have won"

[kouchpotato]

Oh, man...

The fact is that you don't like an "economic" analysis of the problem. That's nothing to do with "libertopia".

A real libertarian would call for the privatization of the atmosphere, so that pollution would be direct damage to private property. As result, polluting firms would have to pay for the right of using the privave property that is the atmosphere and the optimal level of pollution would be reached.

Because an economic analysis shouldn't be the focus of this sort of problem. It isn't an economic problem, it's a threat to our civilization, and the lives of billions of people. Obviously there will be a loss of profits and money, but the same sort of loss would occur from a global pandemic, which is not an economic problem but a health problem.

[Simon_Jester]

If billions would die due to global warming, them the marginal benefits of reducing Co2 emissions in monetary terms would surely be much, much greater than the marginal costs.

They are. You just can't find anyone to pay for them except governments. Not just because the costs are dispersed, but because there's no way to collect the marginal benefits of preventing it. You wind up paying so that other people won't die, in the indefinite future.

Market economies aren't set up to do that. Precious few governments are either, not really.

Kouchpotato is right in a sense: global warming is more than just an issue to model as a market while frowning over it in one's ivory tower. The scale of the potential human costs is such that it justifies changing the rules by which the economy operates, because a market economy is at best an instrumental good. The fact that we can't get the free market, or the prosperous nations of the world, to do anything about global warming is a sign that there's a bug in the system.

[Zaune]

Because an economic analysis shouldn't be the focus of this sort of problem. It isn't an economic problem, it's a threat to our civilization, and the lives of billions of people. Obviously there will be a loss of profits and money, but the same sort of loss would occur from a global pandemic, which is not an economic problem but a health problem.

You're overlooking something. Not one human being in a hundred is prepared to make any serious sacrifice or change in their lifestyle for the sake of people they don't know and will never meet. They'll look out for themselves, their family and (usually) their friends, but anyone else can go hang unless they think they can get something back in return. Oh, people will give to charity and recycle and all the other stuff that lets them feel like they're Making a Difference without any actual effort, but actually giving up anything that makes their life easier for the benefit of complete strangers? Not a chance, at least without the tiny minority who are prepared to settle for less so that others can have more putting a gun to their heads.

And it's actually not true to suggest that this is everybody's problem. Plenty of nations, plenty of individuals are in a position to weather the crisis pretty well; all they have to do is wait for enough of the rest to die off, and they can inherit the Earth.

[Patrick Degan]

kouchpotato shows that he is a retard by assuming that Iosef Cross doesn't care about climate change beyond dollars and cents. If you could actually read, you'd see that he is explaining why nobody is going to act, and that is because nobody can add it up in terms they understand. "Survival of civilization" doesn't work out to convenient units of measure.

But hey let's all go for the cheap points, hey?

If billions would die due to global warming, them the marginal benefits of reducing Co2 emissions in monetary terms would surely be much, much greater than the marginal costs.

But sure, my argument is that since the costs of global warming are dispersed over billions of people, the transaction costs of coordinating the reduction of pollution would be so high that nothing would be done. Also, Governments aren't dynamic organizations and doesn't have the incentives to act quickly.

If it's a cost/benefit analysis you want, try this one out for size:

1) add up the combined value of the financial and industrial assets of the coastal cities which would be threatened by GW-induced sea level rise and balance against national GDP as losses

2) estimate the costs of administering and aiding a large refugee population resulting from the forced evacuation of the submerged coastal cities, and add in the loss of their economic contributions in the mix

3) calculate the total level of financial loss this would represent to national GDP

4) now calculate the cost of CO2 reduction and balance against the above figures.

[Zaune]

If it's a cost/benefit analysis you want, try this one out for size:

1) add up the combined value of the financial and industrial assets of the coastal cities which would be threatened by GW-induced sea level rise and balance against national GDP as losses

The wealthier individuals and companies can and probably will relocate them well before it becomes necessary to scramble to save them. The rest don't contribute enough to the national GDP (or local political party funds) to have any influence.

2) estimate the costs of administering and aiding a large refugee population resulting from the forced evacuation of the submerged coastal cities, and add in the loss of their economic contributions in the mix

Again, anyone rich enough to have any influence will be safely out of the danger zone and settled elsewhere well before we get to that point; only the working and some of the lower-middle classes will be left behind.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it's a cost/benefit analysis you want, try this one out for size:

1) add up the combined value of the financial and industrial assets of the coastal cities which would be threatened by GW-induced sea level rise and balance against national GDP as losses

The wealthier individuals and companies can and probably will relocate them well before it becomes necessary to scramble to save them. The rest don't contribute enough to the national GDP (or local political party funds) to have any influence.

2) estimate the costs of administering and aiding a large refugee population resulting from the forced evacuation of the submerged coastal cities, and add in the loss of their economic contributions in the mix

Again, anyone rich enough to have any influence will be safely out of the danger zone and settled elsewhere well before we get to that point; only the working and some of the lower-middle classes will be left behind.

Where the fuck exactly do you think those wealthy individuals get their labor? For those wealthy due to the stock market, dont you think those markets would tank, sending their "wealth" spiraling down the tubes?

[bobalot]

It's hilarious when Western Governments claim that tackling climate change costs too much even though they have collectively spent hundred of billions of dollars (Trillions for the US?) on the "War on Terror", something that has to date not produced anything remotely worthwhile to justify such an expenditure.

[Zaune]

Where the fuck exactly do you think those wealthy individuals get their labor? For those wealthy due to the stock market, dont you think those markets would tank, sending their "wealth" spiraling down the tubes?

The world supply of cheap menial labour is hardly in danger of outstripping demand, no matter how badly we fuck up the climate. Quite the reverse, in fact; the poorest 5-10% of the human race being wiped out by starvation, disease and war probably wouldn't even dent world GDP. It might even result in a net increase.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where the fuck exactly do you think those wealthy individuals get their labor? For those wealthy due to the stock market, dont you think those markets would tank, sending their "wealth" spiraling down the tubes?

The world supply of cheap menial labour is hardly in danger of outstripping demand, no matter how badly we fuck up the climate. Quite the reverse, in fact; the poorest 5-10% of the human race being wiped out by starvation, disease and war probably wouldn't even dent world GDP. It might even result in a net increase.

You are forgetting something you sociopathic fuck. Millions upon millions of people who live along densely populated coasts are not dirt poor. Additionally, a large amount of industry, agriculture, and other forms of food production are reliant on our current coast lines, and current stable weather patterns.

[Zaune]

Okay, quick disclaimer. To quote -rather topically- the protagonist of The Kraken Wakes, "if I happen to mention that autumn follows summer, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm in favour of getting a ladder and pulling the leaves from the trees."
And if I point out that the people who are going to get really fucked over by climate change are the working classes, it doesn't follow that I think they've done anything to deserve this fate.