Martin Wolf: Despite What Some Economists Say, Act Now on Global Warming

Martin Wolf says it's time to stop listening to economists and act on global warming:

In spite of sceptics, it is worth reducing climate risk, by Martin Wolf, Commentary, Financial Times: ...[A] new consensus on climate change has emerged: it is happening; it is important; and something needs to be done. ... Yet there is one group among whom dissent reigns: economists.

It was to them, above all, that Sir Nicholas Stern’s review on the Economics of Climate Change was addressed. It has failed to persuade. ... Economists are trained to address the costs and benefits of alternative policies rigorously. Scientists are not.

What then do economists object to in the arguments for early and forcible action...? In essence, they make three arguments: first, the Stern review has exaggerated the economic costs of climate change; second, it has underestimated the costs of mitigating emissions; and, third, it has employed the wrong discount rate...

My answer to these important points is that the problem of climate change should not be viewed as just another investment decision. It is a question of insurance against an uncertain, but possibly world-transforming outcome. ...

These economists are performing a valuable service by forcing policymakers to understand the nature of the decision they confront. My conclusion, however, is that it still makes sense to try to reduce the risks of extreme outcomes. If it were possible to do so at a price of just 1 per cent of GDP, we should pay willingly. .... Losing much more than that would begin to raise doubts. ...

While there are still sceptics on the science, the tide has moved decisively against them. But the question of how much to pay to mitigate emissions remains open. So does how to design efficient policies. Economists are right to argue that eliminating the risk of climate change cannot be the overriding objective of policy... But it is perfectly sensible to pay a significant amount to lower the risks. That was my view on reading the review. It remains my view today.

Not all economists think we should wait. On another question - who caused global warming? - China says we did, so we're the ones who need to pay the costs of cleaning things up:

China blames the west for global warming, by Mure Dickie, Financial Times (free): Rich industrialised nations must take the lead in cutting greenhouse gases since they bear the “unshirkable responsibility” for causing global warming, a Chinese official said on Tuesday.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokeswoman underscore China’s determination not to allow international action on climate change to undermine its economic development.

Rapid economic growth, a huge population and inefficient industry have made China the world’s second largest carbon emitter after the US – new data show that power generating capacity in the country in 2006 expanded by an amount equal to the entire capacity of the UK and Thailand combined. But the country’s per capita emissions have remained far below the global average.

“It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per-capita emissions,” Reuters... quoted Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman... “Developed countries bear an unshirkable responsibility,” Ms Jiang said. ...

Beijing’s top weather bureau official said ... China was serious about tackling climate change but needs time to introduce the advanced environmental technology available to developed countries. ... There have been recent signs that Beijing is preparing to take a more activist approach..., following a official government enquiry that concluded warming could intensify China’s water shortages and undermine agriculture. ...

However, the comments by Ms Jiang and Mr Qin offer no encouragement for international critics who feel that China should impose limits on its greenhouse gas emissions. ... Mr Qin made clear that other countries should not expect too much of China...

Update: Robert Samuelson says we need to act, but we can't and won't:

Global Warming and Hot Air, by Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post: You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies ... endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest....

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty, fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. ...

I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. ...

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax... The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. ...

It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.

Comments

[evagrius]

Well, I waited for quite a while...waiting for those betters who are arguing right now about Social Security or other esoterica.
It seems that the real, real, economic problem is being studiously avoided by those who should know better.

Why?

[elvis]

evangrius,

exactly. I guess when you have a group of people (econos, politicos) who can't come to the conclusion that Universal Health Care and Social Security are good things, where does that leave the really big issues.

Global Warming and its co-conspirator, increasing [and soon to be decreasing] fossil fuel consumption will make all our current debates moot.

[piglet]

"Economists are trained to address the costs and benefits of alternative policies rigorously."

What an ignorant statement. Economists are not trained, and usually don't even attempt to do such a thing. If you don't believe me, please cite references of economics text books that teach how to "address the costs and benefits of alternative policies rigorously".

This article is quite an insult to our intelligence. It asks us to accept bogus ideological arguments that were planted by the fossil fuel lobby as serious science. "In essence, [the economists] make three arguments: first, the Stern review has exaggerated the economic costs of climate change; second, it has underestimated the costs of mitigating emissions" etc. Since when are economists the ones who are qualified to assess the cost of climate warming, and the costs of mitigation? Those are difficult scientific tasks, for which most economists are totally unqualified and unprepared. And who does make those claims? "Economists"? Who exactly, apart from Lomborg cult members?

[Movie Guy]

This is a great blog and I thought this subject would take off.

Where is the interest?

[ken melvin]

The growth industry of the future, as soon as the VC crowd figures it out, it's more about engineering and science than economics. Maybe economist should be neutral?

[Movie Guy]

Some economists..well, a bunch of economists should have quite a bit of interest in the "go forward" adjustments that may occur.

Economies could be at stake.

[Cloudy]

When Al Gore stays off airplanes, concerned scientists quit flying around the world to conferences, and Sierra Club members burn their drivers' licenses and passports, then maybe I'll believe they are serious. But as long as the people who claim to be the most worried continue to guzzle the hardest, excuse me for regarding it as merely verbalization.

[Movie Guy]

I believe that Robert Samuelson has it right from a short term viewpoint.

I've worked my calculator on elimination of CO2 and I see no way that we will reduce such emissions by 60-80% by 2050 as called for by one of the UN leaders.

They will need a bigger plan, a giant Manhattan Project or something similar to tackle this one.

The natural cycle change may be so large as to make the effort to eliminate manmade CO2 emissions look like child's play. That's the other side of the coin that I haven't dismissed - the natural cycle change underway.

Put them together and what do you do? You can spend a lot of money, but did you meet the 60-80% CO2 emission reduction goal? I don't believe that it is possible to do it without crashing a number of western and developing world economies. It may not even be possible to do it, or so says my calculator.

So, where is Plan B? And what is it?

[Bruce Wilder]

I tend to agree with piglet, "Economists are not trained . . ." ;-)

I have commented before, about how economics, at its very core, is ill-structured for this analysis. A "theory of production" which does not explicitly reconcile itself with the laws of thermodynamics is not very helpful, for example. And, cost-benefit analysis is hardly appropriate to the case, either; at least not without a lot of preliminary framing.

Brad DeLong has put up the scenario projections put out by this group and that, from time to time, and noted the wide error bands. But, the wide error bands exaggerate the degree of scientific undercertainty, compounding confusion over questions about how the earth's climate will respond with confusion about how people will respond.

The most troubling aspect of lazy references to cost-benefit analysis is that we don't know the full extent of the costs, yet. First, we haven't yet reached a consensus on what the nature of the costs of climate change are likely to be. Oh, a few general areas have been identified -- the risk of ecological collapse from a general species crash and the costs of a sea level rise, which has been difficult to estimate, but other more visually dramatic scenarios grab attention -- the extinction of polar bears and Alpine ski resorts, for example, or ever more gigantic tropical storms. Few seem to fully realize that global warming is just one of several ways in which the human population and the scale of human economic production/consumption is exceeding the earth's carrying capacity.

I am not as pessimistic as Movie Guy about the prospects for reducing carbon emissions by 60%. I expect it could be done, with surprisingly little strain. In the U.S., we are remarkably wasteful in our use of fossil fuels, and, conveniently enough, a number of energy technologies are near a useful maturity. Whatever gaps remain on the 50 to 75 year horizon could be filled, temporarily, by nuclear power production. (Nuclear is not going to work in the long-run; you think we are running short of oil, check out uranium!)

And, as wasteful as the U.S. is, India and China are in worse shape, though on a somewhat smaller scale. China is literally choking on its waste problems, of which carbon dioxide is among the least acute. Applying available and soon to be developed U.S. technology in China would carry the Chinese a long, long way.

More worrisome to me than the ability to constrain greenhouse gas emissions, however, is the "momentum" effect, which I see climate scientists trying to outline before glazed eyeballs. "Momentum" effect is my term: as I understand it, the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue, even if we moderate or reduce the rate, AND the effects on climate of the existing accumulation will continue to emerge over many decades.

"Momentum" from past emissions has significant potential for carrying the climate over a threshold, past which the climate changes radically and the consequences are truly catastrophic.

Basically, the climate demonstrates some significantly stability, because various negative feedback processes act to counter transitory forcings that may occur from time to time. Except, sometimes (in the geological record) a forcing goes past a threshold, and positive feedback processes take over, carrying the climate to a new and radically different equilibrium. And, the question is whether the greenhouse gas emissions of the human industrial revolution will be forcing enough to carry over that threshold.

Personally, I tend to think that the time horizon for climate change from carbon dioxide accumulation is too long for even collective human action. Humans will have to create institutions to control the climate, but the control mechanisms cannot be only a limitation on additions of carbon dioxide to atmospheric chemistry. Some other kinds of shorter-term interventions will probably be necessary to induce a bit of cooling, to keep the earth from slipping over the threshold. Geo-engineering invention for intervention, as it were, coupled with weather prediction to minimize the costs of the intervention. Interesting stuff.

[Elvis]

Bruce, I completely agree that a 60% cut would be surprisingly easy-- it would probably generate a lot of good paying construction jobs.

But I share MG's pessimism. People, Americans for the most part, will whine all the while. And that 60% is just a cut in emissions. Basically, what the scientists are telling us is we have to move as quickly as possible to a 100% cut in emissions. That's gonna hurt big time.

Luckily (?) Mother Nature is lending a hand. The second largest oil field--the one closest to the US is in decline, as are many others (kuwait's Burgan field as well)
So we could just let Nature takes its course and use less and less oil.

Unfortunately, our leaders aren't about to put the American way of life up for debate, so we had:
Plan A: "Holy Crusader-Mary Pass" into the endzone of Iraq--securing, with a game-winning touchdown, a friendly supplier in the Middle East.

Unfortunately that hasn't played out too well, so we have:
Plan A rev.1: Admit we have an oil-addiction problem and start a Methadone (read "ethanol") treatment program. This has a broader base of support because it seems to painlessly deal with the problem.

I doubt anyone with their thinking caps on [even those pushing these programs] really believes it's any kind of serious solution.

Plan A will continue to have multiple reversions. Some may even do some good, such as banning bottled water and incandescent bulbs [can't you hear the Americans complaining already?]

But let's be realistic, the Western world is never going to get to 3rd world per-capita emission rates. It's never going to happen. Because once it does, it will cease being the Western world.

So I share MG's pessimism and agree with him that Plan B is: [____________] this space intentionally left blank to reflect the big blank black hole out of which no idea that we can conceive of is able to escape.

[Alex R]

(1) I expect that the world will convert almost all of its remaining oil into CO2. (We'll save a little to make pharmaceuticals and plastic.) But it matters, I think, whether this happens over the next 20 years or the next 80 years. It matters in part because slowing global warming is a good thing, and it matters because we will create new technologies during that time that can do -- well, we don't yet know what they can do.

(2) The simplest way to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to tax it. The tax should be on carbon, and it should be assessed at the wellhead or the coal mine, or for imported carbon, it can be assessed at the border. The tax should be large -- the cost of a gallon of gasoline should go up to at least $5, and I don't think that $10 should be out of the question. We should phase it in, and couple it with a substantial EITC boost so that the overall effect is not regressive. You could be eligible for a tax credit proportional to the amount of CO2 that you can *prove* that you are sequestering from the atmosphere.

Once there is a large carbon tax, I suspect we will quickly find all *kinds* of ways to make our economy more carbon-efficient.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Folks, do the math. Let's say the U.S. achieved a 60% reduction in per-capita CO2 output. By 2100, immigration will have raised our population to 1 billion or more. Total CO2 output will go up, not down. Anyone who claims to take global warming seriously and doesn't back immigration restriction is just kidding.

[richard]

Ahhh . . . instead of a tax on CO2 production, how about an incentive payment for those who "fix" carbon in the atmosphere into the soil . . . incentives work better than taxes and garner more support.

[john c. halasz]

Peter, I'm going to call you on your monomania there. Global warming is, er, global.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Global warming is global... However, people don't immigrate too America to produce less CO2, quite the opposite in fact. Every immigrant from a poor country raises his/her GHG output and the total output of the US. There is also strong evidence that immigration raises total fertility in both the U.S. and in the sending countries. Another multiplier effect, sad to say.

Beyond that, the renewable (non-GHG producing) resources of the U.S. are finite. More people makes it more difficult to move away from fossil fuels. With 50 million people, the U.S. could easily move to biofuels, wind, etc. With 300 million people it will be immensely more difficult. With 1 billion people, laughable.

The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems (inequality, education, crime, crowding, housing unaffordability, GHGs, taxes, etc.). We need to free have public discourse about the role of Open Borders in making America a worse place to live and work.

[john c. halasz]

I might further add that those beaners fart alot, adding further to global warming.

[anne]

"The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems...."

Yes; that and frogs, frogs are a terrible problem but no matter what I say I just can't get people interested enough in frogs to take the proper anti-frog action. We need public discourse, if not talk, about frogs before they take control. Frogs, I say.

Now, back to global warming.

[anne]

"There is also strong evidence that immigration raises total fertility in both the U.S. and in the sending countries."

Darn, so that is the reason for frogs, fertility there and here and who knows where else. I should have known. Frog fertility is scary scary stuff. I am against all fertile frogs.

[piglet]

Schaeffer, you are a real Arschloch. You are the prototype of a coward who always needs somebody to blame - immigrants - for his own irresponsible actions. Btw this is the same guy who recently described the extremely high US energy consumption as "economic success".

[john c. halasz]

Now, piglet, there's no need for defamatory rhetoric. Each one of us has our own "Arschloch". Some of us might choose to keep it more private than others.

Sincerely,

Eeyore

[James Killus]

Stages:

1 - There's no warming
2 - There may be some temporary warming, but it's all natural variability; humans aren't responsible.
3 - There is some human involvement, but increased CO2 and warming are a good thing.
4 - The problem is overblown. Any negative effects will be minor.
5 - There will be some winners and some losers, but overall, it will be a good thing, and besides, I expect to be among the winners.
6 - We can fix it if it gets bad.
7 - It's too expensive to do anything about it.
8 - It's too late to do anything about it.

My own futurology predicts that the U.S. is going to lose most of Florida, Louisiana, and Mississipi. I'm hoping that New Orleans will become the first of those wonderful underwater domed cities that we will visit in our personal autogyros.

Alternately, the small countries that will soon have nuclear weapons because it is the only way to keep from being invaded by the U.S. will decide that #6 via nuclear winter is a good option, thus hitting two birds with the same fissile stone.

And lest anyone think that these are pessimistic scenarios, I'm just (pardon the expression) warming up.

[Peter Schaeffer]

piglet,

As I pointed out before, U.S. energy consumption is inline with world energy consumption, per dollar. Should I apologize for America being richer than other countries?

You appear to have a problem with America's high per-capita energy consumption/GHG output. Clearly, you should favor rigorous measures to minimize the number of people engaging in this undesirable behavior. Can I assume you are strong advocate of immigration restriction?

[Bupa]

The Samuelson piece is pathetic.

The challenges ahead are enormous but the political debate in the US is infantile.

For those interested in seeing a menu of options to reduce our carbon footprint, take a look at the September 2006 issue of Scientific American. It has a number of articles about how we might reduce our carbon footprint by mid-century.

Commentator on this blog seem focused on transport. That is an important area to address. But electricity production is even bigger. Most of you are reading this on a computer powered by electricity generated at least 65 percent by coal fired power plants.

I agree with those that claim that economists are rather ill-equipped to understand this issue. What price do you place on irreversible changes to nature such as species extinction? Martin Wolf’s insurance policy argument should be good enough to form a consensus that something should be done. He is one of a number of folks who have endorsed a carbon tax. Others include Ken Rogoff, Joe Stiglitz, Greg Mankiw. There is a pretty diverse political spectrum covered in those 3 names…so perhaps there is some hope that the debate is moving forward but such ideas are far from the minds of mainstream American politics. So there is a long way to go.

While American leadership is essential, this is truly a global issue. One example. China’s per capita carbon footprint is much smaller than OECD countries, but think dynamically. In 2006 China expanded its electricity production by 102 gigawatts, roughly twice the generating capacity of California. While some of this was hydro, a great deal is from old fashion coal power plants. The Chinese are starting to make public pronouncements about global warming. In today’s FT they are quoted as saying the West is to blame for global warming and must take the lead in finding solutions. Meanwhile the Bush administration while touting its farcical green credentials is barking that it will not take any steps against global warming which will put the US at a competitive disadvantage to countries like China which don’t take simultaneous action.

Idiots in a sinking ship arguing about who should work harder in bailing out the water a moment before they all drown.

[evagrius]

Mr. Schaeffer is certainly correct to point to immigration as a problem with regards to global warming.
It's well known that climate change will result in huge droughts, massive flooding etc; forcing a very large population to move to more clement areas.
His notion that the chosen, profligate life-style of middle class Americans has no bearing on the problem is ludicrous, of course.
Somehow, I don't think that the millions of immigrants he denounces are at all close in per capita consumption/ energy waste of "middle-class" Americans.

Logically speaking, what the hell are people doing in Las Vegas, a desert?

[James Killus]

"As I pointed out before, U.S. energy consumption is inline with world energy consumption, per dollar. Should I apologize for America being richer than other countries?

"You appear to have a problem with America's high per-capita energy consumption/GHG output. Clearly, you should favor rigorous measures to minimize the number of people engaging in this undesirable behavior. Can I assume you are strong advocate of immigration restriction?" -- Peter Schaeffer

I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Schaeffer knows any sort of argument other than the straw man fallacy.

Just for the record, it is possible to consider reducing the energy inputs required per unit of GDP, just as it is possible to consider utilizing energy sources that do not involve emitting GHGs. Neither goes against either the laws of physics nor those of economics.

However, I find myself wanting Mr. Schaeffer to apologize for America's being richer than other countries. Not because I think it would do the world any good, but I would find it entertaining.

[Movie Guy]

The fight begins.

Do continue...

[Elvis]

MSN money considers Peak Oil

[Elvis]

"The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems...."

Yes; that and frogs, frogs are a terrible problem but no matter what I say I just can't get people interested enough in frogs
Actually anne, I think you are dismissing the message because of the messenger. Even the Sierra Club links immigration to the US with conservation concerns.

Traditionally, Dems favored stricter immigration...or atleast that's what I was told...

[Bruce Hall]

I'm pleased to see that this discussion continues after several months.

There is a short video on citizen.com (and many other sites) in which Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC expounds on the certainty of global warming.
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=358&PHPSESSID=4a148466f1e4d701fe14263f9cad68f2

While I have issues with the notion of anthropogenic global warming (as James Killus understands), I have even greater issues with those who believe that if long-term global warming is beginning it is necessarily a negative change... one to be avoided at all costs.

I left the following comment on Scitizen which I don't expect the "doomsday" believers to accept:

But the real question remains: what are the implications of climate change/global warming... and is the implicit assumption that the changes will be harmful a disaster in itself... especially when it will influence policy makers and potentially waste billions of dollars needlessly?

The short video above contained a section that predicted that northern tier states would have a climate similar to central tier states; central tier states would have a climate similar to southern tier states; and southern tier states would have a climate similar to more tropical areas.

Given the benefits of warmer climates in the area of increased agricultural options and longer growing seasons, plus the reduction of natural gas for heating (a CO2 issue for the IPCC), plus the expansion of habitable areas for many types of wildlife... why should the assumption be that any climate warming is a bad phenomenon to be avoided at all costs?

Humans are adaptable to almost any climate conditions, so changes that benefit plants and other animals would seem to be changes we should welcome.

[Bupa]

You are swimming against the tide of scientific evidence and consensus Bruce. You are right that there are a range of possible outcomes some of which some are not that dire. The world would be wise to not base policies on hope. We should buy some decent insurance against the scarier end of the possible outcomes. There is too much at stake to not buy insurance. The IPCC consensus shows clearly that benign scenarios are not likely.

For a fair and balanced view of the issue there is no better site than RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/

Anyone interested in climate change should visit the site often.

[Bruce Hall]

Bupa,

Actually RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt is about as uninterested in "fair and balanced" as any scientist could be. In direct emails with him, he has simply dismissed views other than his own as "crap" even though they are from scientists outside of his specialty who study climate change from slightly differing perspectives.

But, regardless, the issue is not one of having too much "hope", it is one of having too much fear. The statement by Evagrius that "It's well known that climate change will result in huge droughts, massive flooding etc; forcing a very large population to move to more clement areas" is pure speculation, at best, and alarmism at worst.

Respected climatologists do not use such descriptions because they understand the impossibility of substantiating such predictions on the basis of temperature change alone.

The "insurance" you are "buying" is presently not worth the paper it is written on. China will be building hundreds of coal-fired power plants. They are already working "carbon credit" scams. Once politicians get their hands on this, forget economics.

Right now the only feasible way to reduce CO2 production on a large scale is to replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear power... and there are too many fearful people to allow that. But the French really are the only ones to get it right.

Alternate fuels do nothing except replace some CO2 on the back side with a greater amount of noxious gases and dislocate the corn and sugar markets.

Climate will change. Humans will adapt. Plants and animals will thrive. Ice age conditions are detrimental (lowest biomass and diversity). Tropical conditions are beneficial (more diversity in tropical climates than any other). Temperate conditions are habitable, but less biologically diverse.

Economically, global warming is likely to be a good thing. There may be some dislocations for worsening conditions, but a much larger area of the world will have a more habitable environment. That's not a "hope". That's what the paleontological record shows.

Alarmism is, indeed, junk science. It also leads to junk economics.

[elvis]

and southern tier states would have a climate similar to more tropical areas.
Such as Bangledesh.

Given the benefits of warmer climates in the area of increased agricultural options and longer growing seasons, plus the reduction of natural gas for heating (a CO2 issue for the IPCC),
increased agricultural options = shrimp farms
reduced gas for heating = more for comfort cooling.

plus the expansion of habitable areas for many types of wildlife
Mainly fish and annoying biting insects.
why should the assumption be that any climate warming is a bad phenomenon to be avoided at all costs?
Indeed, why? Why don't you move to Bangledesh and send back a report on how much better we'll all be.
After that you could sample some mercury contaminated water caused by burning coal. After all, we will need to continue our life-style, bottled water and bags of Doritoes et al. Those essentials need power! There must be a brighter side to mercury? Find it and report back to us.

[Per Kurowski]

When in this hole… how should we stop digging?

Martin Wolf is absolutely right saying that we should view our current investments to reduce climate risks as an insurance, I guess similar to those that you are the happiest with when they turn out to be lousy investments… like who loves to collect on a sickness insurance?

But when Wolf mentions that some have criticized The Stern Review for ignoring the “possibility that richer future generations will also be able to adapt quite well to climate change” he should perhaps have made it more clearer that we might in fact be that future richer generation that is trying to adapt, while there is still time.

One thing that Wolf does touch upon and that might indeed be the biggest cause for our inactions is the growing divergence between the seriousness of the environmental problems described and the frequently silly nature of the solutions prescribed. Today even if we know ourselves to be in a big bad very ugly hole, we still have very few sensible ideas of how to stop digging.

The world as you know it will end… unless you buy yourself a hybrid car!?

[elvis]

Bupa, I agree with you on many points;
biofuels to replace gasoline are a silly joke, mainly. China's coal-fired generators will dwarf most countries abilities to cut back... however:
Climate will change. Humans will adapt.
Why can't we try some adaptations before climates change? Last time I checked, most of us came equiped with brains.

You mention increased bio-diversity as one of the benefits of a warmer climate. I wonder if the first wave of biological expansion won't be the less desirable species?

In the tangent topic of Human impact on Earth, how about our Oceans? Cod, tuna and some of my other favorites are in serious trouble. What's left? Jelly fish. Yummy! Here, too, the folks in the business were resisting any change in their lifestyles.

[James Killus]

Bruce Webb,

I'll begin with my standard boilerplate and note that, from the basis of simple ethics and human rights including property rights), no one has the right to signficantly modify the atmosphere of the entire planet. Actually, that may be stated more strongly: everyone has the right to have the air they breathe remain in an unmodified state. If you do not have that right, then rights have no meaning.

The next bit of boilerplate is that the changes required to (at the very least) halt the increases in greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are changes in institutional and group behavior; this is very much an issue of individual rights (to unmodified air) vs the collective power of large organizations (nations, political parties, and those curious public institutions that are called "private" corporations. i know that current propaganda claims rights for those poor little corporations who are at the mercy of big bad government, just as previously "State's rights" were used as a justification to abrogate the individual rights of some citizens, but it pays to keep one's eye on the ball, and corporations, like states are collective entities, not individuals.

Now as to the science involved, it is very easy to toss around terms like "junk science" and it has become a favorite tactic of those who are actually attacking good science they don't happen to like. One may look at the use of the term by Creationists and the tobacco lobby to see this phenomenon in action. So the question becomes, how does one actually tell junk science from real science when one lacks specific and detailed knowledge of the subject and/or the scientific training, experience, and rigor that is required for good science. (I put in all these caveats because I've known fully credentialled scientists whom I thought were complete idiots on issues that had no discernable political controversy whatsoever, i.e. they just screwed up).

In the global warming controversy, I'll suggest that people note a few key features. First, when "conversions" have occurred over the past twenty or so years, they have almost always been from skepticism to belief. Thomas Karl is perhaps the poster child for this effect, but there are many, many others (including, I would have to admit, me). i know that there are plenty of people who claim to have gone the opposite route, but try to find their paper trail sometime.

Second, the big money goes to the skeptics, really. There are no Exxon funded PR firms dedicated to proving that global warming exists, nor are climatologists in the employ of the U.S. government harrassed by political operatives the way that James Hansen has been harrassed.

As for "alarmists," I do not know an "other side" equivalent of Senator James Inofe sitting on a Senate Committee and claiming that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated." The other side is represented by Al Gore, who, as a private citizen, made a movie.

And, just incidentally, it is not alarmist to cry "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater if the theater is, in fact, on fire.

[Bupa]

Bruce Hall,

Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist. You are not. Forgive me if I side with him and the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change. I've visited your website. You have a truly deranged mind. I can see why Gavin Schmidt would not have the patience to disentangle the garbled rants that you substitute for analysis. He is a busy serious scientist and you are a charlatan global warming denialist wasting a lot of time trying to spread confusion. I’m sure he holds you in contempt.

Respected climatologists do not spread hope or fear they uncover facts, offer interpretations, and employ rigorous analysis. You on the other hand, jump from unfinished argument to unfinished argument in a seeming attempt to spread confusion.

The insurance I talk about is twofold. We must adapt to the climate change that will occur no matter what we do to try to stop it. Second, we must try to reduce our production of greenhouse gases. The fact that China is building lots of coal fired power plants is not an argument for doing nothing. Your allegation that China is launching carbon credit scams is not an argument for doing nothing. Your arguments are a convoluted attempt to substitute alarmism for analysis.

Nuclear power has a number of merits. It does not produce greenhouse gases and could be an important tool to combat global warming. Many alternative fuels do have drawbacks – no need for your hyperbolic dismissiveness. Some animals and some plants will adapt to most climate change scenarios but others will face extinction. To say that humans will adapt is not necessarily an optimistic assessment. James Lovelock is what you would call an alarmist (also a supporter of nuclear power plants). He thinks we are too late to stop global warming and that soon the human population will be reduced to about 200 million people living near the artic. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19596

Bruce Hall says “Economically, global warming is likely to be a good thing. There may be some dislocations for worsening conditions, but a much larger area of the world will have a more habitable environment. That's not a "hope". That's what the paleontological record shows.”

I hope you understand that Gavin Schmidt would have every right to point out that “that is crap”.

[Bupa]

elvis,
you seem to have made the unforgivable mistake of placing my name in front of Bruce Hall's quotes.

even though it is unforgivable, if you apologize nicely I might forgive you.

says...

""Economists are trained to address the costs and benefits of alternative policies rigorously.""

Bwahahahhahah!

Of course!

The cost is the time it took to write the piece and the benefit is the lobby money paid to have it written, pareto optimal!

[elvis]

Bupa,
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

sorry about that.

[Bruce Hall]

I can see the next big thing: global warming insurance.

Meanwhile, it's 6 degrees F here. I suspect that these cold winters generate a lot more CO2 from natural gas, coal, and wood used for heat... plus the electricity to run furnaces... plus the greater fuel consumption in automobiles with thickened oil and transmission fluid... than is produced for air conditioning during hot summers.

Incidentally, I was thinking more of Cancun than Bangledesh as my tropical getaway. I believe the fossil history shows mankind as a tropical animal that has had to suffer considerably to adapt to ice age conditions. Apparently, the adaptation has left some unable to cope with warmth... great fear of sweating and tanning?

Come on! In the big picture of a world with ice-covered poles, can't you see how absurd the fear of a warmer climate really is? Hey just crank up a solar powered air conditioners while you're sipping on your coconut cocktails.

[Bupa]

elvis,
all is forgiven. my posts were sandwiched between Bruce Hall rants so a slip of the scroll bar could easily cause a little confusion.

and Bruce Hall is still ranting in his typically incoherent fashion.

[Bruce Hall]

Bupa,

It is only incoherent to one who has predetermined that any outcome of change is bad... and must be avoided at all costs. You'd be great on the discussions about globalization.

[piglet]

"As I pointed out before, U.S. energy consumption is inline with world energy consumption, per dollar."

As I pointed out before, that statement is false. Even if measured per GDP dollar, rather than per capita, US excpetionalism demands at least 50% higher energy consumption compared to rich European countries. This estimation is based on Mr Schaeffer's own plots. I also pointed out that the GDP comparison is ludicrous. There is no credible indication that Americans, except for the very rich, enjoy a higher living standard than most Europeans, who consume roughly half as much energy per capita.

Of course Mr Schaeffer won't apologize for what he mistakes for "economic success" (watch out how much will be left of that "success" once the cheap oil era has ultimately come to its end) because this guy is an apologist of stupidiy and irresponsability.

[James Killus]

My bad, I obviously meant Bruce Hall and not Bruce Webb.

The perils of writing after hours when I have a cold.

It is good to have such an examplar of my Stages 3-5 here on display, however.

[piglet]

James Killus:

From the basis of simple ethics and human rights including property rights, no one has the right to signficantly modify the atmosphere of the entire planet. Actually, that may be stated more strongly: everyone has the right to have the air they breathe remain in an unmodified state. If you do not have that right, then rights have no meaning.

Exactly. You can put it more broadly and say that nobody has the right to destroy, or put at risk, the natural basis on which other people's (including future generations) lives depend. Some may claim that being rich exempts you from this basic ethical imperative but most of us will, on reflection, admit that such a claim cannot be upheld.

[Bruce Hall]

You don't have the right to build on property that would spoil my view. You don't have a right to cut down a forest because you want to farm more land. You don't have a right to do anything that I construe to be against my interest.

That's an interesting concept.

Perhaps you don't have a right to try to keep the earth cold when so many will benefit from more warmth.

Trying to buttress an argument with fearmongering and made-up "rights" is great for high school debate teams... but little else. It doesn't pass the real world test.

[piglet]

"You don't have the right to build on property that would spoil my view." That is correct if you can prove that your life depends on that view. Otherwise, let this be decided by local regulation.

"You don't have a right to do anything that I construe to be against my interest."

It would be interesting (or maybe not) to know what you suggest as an alternative to concept brought forward by James Killus and me. Would you deny that there are cases in which people must be prevented from hurting other people even though they consider their actions as legitimate pursuit of economic interest? Would you deny that it is unethical, for example, to poison a community's source of water (be it a river, lake or ground water) by dumping dangerous chemicals into it? Or is the right to drink clean water just a "made-up right"? Is it just a "construction" to maintain that environmental damage is "against the interest" of great many people?

Americans undeniably contribute a great deal to Global Warming. I know, of course, that merely ethical arguments won't convince many people. However it is not that only people in faraway places are threatened by the effects of climate change. Hundreds of millions of Americans are threatened by more frequent hurricanes, more frequent floods and droughts, water shortage, sea level rise, etc. If Americans are interested in their own survival, both physical and cultural, then they should care about reducing their environmental footprint to a sustainable level. People like you, Bruce Hall, are betraying humanity and you are betraying your own community, and your own children. And no, I am not making this up.

[Bruce Hall]

There has been no evidence of any damage real or imagined linked to CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

If you point to Hurricane Katrina, I will point to massive arctic conditions that have hit the northern tier for weeks. I will point to massive ice storms that caused damage and deaths across middle America. I will point to huge amounts of snow in Anchorage and Denver and northern New York. Weather anomalies are not evidence of anything regarding CO2.

Your positions are speculation at best, so the real danger of harm is economic harm from misguided "taxes" and diversion of resources to uneconomical efforts such as ethanol production from corn which is disrupting the corn market and making the basic staple for Mexicans too expensive for many.

I don't believe you have a right to mangle people's lives and livelihoods based on your fears. Unfounded and unproven fears.

[piglet]

"There has been no evidence of any damage real or imagined linked to CO2 increases in the atmosphere."

Except that virtually all competent scientists agree that there will be considerable damage. (There is less agreement about whether this damage has already started to make itself felt, like in recent heat waves and hurricane Katrina, but that is beside the point.)

I will point to massive ice storms that caused damage and deaths across middle America. I will point to huge amounts of snow in Anchorage and Denver and northern New York.

This remark only shows your lack of understanding of the issues. Extreme weather conditions including huge amounts of snow are actually consistent with Global Warming predictions (which predict precipitation extremes, and which do not predict homogeneous warming).

"Your positions are speculation at best, so the real danger of harm is economic harm from misguided "taxes" and diversion of resources to uneconomical efforts...

Your view would be more debatable if there were any actual evidence for this "economic harm" resulting from reducing GHG emissions. As a matter of fact, reducing GHG emissions would be sound environmental AND economic policy *even if there were no Global Warming*! Why is that? Because it's all about energy conservation and reduction of fossil fuel consumption. Reducing waste and saving energy is actually economically beneficial. Just ask Wal-Mart managers. I attended a presentation by Wal-Mart top brass just yesterday. Wal-Mart actually supports a GHG emission cap, can you imagine that? They have figured out that saving energy also saves money. Took them a long time, but better late than never!

Yes, saving energy saves money, and much more is at stake since we all knwo that cheap fossil fuels won't last much longer. People who oppose saving energy on economic grounds must be regarded as totally and irredeemably crackpot.

[piglet]

I don't believe you have a right to mangle people's lives and livelihoods

I don't believe you have the right to squander the planet's precious and irreplaceable resources just for your personal satisfaction. To put it differently, if you dismiss other people's right for a livable environment as just "made-up" "constructions", how do you justify your "right" to consume so-and-so much oil? Who gave you this right? There is no such right, any more than there is a right to an unspoiled view.

[Bruce Hall]

Hell, piglet, global warming is proven by everything. What a specious argument!

This is the same kind of religious babble one gets from radical Islamists.

They also ignore the real harm they are doing and plan to do in the name of the "truth."

This isn't a Economics forum, it is a forum to proselytize. Join me Brothers and Sisters; join me in my fear!

[Bruce Hall]

Also, piglet, my wife and I gave up a second car to keep just one vehicle which we schedule between us. We keep the house at 67 degrees during the winter. We use only low nitrogen fertilizer and avoid insecticides.

Now, what do you do for the environment.

By the way, you can find a closer correlation to simple Milankovitch variations in solar radiation modulated by volcanic aerosols, using oceans and carbon dioxide only as minor dependent variables.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/08/history-getting-back-to-what-it-sort-of-used-to-be-a-guest-weblog-by-reid-a-bryson-phd-dsc-dengr/

Awww, but you don't like that model. CO2 has become the indulgences of the 21st century. Buy credits for you sins.

[piglet]

"This is the same kind of religious babble one gets from radical Islamists."

[Roll eye.]

[James Killus]

It so happens that people _have_ been enjoined from performing actions that despoil the scenic views of property holders, Bruce. And there are cases where the cutting of forests has been found to harm others' land, etc. etc.

So we are now faced with a couple of questions. First, is it necessary to demonstrate harm in order to prevent someone from tampering with property that they do not own (either commons or someone else's private property, both of which are impacted when someone emits gases into the air, or puts contaminants into water)? Second, is there evidence of harm from greenhouse gas emissions?

A strict propertarian will hold that the answer to the first question is "no." I do not have to demonstrate that someone trespassing on my private property is doing harm; it is enough that they are trespassing. I decided long ago that a strict propertarian (or "libertarian" if you prefer, though that is a slippery term) must hold to a "zero emissions" policy on environmental matters. I personally am not a strict propertarian, but then, I'm not the one arguing for an unlimited right for corporations to extract and sell fossil fuels, either.

Second, as to the "proof of harm," the fundamentals of radiative equilibrium physics (plus Boyle's law) says that the emission of greenhouse gases will warm the Earth. If you know someone who argues differently, they are either ignorant or lying. So then it all become a matter of (no pun intended) degree and timing. How much warming is caused by x amount of extra greenhouse gases, and how rapidly does this happen? The scientific community currently has fairly strong consensus opinions on this, but they may be wrong -- in either direction. But the possible outcomes are not symmetric and the asymmetry isn't weighted toward the good outcomes.

So someone tosses a rock into your yard one day. Then another, then another. How long before you ask them to stop? And how much proof will you need that the growing mound of rocks in your yard is harmful? Must you be the one to analyze the composition of the rocks to show that they are toxic? Someone just threw a rock through your window; is the pile an "attractive nuisance?" And do you really think that the arbiter of that situation should be someone other than the owner of the property? Why?

[Bruce Hall]

James, I respect you personally and understand that uncertainty is not as welcome as certainty. But there are many differences of opinion among scientists regarding possible outcomes from climate change.

Rather than debate that here, I offer up this interesting 15-minute video from the Voice of America online that presents the views of 3 scientists and an editor from U.S. News and World Report.

http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=On%20the%20Line&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voanews.com%2Freal%2Fvoa%2Fenglish%2Fengl%2Fengl0306vb.ram

The participants are:

Robert Corell, program director at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.

Bret Schulte, an associate editor for U.S. News and World Report who writes on environmental issues.

Roger Pielke, Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Dev Niyogi, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University and an Indiana state climatologist.

As I tell my sons, all fine young men... "Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems."

[Bupa]

Bruce Hall,

Were you once molested by a radical environmentalist as a boy? Just trying to understand how you could have joined this cult of denialists.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you ask the handful of denialists you constantly refer to as the source of truth to take the Jeffery Sachs challenge.

Jeffery Sachs issued the challenge in the Sept 2006 edition of Scientific American. He puzzled over the disconnect between the Wall Street Journal editorial board and their own reporters (and the rest of the world) when it comes to climate change. He challenged the WSJ editorial board to follow their professed interest in an "open-minded search for scientific knowledge" by meeting with the "world's leading climate scientists and to include in that meeting any climate-skeptic scientists that that the Journal editorial board would like to invite".

Ask your friends at the WSJ editioral board and your friend Roger Pielke, Sr. to take up Sach's challenge. You can even ask your impartial friends at VOA to record the meeting.

[Bruce Hall]

Bupa,

I take it you were unable to copy and paste the link into your browser.

1. Try 3 quick clicks on the link to highlight everything since some characters are not visible.
2. Hit Ctrl-C to copy the string
3. Go to your browser and paste in the string on the address bar
4. Click enter
5. Download the file and play in RealPlayer
6. Listen to and watch the video
7. Then make your comments

Otherwise, you are just uninformed and a prime example of the fanatical true believer who doesn't even know what he is believing.

[James Killus]

Bruce, I have read the past three IPCC reports more or less cover to cover, I regularly read the Journal of Geophysical Research, and Paul Crutzen once told my boss that I was a really smart guy. The "it's really complicated" argument doesn't really hold much water for me, nor do agit-prop videos from the VOA.

Twenty or thirty years ago there were reasonable arguments that could be made to the effect that there were negative feedback mechanisms that would blunt the effect of greenhouse gases. There were even some truly contrarian arguments that GHGs could cause another ice age. The data have ruled those out of the realm of possibility. Radiative equilibrium and Boyle's law have won the day.

And the pile of rocks on your lawn is getting bigger. How high must it get before you stand up for your rights?

[Bupa]

Bruce Hall,

Against my better judgement I have watched the video you recommend.

It was not 15 minutes. It was more than 20 minutes. Once again you have misinformed.

I learned nothing. It was a waste of my time. The summary in the beginning was well done. Roger Pielke, Sr. was spouting on orally just has he does on his website. I presume that is where you picked up the VOA interview. It his lead today. Why are you so impressed? He hates to be called a denialist. He likes to emphasize how complex the climate is. There are lots of things happening beyond manmade CO2 emissions. There is land use. There are aerosols. There are regional anomolies and complications. Yawn. All climatologists know this is a complex subject. So what?

You accuse me of being a fanatical true believer. What are you talking about? I am informed by the scientific consensus. I am rational.

The fanaticism is on the side of the denialists who refuse to accept the weight of the evidence. You want to believe that global warming is not a problem. Go ahead and believe. Follow your besotted cult. Just do it quietly. Stop ranting obsessively. Stop spreading disinformation. Stop wasting our time.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Bupa,

A quick check of http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html shows that coal accounts for half of U.S. power, not 65%.

Evagrius,

Since low skill immigrants are generally poor, they presumably consume less energy than the national average. However, it is well known the poor people spend a higher fraction of their incomes on energy (energy spending is regressive). As a consequence the middle class / poor immigrant energy consumption ratio is smaller than the income ratio.

However, the real point is that even poor immigrants consume far more energy in the U.S. than in their native countries. As a consequence, immigration can only make global warming worse.

“Logically speaking, what the hell are people doing in Las Vegas, a desert?”

That’s easy. Escaping from the consequences of runaway population growth in California driven entirely by immigration.

Over time global warming may well trigger migration, with grievous consequences in many parts of the world. Fortunately, the Atlantic and Pacific are too wide to swim or cross in small boats.

James Killus,

Various posters, including myself, have argued that anthropogenic global warming is a serious issue. I have challenged these folks to take their own views to heart by suggesting that they must support immigration restriction as a consequence. Some folks concur, others get rather upset.

Clearly for some folks, global warming is only a “real” problem until a true sacred cow (Open Borders) is threatened. Then priorities and rhetoric appear to change.

Of course, the U.S. energy/unit GDP ratio could be reduced. Indeed, U.S. energy to GDP ratio has been declining for decades. However, the same possibility exists for any nation, including China, India, etc.

Elvis,

The Sierra club supported immigration restriction until the leadership accepted a $100 million “payment” (bribe). See Sierra Club Puppeteer—Long-Suspected Scandal Revealed. A useful quote

“Just what is the cost to buy off the Sierra Club—once the most respected environmental organization in America?

A low nine figure sum does the job according to the Los Angeles Times in its story last fall about David Gelbaum, one of the key funders of the 112-year-old environmental organization. ["The Man Behind the Land" by Kenneth R. Weiss, Oct. 17, 2004]

A nice round $100 million was enough for Executive Director Carl Pope to toss the principles of honesty, democracy and conservation out the window.”

Traditionally, as a pro-worker, pro-environment party, the Democrats were at least divided over immigration. For example, Gaylord Nelson (Earth Day founder), Barbara Jordan, and Richard Lamm have all supported immigration restriction. In recent years the Democratic party (with notable exceptions) has succumbed to both ethnic/racial identity politics and “cheap labor liberalism”. You can be sure that the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world aren’t eager to pay more for their servants.

Piglet,

The U.S. produces 130 grams of net carbon per dollar of output. The world average is 125 grams per dollar. Some countries are below average. Other are above. For example, Canada produces 152 grams per dollar and China produces 164 grams. See the Earth Policy 2005 CO2 (stated in net carbon) tables and the 2005 World Bank GDP data.

As you can see, the U.S. economy is not particularly CO2 intensive.

[Bruce Hall]

Bupa,

Thanks for at least looking at the video.

If you had listened as well, you would have heard the general agreement that climate was, is, and will change... it's just a more complex matter than you want to focus on.

Secondly, you would have heard that even the IPCC has softened their stance on the extent of change.

Thirdly, you would have heard that ocean temperatures have been cooling recently.

Fourthly, you would have heard that the Antarctic ice cap has been adding mass.

Dr. Pielke was not the only one saying those things. The other 2 scientists, to varying extents, said the same or similar things.

"Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems."

A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

... meanwhile...
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2007-02-09-ny-snow_x.htm

I know... global warming.

[anne]

"In recent years the Democratic party (with notable exceptions) has succumbed to both ethnic/racial identity politics and “cheap labor liberalism”. You can be sure that the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world aren’t eager to pay more for their servants."

Notice the lunacy, but notice more how prejudice is encouraged, how prejudice is encouraged so that it may be used as a weapon. Prejudice and deceit are the weapons, always the weapons, always.

[anne]

"Fortunately, the Atlantic and Pacific are too wide to swim or cross in small boats."

Oh, the horror, the horror; we must now find a way to move Canada. Yes; we must move Canada to China and destroy all the big boats in the moving. Canada is the problem, Canada the threat. Move Canada to China, immediately.

[Peter Schaeffer]

For those who doubt the decline of the Democrats as a pro-worker, pro-environment party, I recommend Cheap-labor Liberalism: How the Democrats Mutated into a Socially-Liberal, Economically-Conservative Party. Please read the article. “Anne” won’t be hard to find.

[anne]

No; I am working on moving Canada to China or at least extending lake Superior 3,000 miles and making sure to put a net in the middle for catching swimmers and small boaters. Are the boaters small or just the boats, she wondered?

There we have Democrats pushing to increase the minimum wage, state by state and nationally, against Republican wishes but who pays attention to such things. Move Canada, immediately, 'eh.

[Bupa]

I'm still yawning Bruce Hall.

You're still ranting as if the VOA clip could teach anyone who has been following the science of global warming anything.

First the format. VOA attempts to provide "both" sides of the debate. On one side is the overwhelming consensus of scientists painstakingly built up over decades through rigorous research, modeling, and peer-review criticism. On the other side are a few maverick's like Roger Pielke, Sr. who doesn't want to be called a denialist but who bombastically attempts to sow doubt and and confusion on the IPCC consensus.

You gotta find a better line than "it is more complicated than you think". All serious folk know it is complicated. That doesn't blur the clarity of the message that we need to stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

If you want to be a convincing preacher in your denialist cult you will have to learn to be a bit more convincing or else preach your deception to more ingorant folk.

Over at RealClimate.org Ike Solem offers some advice to sharpen your bamboozling trade.

"The effort that is going into the contrarian effort is really remarkable, and seems to center around a list of talking points that have been passed around; the stance hasn't changed much in around a decade. I'll post a few examples here so people can see how this works:

Just to be clear, these are the talking points that are distributed to denialists via the network of groups described by http://www.exxonsecrets.org

From the "National Center for Public Policy Research"

1) Sun Is Real Culprit Responsible for Global Warming, released June 1998 (a replay of Charles Muller's arguments, i.e. #240 IPCC SPM thread)

2) Global warming is a natural phenomenon, May 1998 (the tendency now is not to use the words 'global warming', but rather 'climate change')

3)Global warming 'consensus' claims don't hold water: Scientists simply don't agree that global warming is occurring Includes an attack on the IPCC as a political rather than a scientific process - a claim that Roger Pielke Jr. has picked up on, and is riding for all it's worth.

4)Myths and Facts about global warming, July 1997 This one has the statement "whether or not the planet is warming depends on one's reference points" - which is why I find the use of the 1971-2000 and 1980-1999 baselines for NOAA and the IPCC disturbing.

5)Why global warming might be good, July 1997 Agriculture flourishes, we'll be saved from a new ice age, etc.

6)Why President Clinton's Global Warming Plan is a Bum Steer, Aug 1994 This is just to show how long this has been going on.

7)The Hole in Ozone Alarmists' Dire Predictions, Sept 1994 Yes - their favorite word - Alarmists.

8)Science puts the chill to California's Global Warming Hot Air, Bonner Cohen, 2007 -yes, they're still at it today!

9)The EPA Global Warming Report, "Cooking the Books" This one is interesting, because it lists "the 10 second response", "the 30 second response", and "the discussion" - ready for regurgitation.

10)Global Warming: Latest National Academies of Science Study Poorly Reported again, it lists the 10 sec, 30 sec, and discussion talking points.

Finally, a wrap-up:Bonn Global Warming Earth Summit Fact Kit, NCPPR

Here, the NCPPR listed the 'top ten charges' behind the Kyoto Protocol and provided 'succinct talking points for rebuttal' - I'll leave out the policy/economic issues and stick to the science ones:

5. Charge: We have already seen man-caused global warming in this century.

Response: Actually, we have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data has shown absolutely no warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.

The satellite record clearly shows tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. The surface warming continues as well.

6. Charge: Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming.

Response: There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.

In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far greater factors related to global temperature. According to Lindzen of MIT and scientists at NASA, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the earth's temperature to keep it more constant.

Lindzen again, displaying his psychological obsession with the stable equilibrium notion of climate - sort of a 'Gaia theory' of the self-regulating climate - completely unsubstantiated.

11. Charge: Still, the warming we have seen so far is unprecedented.

Response: Actually, it is not. A thousand years ago the earth was in a very warm period, but around 1300 the Northern Hemisphere entered an ice age. Over the last 200 years, the earth has been steadily warming. It is also interesting to note that just 30 years ago, there was great concern about global cooling.

Again, this is a blatant piece of disinformation.

12. Charge: But what about all those computer models that show global warming? They can't all be wrong.

Response: But they have been wrong - continually. In 1988 the IPCC computer models predicted temperatures would rise 0.8 C per decade. By 1990, the estimates were down to 0.3 C and by 1995 it was 0.2 C. So, the recent changes of estimates are nothing new nor are they any more likely to be right. As shown in item 5, in fact, none of the predicted warming has occurred. See the IPCC report...

In addition, the computer models leave out a wide variety of major climate mechanisms, including clouds. Most notably they leave out a natural heat vent phenomenon over the South Pacific that appears to have a self-regulating effect of the earth's temperature.

Yes - that's a reference to Lindzen's IRIS nonsense- that guy is shameless!

Sorry if this is a bit long- but this is how the denialist camp works - distribute a set of talking points to public relations types and have them repeat the same set of disinformation over and over, in every forum they can get into.

Comment by Ike Solem"

Study hard Bruce.

[anne]

http://www.exxonsecrets.org

"Global warming is a natural phenomenon, May 1998 (the tendency now is not to use the words 'global warming', but rather 'climate change')"

Notice that climate change has become the President's term. I have wondered which term to use. Thank you, Bupa, for tracing when the term global warming came to change.

[evagrius]

Mr. Schaeffer;

"Logically speaking, what the hell are people doing in Las Vegas, a desert?”

That’s easy. Escaping from the consequences of runaway population growth in California driven entirely by immigration"

You've got to be kidding. The best laugh I've had all day.

Do you realize how much energy Las Vegas uses? Do you realize how unecological the entire city is?
Las Vegas is the quintessential American Illusion City. Its economy is based on the worst vices that humans indulge in.

Mr. Schaeffer, your obsession with immigration borders on lunacy.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

Of course, Las Vegas ecologically unsound. Of course, it takes less energy to live in Santa Monica. So what? As an inexorably consequence of Open Borders California is bursting at the seams. Runaway population growth has driven congestion and housing prices to the breaking point. People and business are fleeing.

You may not like it, but California’s woes are the key driver behind Las Vegas’s growth. Type “Las Vegas growth California” into Google and see what you get. A few typical quotes

“The only reason Las Vegas has been booming is because it was on the periphery of Southern California”

“Increasingly, Las Vegas is home to people who have left California for Nevada. California migrants constitute about one-third of the newcomers to Las Vegas and contribute to the growth in home construction, landscaping, residential security, and light manufacturing in the increasingly varied Vegas economy.”

“You'd swear no end's in sight to subdivisions stretching for miles beyond the Strip, enclaves of single-family houses that draw thousands of Californians and other migrants a year.”

“Which Way to Las Vegas? Last week, the California Department of Finance released figures showing that the number of California residents moving out of the state exceeded the number of individuals moving in.”

As I stated before, the reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems (inequality, education, crime, crowding, housing unaffordability, GHGs, taxes, etc.). We need to free have public discourse about the role of Open Borders in making America a worse place to live and work.

[Bupa]

Interesting that a fellow named Schaeffer can rant indefatigably against immigration.

Let’s see now…Schaeffer, is that name found among the indigenous peoples of this hemisphere.

Perhaps it’s a name from religious refugees of Europe that landed in Plymouth in 1620.

The name sounds a bit German to me. Now when did the first German’s arrive in this hemisphere….Decedents of immigrants railing against immigration? What is the world coming to?

Of course, Peter does have a point that American immigrants like most Americans have a larger carbon footprint than they did in their country of birth. But let’s not send the Germans back to Germany. Let’s all work together to reduce the carbon footprint of the average American.

What do you think Peter? Are you with us?

[evagrius]

Of course Mr. Scaeffer is a descendant of immigrants but he's a "real American".

And, of course, "real Americans" are moving in droves to Las Vegas which is why it's interesting how many foreigners seem to be working there as entertainers, restaurant workers, etc;etc;

I find it fascinating that Las Vegas has grown so much and doesn't seem to be stopping in its growth.

All of it based on the automobile. All of it air-conditioned since no one could really live there comfortably in that heat. It would be interesting to find out how much energy, electrical, gas and oil, is consumed per capita by Las Vegans.

It's fascinating. And the cause? All those immigrants, ( responsible, of course, for the real estate bubble in California that's made buying a house, ( the ultimate American Dream), impossible for middle and lower middle class people who seek that Dream).

[Peter Schaeffer]

All,

I have posted a number of comments in this thread. By now the key points should be clear.

1. Obsessing about U.S. CO2 output is just another exercise in U.S. self-flagellation. Global CO2 output is going to soar no matter what the U.S. does. If the U.S. disappeared tomorrow, global growth would offset the removal of U.S. CO2 emissions in 6.5 years.
2. By global standards, the U.S. economy is not particularly CO2 intensive. We produce more CO2 per dollar than several European countries, but less than Canada and Australia (the countries most like us).
3. In per-capita terms, the U.S. produces more CO2 than most other countries. However, that reflects American prosperity which it would appear other nations aspire to. In any case, CO2 per dollar is the correct measure as Stiglitz points out.
4. For now, there is really nothing to be done about CO2 output. Samuelson is right. No meaningful solutions are possible at this time.
5. At some point real actions will be necessary… And they will be a lot easier with 300 million Americans than 1 billion.

I am sorry that this doesn’t fit into a comfortable PC framework, where if only greedy Americans would recognize their responsibilities the problem would magically go away. However, the truth isn’t always PC.

[Bruce Hall]

Bupa,

It seems that you are familiar with some of the views of those who only recognize CO2 as one factor in climate change... presently, part of earth's atmosphere and surface may be warming... and the oceans may be cooling... but the hot gas seems to be everywhere.

The denial of the "CO2 only" believers is ludicrous. It is one factor in the equation. Yet anyone who points that out is "ranting." I'd say those who resort to that language are simply trying to obfuscate by emotionally charging any exchange.

I understand the use of models. And when the models can backfit over more than a few years, I might have some confidence in them. Until then, "likely" also leaves room for "unlikely."

Since you dislike Dr. Pielke and Dr. Niyogi, I presume you loved Dr. Corell who supported the IPCC position paper. Of course, you didn't because there were points when he agreed with Dr. Pielke that there were other factors to be considered and that the IPCC itself was taking a less aggressive stance than its 2001 document.

But then I guess you object to Dr. Hulme's reaction to the current language being used to talk about global warming... even though he does support the IPCC position.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm

You apparently reject the notion that anything except a simple answer to a complex issues is unacceptable. You will call anyone who says, "Yes, there is climate change and there always has been... and if the earth is warming up, it may bring significant benefits regardless of the drivers of such change"... that they are ranting.

Allah Akbar! True believer.

[anne]

Meanness of course only means that the "there is really nothing to be done" ravers along with the deniers have lost, for there is much to be done. Simply looking about to California, looking to the last election as well, shows that much is and much will be done with a happily broad political agreement.

[evagrius]

There's an interesting video out that was produced nearly 20 years ago by the English science popularizer, James Burke, entitled "After the Warming".
In it, he describes what happened between the years 1990-2050.
It's fiction, of course, and conjectural. It's a bit dated and somewhat politically naive, etc;etc;
However, it's fascinating to see how much he's gotten right so far.

[Movie Guy]

evagrius - "I find it fascinating that Las Vegas has grown so much and doesn't seem to be stopping in its growth.

All of it based on the automobile. All of it air-conditioned since no one could really live there comfortably in that heat. It would be interesting to find out how much energy, electrical, gas and oil, is consumed per capita by Las Vegans."

With due respect, evagrius. when is the last time you were in Vegas?

There are no natural growth barriers other than water and they have most of that covered.

I also disagree with your automobiles remark. Think airliners and corporate size jets. That's most of the inbound traffic.

Vegas is the place.

I agree with Peter Schaffer. He nailed it. I talk to a few friends there almost every week. California is relocating. Exactly right.

Houses in Vegas are sucked up quickly. Food is very cheap. Entertain great. And now it's a family destination.

Vegas has no critical barriers to development.

[Bupa]

Americans like the Movie Guy think "Vegas has no critical barriers to development."

This is the mentality we are up against.

Building homes in the desert. Moving from air conditioned SUV to air conditioned office to air conditioned house.

All food needs to be flown in.

All water needs to be heroically diverted. Most drinking water is flown in.

Lights lights lights every where. Unused electronic equipment buzzing in ready mode.

Poor Bangladesh is going to pay big time for this. You're a real hero MG. Keep up the good work

[Bupa]

Perhaps Movie Guy's friend, Peter Schaeffer has the statistics at hand to measure the carbon footprint of Vegas. If Peter opposes immigration to America on the grounds that Americans spew out more CO2 per capita than the countries where most of the immigrants originated (Canada and Australia are the exceptions), he should also oppose the relocation of American citizens to areas like Vegas that require more greenhouse gas production per capita than other areas in America.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne, Bupa,

As I have “indefatigably” pointed out, even the disappearance of the USA would little impact the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Evagrius,

The linkage between mass immigration and unaffordable housing is harshly clear. Take a look at the Housing Opportunity Index data from the NAHB. 9 out the 10 least affordable markets are in California. The nine worst as it turns out. Predictably, Los Angeles has the least affordable housing in America. 1.9% of homes are affordable for a family with a median income. Worst, LA is not particularly affluent with a median family income of $56,200. Madera and Merced combine notably low incomes with very unaffordable housing. My tag line for all of this is simple.

“Open Borders, Killing the American Dream”

[evagrius]

But the immigrants aren't the one's who've driven up the price of housing in California.
Most simply can't afford a house, ( except for the Chinese from Hong Kong who fled after the takeover and rich hi-tech Indian engineers).
They mainly rent.
No, the rise of housing prices in California is due to speculation by good ol' Americans feeding off other good ol' Americans.

[anne]

There we have the lunatic explanation for everything from global warming to bad make-up, the lunacy of open borders. Why is there a Las Vegas, because of open borders? Close the borders and Las Vegas will return to China where it belongs. The mind boggles at the lunacy, and a threatening lunacy because the lunacy is ethnically charged, though why we should be worried about raving flocks of Canadians descending on Maine is beyond my understanding.

[Movie Guy]

Bupa - "All food needs to be flown in.

All water needs to be heroically diverted. Most drinking water is flown in.

Lights lights lights every where. Unused electronic equipment buzzing in ready mode.

Poor Bangladesh is going to pay big time for this. You're a real hero MG. Keep up the good work"

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Vegas is sitting next door to hydropower. And Class 8 trucks still to and from Vegas.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

The price of housing in California is determined by the cost of land. With fewer people, California would have more land per person and lower land costs. With vastly more people California has a profound land scarcity and inevitably unaffordable housing. Don’t believe me? Here is what Brad DeLong wrote about this

“Second, there's a version of the "limited land" hypothesis: starting around 1970, many of America's metropolitan areas filled up in the sense that there was no longer greenfield land within less than half an hour's commute of anywhere you wanted to go. (New York is different, and was different for a long time.) Before 1970 being within half an hour's commute isn't valuable--it's there for everybody. Since 1970, being within half an hour's commute of Georgetown or Boston Common or the Embarcadero has become increasingly scarce and increasingly valuable”

Now where did all of those extra people driving California’s land shortage come from? The rest of the U.S.? No, Americans are net leaving California in droves. A related factor is that immigration has devastated public education in California making the few areas with decent schools absurdly valuable. This isn’t the whole story, because even the areas with miserable schools don’t have affordable housing (for the folks living there).

[evagrius]

Mr. Schaeffer,

You need to look at the history of immigration to California from the rest of the U.S. over, say, the last 40 years before making your argument.
The movement out of California has only occured in the last 5 years or so, certainly not the last 40 years.

[Bupa]

Movie Guy,

I'll go slowly so you can follow.

Electricity produced at the Hoover dam is indeed free of green house gases. Las Vegas does get its electricity from this source. Applause, applause. The power of your analysis continues to be a wonder of the universe.

Now try to follow along. The electricity being wastefully consumed in Las Vegas could have been transmitted to other consumers who currently rely on power plants that indeed produce green house gases. Connect the dots, Movie Guy.

I know this reality might be too much for you to grasp. So I’ll pause while you think about it.

Regarding food. Food is transported to Vegas via CO2 emitting transportation. In many metropolitan areas of America there is some locally grown food consumed. Locally grown consumed food has a smaller carbon footprint. Have you noticed any wheat fields around Vegas. What about vegetable gardens? Orchids? Any cows grazing nearby?

Now that I’ve got your old brain cells whirring, I’ll leave the subject of water in a desert community for your active imagination to mull over.

Concentrate now Movie Guy. The children of Bangladesh will be grateful.

[elvis]

the mind boggles at the lunacy, and a threatening lunacy because the lunacy is ethnically charged, though why we should be worried about raving flocks of Canadians descending on Maine is beyond my understanding.
anne, you forgot to mention that we must leave Iraq immediately. We are, it seems, unwelcome immigrants there.

immigrants are people and people are beautiful. Immigration, legal or otherwise isn't a black and white issue.

In the context of this article (economists should start acting on Global warming), immigration is an important issue. Population is an important issue. How numerous should our nation be? 300 million now, headed for 400 in 2043. Heck, in a century or so, we could be in the billionaire league with India and China.
So, what do economists think, I wonder. Do they have any suggestions for reaching a sustainable steady-state population?

[Cyrille]

You'd have to speed up quite a bit to reach a billion in a century if it's going to be 400 millions in 2043... Methinks you won't get near.

In fact, the scary thing is that with so many denialists still around, we may well not have a billion human beings on the entire planet by then.

[anne]

"By 2100, immigration will have raised our population to 1 billion or more."

The point is to make up absolutely anything and everything, as long as there is enough to generate fear or cater to prejudice. There is not the slightest concern for truth, and there is always an intimidating intent to what is made-up.

[reason]

This is a very bad tempered thread. Manners please! Most people here are intelligent and honest, even if some of them must be mistaken.

When talking about the effects of climate change (however if is caused) I can't understand why people are not discussing the issue of refugees. That is where the real problem will be. Mankind is still very tribal. Winners are not compensating losers (anywhere really). There is going to be a bunfight! Or does someone have a magic pill to make mankind mature and co-operative overnight?

I personally like the contribution of Bruce Wilder. It is closer to my position than anybody else:

Personally, I tend to think that the time horizon for climate change from carbon dioxide accumulation is too long for even collective human action. Humans will have to create institutions to control the climate, but the control mechanisms cannot be only a limitation on additions of carbon dioxide to atmospheric chemistry. Some other kinds of shorter-term interventions will probably be necessary to induce a bit of cooling, to keep the earth from slipping over the threshold. Geo-engineering invention for intervention, as it were, coupled with weather prediction to minimize the costs of the intervention. Interesting stuff.

Not necessarily what I want to happen (there are obvious risks in this sort of blind experiment with our life support system) but I don't think we will have a choice. Everything else is worse. "The Weathermakers" it is.

[evagrius]

Is Las Vegas the American Xanadu?

[Peter Schaeffer]

The Census projects U.S. population in 2100 at 571 million. The high case is 1.2 billion. With Open Borders the high case is almost certainly low. See Census Bureau Projects Doubling of Nation's Population by 2100.

[anne]

No; even with closed borders we will have a population of at least 4 billion in another 20 years and all in San Francisco. The country will tilt.

[Ninjaplease]

Ninjaplease says it's time to stop listening to economists and act on globalization.

[Movie Guy]

Global warming, Population Size, and Population/Immigration Trends in the United States of America

The U.S. Census Bureau public data and studies are available for anyone to review. The U.S. population projections are included in such information, though I have never found an update for the year 2000 study. Peter Schaffer says that the U.S. population will increase to 1 billion or more by year 2100 based on his research, including a review of the U.S. Census Bureau population projections. He also raises other issues.

Note the responses from other posters regarding his remarks on U.S. population growth.

One poster, anne (posting with an invalid Harvard University email address), goes so far as to call Peter a liar by saying, "The point is to make up absolutely anything and everything, as long as there is enough to generate fear or cater to prejudice. There is not the slightest concern for truth, and there is always an intimidating intent to what is made-up."

It is anne who is telling the lie. It is also anne who failed to undertake and quote any serious research during the five day period prior to challenging Peter Schaffer's original claim posted on the morning of 7 February. Instead, she posted the nonsense stated above on the morning of the sixth day.

Upon reading her post, Peter Schaffer provided the U.S. Census Bureau link for his statement. Instead of apologizing for being such an arrogant Harvard ass, anne responds with another disingenuous, mocking post. See the last remark at the end of this blockquote series of quoted comment poster statements.

I raise the matter of the poster anne calling Peter Schaffer a liar because it not goes to the matter of anne's personal credibility, but rather professional credibility. This individual, anne, is supposedly a person who was schooled at one of the elite Northeast universities based on some of her blog remarks, and has used two different university's email addresses during the time that I have observed her posts on this blog and also at Brad Delong's blog as well as Brad Setser's blog previously. It may be the case that this person is a professor, associate professor, assistant administrator, counselor, teacher, or even a journalist column writer (perhaps the NYTimes) in the Boston or New York City area. If the individual is in one of these professions, the issue of credibility is important not only for the individual, but also the profession and institute concerned. If she is involved in the education and/or counseling of young students at a university or lower school, credibility and honesty are critical to professional performance and influence with such young persons. It is apparent that she intentionally called Peter Schaffer a liar without putting forth the slightest professional or personal effort to refute his statement. If that is an example of her professional performance in an educational institute or newspaper in the United States of America, then the school or newspaper and the nation are ill served, as is the public which may ultimately be providing her salary.

Selected posts from this thread:

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 7, 2007 10:06:49 AM - "Folks, do the math. Let's say the U.S. achieved a 60% reduction in per-capita CO2 output. By 2100, immigration will have raised our population to 1 billion or more. Total CO2 output will go up, not down. Anyone who claims to take global warming seriously and doesn't back immigration restriction is just kidding."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 7, 2007 12:27:32 PM - "More people makes it more difficult to move away from fossil fuels. With 50 million people, the U.S. could easily move to biofuels, wind, etc. With 300 million people it will be immensely more difficult. With 1 billion people, laughable. The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems (inequality, education, crime, crowding, housing unaffordability, GHGs, taxes, etc.). We need to free have public discourse about the role of Open Borders in making America a worse place to live and work."

Posted by: anne | Feb 7, 2007 12:47:12 PM - "The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems...." [anne is quoting Peter Schaffer]

"Yes; that and frogs, frogs are a terrible problem but no matter what I say I just can't get people interested enough in frogs to take the proper anti-frog action. We need public discourse, if not talk, about frogs before they take control. Frogs, I say."
"Now, back to global warming."

Posted by: anne | Feb 7, 2007 12:51:08 PM - "There is also strong evidence that immigration raises total fertility in both the U.S. and in the sending countries." [anne is quoting Peter Schaffer]
"Darn, so that is the reason for frogs, fertility there and here and who knows where else. I should have known. Frog fertility is scary scary stuff. I am against all fertile frogs."

Posted by: piglet | Feb 7, 2007 1:00:12 PM - "Schaeffer, you are a real Arschloch. You are the prototype of a coward who always needs somebody to blame - immigrants - for his own irresponsible actions. Btw this is the same guy who recently described the extremely high US energy consumption as "economic success"."

Posted by: Elvis | Feb 8, 2007 1:07:48 AM - [anne is quoting Peter Schaffer] "The reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems...." Yes; that and frogs, frogs are a terrible problem but no matter what I say I just can't get people interested enough in frogs [elvis is quoting anne]

"Actually anne, I think you are dismissing the message because of the messenger. Even the Sierra Club links immigration to the US with conservation concerns. Traditionally, Dems favored stricter immigration...or atleast that's what I was told..."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 9, 2007 10:02:29 PM - '...James Killus, Clearly for some folks, global warming is only a “real” problem until a true sacred cow (Open Borders) is threatened. Then priorities and rhetoric appear to change."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 9, 2007 10:02:29 PM - "Over time global warming may well trigger migration, with grievous consequences in many parts of the world. Fortunately, the Atlantic and Pacific are too wide to swim or cross in small boats."

Posted by: anne | Feb 10, 2007 6:45:54 AM - "Fortunately, the Atlantic and Pacific are too wide to swim or cross in small boats." [anne quoting Peter Schaffer]

"Oh, the horror, the horror; we must now find a way to move Canada. Yes; we must move Canada to China and destroy all the big boats in the moving. Canada is the problem, Canada the threat. Move Canada to China, immediately."

Posted by: evagrius | Feb 10, 2007 6:45:40 PM - "Mr. Schaeffer, your obsession with immigration borders on lunacy."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 10, 2007 7:47:19 PM - "As an inexorably consequence of Open Borders California is bursting at the seams. Runaway population growth has driven congestion and housing prices to the breaking point. People and business are fleeing. You may not like it, but California’s woes are the key driver behind Las Vegas’s growth. Type “Las Vegas growth California” into Google and see what you get."

"As I stated before, the reality is that immigration is the hidden component of many of this nation's most serious problems (inequality, education, crime, crowding, housing unaffordability, GHGs, taxes, etc.). We need to free have public discourse about the role of Open Borders in making America a worse place to live and work."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 10, 2007 9:26:19 PM - "5. At some point real actions will be necessary… And they will be a lot easier with 300 million Americans than 1 billion."

Posted by: anne | Feb 11, 2007 10:25:17 AM - "There we have the lunatic explanation for everything from global warming to bad make-up, the lunacy of open borders. Why is there a Las Vegas, because of open borders? Close the borders and Las Vegas will return to China where it belongs. The mind boggles at the lunacy, and a threatening lunacy because the lunacy is ethnically charged, though why we should be worried about raving flocks of Canadians descending on Maine is beyond my understanding."

Posted by: elvis | Feb 12, 2007 6:33:42 AM - "Heck, in a century or so, we could be in the billionaire league with India and China."

Posted by: Cyrille | Feb 12, 2007 6:53:30 AM - "You'd have to speed up quite a bit to reach a billion in a century if it's going to be 400 millions in 2043... Methinks you won't get near. In fact, the scary thing is that with so many denialists still around, we may well not have a billion human beings on the entire planet by then."

Posted by: anne | Feb 12, 2007 7:12:13 AM - "By 2100, immigration will have raised our population to 1 billion or more." [anne is quoting Peter Schaffer]

"The point is to make up absolutely anything and everything, as long as there is enough to generate fear or cater to prejudice. There is not the slightest concern for truth, and there is always an intimidating intent to what is made-up."

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Feb 12, 2007 4:03:29 PM - "The Census projects U.S. population in 2100 at 571 million. The high case is 1.2 billion. With Open Borders the high case is almost certainly low. See Census Bureau Projects Doubling of Nation's Population by 2100."

Posted by: anne | Feb 12, 2007 4:12:17 PM - "No; even with closed borders we will have a population of at least 4 billion in another 20 years and all in San Francisco. The country will tilt."

Those familiar with population projections provided by the U.S. Census Bureau might have noticed that the U.S. population appears to be tracking slightly above the high series projections calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau in year 2000. High series projections of 1.1 or 1.2 billion persons in the USA in the year 2100 may be underestimated, absent other offsetting factors. Hopefully, an updated study of this type will be performed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Consideration of illegal alien entry and residence should be factored into the analysis as best possible based on U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland Security records.

Illegal immigration appears to have accelerated since year 2000 based on U.S. Border Patrol observations and analysis. Thus far, it unclear that the significant presence of illegal aliens will decline absent U.S. Government improvements in border security protection and employment identity enforcement measures as well as federal, state, and local governments' attempts to break up underground economic activities.

[Cyrille]

Pull the other one, it has got bells on!
The assumptions of the highest case make no sense at all. Immigration would stay constant as a percentage of the population even when it trebles, even though the incentive to come would inevitably decrease with the much higher density? Where would you see that?

Now, look at fertility rates. Non hispanic whites would somehow go from 1.8 in 1999 to 2.6! Ever so consistent with worldwide trends (I suppose this trend takes for granted that not only abortion will be made illegal, but also any form of contraception). In fact, it requires fertility to grow for any segment of the population throughout the century, except hispanics between 2050 and 2100.
Then mortality would have to collapse (note: over the last 20 years it has consistently decreased more slowly than expected), I suppose obesity and cancers will suddenly disappear, but also heat waves, and pollution-related problems.

Now, any of those is silly. All three at the same time. Wow!
The high case almost certainly low? Yeah, right. But anyway, how disingenuous to just state based on Census data that "by 2100, immigration will have pushed the population to 1 billion". The median scenario is 571 millions, and even in the extremely high scenario, immigration only accounts for 250 million more people. The rest come from a supposed surge in fertility and collapse of mortality.

[Elvis]

I'm shocked, simply shocked that the number I just pulled off the top of my head (1 billion in a century or so) is even in the ballpark of possiblility.

I had just thown that out as a theoretical possiblity. How big is big enough for the US population. I'm an immigrant to another country and long for the day when there is a world of open borders. When world poverty is much alleviated, illegal immigration will halt. That day is, unfortunately, far off. Of all countries, citizens of the US have the largest impact in terms of CO2-so the size of the US population is an environmental issue. We aren't about to institute a Chinese-style one-child policy, thankfully. We can limit immigration. Most countries do.

I was shocked at how lines were drawn just as if we had declared Israel a pain in the US's rear.

Anyone who wants to open a country's borders to immigration--esspecially refugees should take a look at these numbers. (stats on the world's second largest economy -- you will not believe your eyes.)

[anne]

No; even with closed borders we will have a population of at least 4 or 6 or 8 billion in another 20 years and all in San Francisco. The country will tilt. Beware the tilting to San Francisco. Run for your lives.

[anne]

"Anyone who claims to take global warming seriously and doesn't back immigration restriction is just kidding."

Yes, yes, yes; I am just kidding because I love to kid and kid I will kid, kid. Are you kidding? Imagine 4 or 6 or 8 billion Canadians all headed for San Francisco, where I left my heart. All those global warming Fan Francisco Canadians. Oh the horror, the horror.

[anne]

Intimidators intinidate because that is what they know, that is all they know and they cannot help themselves. Imagine how intimidated I am, though. Well, when I think of all the women-ravishing Canadians headed for San Francisco to warm, well, our women, possibly I should be intimidated. "I left my heart in San Francisco." I am so intimidated by lunacy.

[anne]

All kid kidding aside, for I would not kid kids, what we need to do is leave Iraq immediately and send 150,000 Americans soldiers to San Francisco to protect against the hoards of immigrating Canadians, not to mention to finding my heart therein. No kidding.