Blogospheric opinion has divided on predictable lines over the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal’s rejection of objections to a new coal mine by environmental groups who wanted offsets for the carbon emissions of the mine. Brickbats have come from Andrew Bartlett, Tim Lambert and Robert Merkel, while Jennifer Marohasy and Andrew Bolt have cheered the Tribunal and its presiding member, President Koppenol.
But this looks awfully like an own goal for the denialists to me.
The environmental groups relied on the IPCC and Stern reports, but the Presiding Member did a little digging on the Internet and came up with the responses recently published in World Economics. These were two papers, one on the science of global warming and one on the economics (there was also a separate piece by Tol and Yohe, to which the comments below do not apply).
I plan a full-length response when I get some free time, but for present purposes its sufficient to observe that the list of authors coincides pretty closely with the promoters of, and witnesses at, the bogus House of Lords inquiry, set up and run by Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher.
This effort seemed like a modest success at the time, since it was one of the few occasions when a body with an impressive sounding title came down in support of denialism, but it turned out to be a massive strategic error, since it led directly to the establishment of the Stern Review, which not only discredited the climate science denialism being promoted by Lawson, but also challenged the view, supported by a number of prominent economic modellers in the field, that policy responses should incorporate a large preference for current over future generations, and therefore a strong bias against short-term action. Debate over this is continuing, but (in my view at least) the advocates of immediate action have gained the ascendancy.
Having been prosecutor, judge and jury in the case against climate science, Lawson is now appearing as a witness in the appeal against the judgement of the Stern Review. His already weak position is undermined by the inclusion of well-known hacks like Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute in the team.
Coming back to the Land and Resources Tribunal, a judge in an ordinary court who made a decision based on stuff he found on the Internet, which had not even been led in evidence, would be lucky to get off with a stern talking to from the Court of Appeal. Certainly, no such judgement could stand, even if the material on which the judge relied stood up to critical scrutiny, as the Lawson-McKitrick piece most certainly does not.
The Tribunal is not a court, but I imagine there must be some sort of review process to respond to such an obvious breach of standard procedure. Even if this decision stands, the reliance of the Tribunal on such a weak reed is hugely problematic for the denialists. The weight of evidence is so strong that future cases fought on the same ground will inevitably be won by environmentalists. A far worse result for environmentalists would have been one that ruled climate change considerations out of court on statutory or procedural grounds.
I’m not convinced that legal actions like this are necessarily the best way to go in achieving a coherent national and global response to climate change. But I’m confident that this will turn out to be a Pyhrric victory for denialism.
Update An interesting aside is that Greg Koppenol’s bio reports that he “appeared as counsel in a large number of cases including some of the most important in Australia’s history – Mabo (No. 2) and Wik.” I was of course interested to find out what role he played in those cases, and unsurprised to find that he appeared for the state of Queensland against both Eddie Mabo and the Wik people.
The legal tactics employed by the state government throughout the Mabo case were deplorable, including personal attacks on Mabo that were irrelevant to the main legal points at issue, but relied on fomenting division among potential claimants. As we have seen in numerous recent cases, the Queensland legal establishment protects its own, and it’s not surprising to see that Koppenol’s career hasn’t suffered in the slightest from this episode.
John Quiggin 
“Denialist” is likely to be worn with pride. “Rat” of Tobruk was meant to be a perjorative. (for just one example)
Climate “McCarthyist” is a very apt term I have heard used for those who look down at unbelievers of their climate change religion.
The silent majority agrees with John Q and me. See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21261284-2702,00.html
Richard, before I respond can you clarify your claim? You’ve said that the overwhelming majority of game theoretic analysts agree that “international environmental treaties don’t work”. Now you apparently want to exclude Montreal as a special case. I have a couple of queries
(a) Is Montreal the only exception you want to make or are there others ?
(b) Is your statement that “Henry Tulkens is the only game theorist who argues that international environmental treaties work” meant to be taken literally, or is there some hidden clause such as “approved of by Richard Tol”?
(b) Is your claim that treaties don’t work, or that they don’t work in the absence of side payments, multi-dimensional bargaining, sanctions on free-riders and so on ?
Richard Tol – “I think the only distinction is between those who are open to debate, and those who are not — who close their eyes for facts and doubts just because it does not fit their position.
Current climate policy is full of taboo subjects, and saying that someone who breaks a taboo is a skeptic only reinforces that.”
The thing I see written here is that there is a debate about basic climate science. The actual basics of climate science as applied to the enhanced greenhouse effect are not really debated anywhere in the scientific community. This is not because they are not open to debate or question its just that it is very basic physics. A team of scientists plotting the course of a space probe does not have a lively debate on the n-body problem but they use the tools that work and the known and accepted science of gravity etc to accurately plot the course of spacecraft. Climate scientists really must wonder sometimes if they are in the right profession and whether they should have spent the 6 or 8 years getting a Phd when everybody seems to be an expert and questions basic science that they have not bothered to learn properly. There are no taboo subjects but again climate scientists are human and get annoyed with repeated demands to prove things that are very well accepted.
Very few scientifically credible skeptics like Pielke and Christie question the basic science of the enhanced greenhouse effect. They question the very different problem of the degree of warming, how large the forcings are, and the eventual result of the warming. These are very different things from whether the greenhouse effect exists, that our economy emits CO2, and that the CO2 level is rising and trapping more heat.
The eye closing is not only on the AGW proponent side. Have you ever given any thought to what would happen if the worst of the climate change scenerios actually happened? Have you given any thought to the fact you may be wrong? What about your position? Does it really fit the facts and how do you know that it does?
Steve, Yobbo and others, please keep on digging. As I pointed out in the post, at this point everyone who tries to keep the political right on the denialist bandwagon is kicking goals for those who want to permanently discredit this whole line of argument.
In this respect, Minchin’s latest gaffe (that is, politically untimely statement of what most people on his side really think) has been very useful, and the continued efforts of the right wing punditariat, even more so.
Given the long term numbers I think the connotations of Denialist are right on the money Richard T.
SATP will “Denialist� be worn with pride when we have the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands-if not more- and refugees in the millions? Maybe with could combine the Rat with ‘Denialist’ and have Denialist Rats as it is often the case the rats will often leave a ship before it sinks saving themselves, unlike the many millions of future climate refugees who may not have anywhere to go.
At least SATP will be a moral rat -after the case- as he will demand that his country have an open door policy for any climate refugee. Won’t you SATP?
BTW since climate science uses the same scientific method and techniques as other sciences nice to know that from your POV we can consider all science nothing more than a religion. How Post Modernist of you!
Or it like all others who cannot respect mainstream science when it goes against your core ideology, a scientific discipline is only a religion when it disagrees your fixed position.
Simonjm: I am only a few feet from the high tide mark, and my elevation above sea level is too small for me to measure. Furthermore my area is a supposed “hot spot” for rising sea levels.
Thus if it transpires that the alarmist case comes to pass, I won’t be making ANY demands, either open door, sliding door, or revolving door.
For I will be among the first washed away.
SATP lets play shoe on the other foot.
Lets say AGW OK it’s alarmist, in my opinion while we have some movement for caps and carbon trading I don’t think any hard decisions will be made until we have a few years of natural disasters or a few big Katrina’s. Benefits from energy efficiency and new technology will add to economic prosperity and with the carbon economy still there but being used more efficiently, its a all round win/win.
You also get plenty of egg on the faces of your opponents. Hey I can live with that and would be the first to say I got it wrong, no harm done.
How will you feel the reverse happens, even if you lose your home, you have plenty of other places to go, plus live in a society that has the wealth to try to adapt.(lets forget any national dept or the chance of a financial collapse)
Pls don’t side step, how will you feel about the moral consequences of your stance and do you think since that this has also been official stance of your government for some time now, shouldn’t this mean that if the worse happens that your country like ours has a major requirement to make amends, and at the very least should have an open door policy for climate refugees?
No.
SimonJM:
You are right. If the alarmists are correct, the skeptics are irresponsible assholes. However, are the alarmists correct? Did you ever read the papers that suggest that climate change may, on net, save lives? Or the papers that suggest that, even discounting that, climate policy may kill hundreds of thousands?
John Q:
Side payments flow from polluttee to polluter, that is, from poor to rich. To stabilise an asymmetric global commons, you need a global commons with opposite asymmetry. This has yet to be identified. You cannot stabilise a commons with a club good, because the club would not play. Sanctions are incredible threats. And so forth. People (incl. myself in a minor role) have spend the last 15 years looking for a solution — only to confirm the early Barrett / Carraro pessimism (or increasing it, if you look at Ulph’s work).
Richard, your theoretical conclusion seems already to be problematic in empirical terms, since all the rich countries except the US and Australia have already signed on to Kyoto, and the US appears highly likely to sign as soon as Bush goes. Australia would certainly sign if the US did or if the current government goes out (looking highly likely at the moment) . Moreover, while there has been slippage so far in meeting commitments, the EU appears set to deliver large cuts, over and above Kyoto. Of course, this has been accompanied by various messy side deals, just as game theory, properly applied, would predict.
The big problem is getting China and India to join a post-Kyoto agreement. So it seems to me your analysis has the required direction of side payments (or sanctions) back to front. The rich countries (except US and Oz so far) seem willing to make at least an initial round of unilateral cuts without compensation, when you say they should be demanding payments from the poor. The obvious reason is that, whatever the long-term distribution of costs and benefits, the currently rich countries are a lot more concerned about GW than China and India. Of course, the literature is divided on this, as on your more general negative conclusion.
John,
You’re in Australia, so I will forgive you your ignorance on Europe. The EU is on track to miss its Kyoto targets (see the recent report by the European Environment Agency); the only way to meet them now is a renewed recession in Germany and France. The current noise from the political scene is history repeated. The EU missed its earlier targets; before that became obvious, the targets were replaced with more stringent targets at a later date (about two elections removed). The same is going on now. We will miss Kyoto, but have targets for 2020 instead. The EU’s climate policy was accurately summarised as aspirational pole-volting.
The Kyoto Protocol neatly illustrates the predictions of game theory. The treaty was never global. Two or three countries abandoned it. The few that remain were never very ambitious. Barrett wrote, in the early 1990s, that this would happen: Shallow and narrow is the most you can expect.
Richard, I assume you’re referring to this report which opens “Latest projections indicate that the 15 States which were EU members before 2004 (EU-15) will only just reach their Kyoto Protocol target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”
In my understanding “will only just reach” is not the same as “on track to miss”.
Of course, it’s possible that the EU will come up a percentage point or two short, and the report makes plenty of noise about the dangers of complacency. But a shortfall of a couple of percentage points (assuming it happens) would scarcely vindicate you and those like you who asserted that such a deal could never deliver results.
And you’re misunderstanding (I assume deliberately) the idea behind Kyoto. The emergence of more stringent targets for subsequent periods is not an ex post response to shortfalls in the original – the whole idea of Kyoto was to be a first step.
Of course, John, they give a positive spin on this. The EEA is not a neutral observer. But if you read carefully, you’ll see that there is additional policy needed. And if you read the background material, you’ll see that that additional policy should be in an advanced state of legislation now, but it isn’t. And there is reason to assume that the EEA projections are too optimistic. The missing of Kyoto will be presented as force majeure; combined with the new targets and fake measures (e.g., aviation emissions), this will placate the environmental movement. The lack of real climate policy placates those who favour cheap energy. It’s a win-win policy that will get them through the next elections.
The pole-volting in my previous post was about steps. Kyoto should be a first step. The EU wants to make the second step without making the first. Or rather, as Kyoto is the third try for the EU, the EU wants to make the fourth step without making the first three. You are a native English speaker, right? Do Australians pole-volt or pole-vault, or is it too dry?
There is a broader issue here, though. You keep lecturing me on things for which I can reasonably claim expertise, but you cannot claim such expertise. Are you really that arrogant?
JQ: The IEA shows that the EU-15 is way off target, being actually 3% up on 1990 by 2003, and as little as that only because of the collapse of most industry in East Germany after 1990, producing a 20% drop in CO2 emissions for reunified Germany between 1990 and 2003. Obviously you never saw the late superb actor Ian Richardson in the BBC series The Gravy Train which so brilliantly portrayed my former EU employers as systemically corrupt and therefore not to be trusted (my own contacts in the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg tell me they have not been able to sign off EU accounts for about the last 10 years). The whole Kyoto set up is a license to coin it, and I expect former Australian Wheat Board directors to be right up there. Do take time out to watch the Bell Shakespeare production of Gogol’s The Government Inspector to see how emissions trading will make all too many politicians and bureaucrats seriously rich as already in NSW and Victoria (have you noticed the exemptions granted to major industries by Iemma and Bracks, abviously only for the purest of motives?).
Richard, you cited the EEA report yourself. It’s a bit late now to disclaim it. I already noted the warnings against complacency and the possibility of a shortfall, so I don’t need you to tell me about spin.
As regards expertise and arrogance, you should really take a look in the mirror. I’ve pointed quite a few times to research I’ve published on risk and discounting in top-rated journals (AER, Econ Letters, JET, Economica) and you’ve ignored it, and repeated lectures on issues about which you clearly know less than I do. You’ve made numerous comments suggesting that you are massively better qualified in economics than I am, but a look at any of the standard rankings (RePeC, Coupe etc) will show that this is not true. Your similar comments with respect to Stern, someone who is justifiably far more eminent than either of us, indicate that the problem is not just with me.
Quite honestly, you appear in my dealings with you as one of the most arrogant people I’ve ever encountered. If you don’t intend to come across this way, you should revise your approach.
John, as I said before, your papers on risk and discounting are void of empirical content. I only ever referred to that.
Stern is a decent development economist, but he knows nothing about climate, energy, or environment. The fact that he did some interesting papers in a distant past is irrelevant. The fact that he was not able to assemble a capable team, and that he did do quality control himself is relevant.
Perhaps some people may believe that others believe the Kyoto Treaty to be a marvellous thing. I don’t think anyone believes that; hope this helps to further rational discussion.
It’s terribly easy to criticise and come up with almost mathematically proven reasons for why there’s nothing (rational) to be done, in more areas than just climate change. But it’s a choice we all get to make all the time, whether to resign ourselves to glass half-empty-and-unfillable negativity or, deciding that something needs best be done, to set to and get it done one way or another.
On the wishful notion that there may be some early gains for some from some warming, and even though I think the idea is plain wrong, you can relax and just wait for it because it is coming no matter what we do now. It’s what comes after the warming we’re locked into that our actions tomorrow can have some effect upon.
So what do we replace Kyoto with, and is there a single good reason for the rational countries of the world to not be implementing low start carbon taxes right now as economists from Nordhaus to Quiggin and back would have had us doing years ago? We could keep waiting around but is there anything better to tax than carbon? Let’s tax it now, and sort out details and adjust rates as (the many) problems emerge.
#60
Richard Tol said:
I am highly sceptical of both propositions, even when taking into account effects such as carbon fertilisation, but would be very interested in having a look at these papers.
#68.
Peter, you should be skeptical of anything in climate change. The model that says that reductions in cold deaths will swamp all else is due to Martens, but there are a range of other studies that back it up. The model that says that climate policy will take away from health care is due to Tol and Yohe (Exeter book), but the hypothesis goes back to Schelling.
#65.
John, Coupe is out of date, and EconLit is limited. IDEAS/REPEC is very limited.
If I look at Scopus (also limited), I find that you have an h-number of 12 (mine is 17) and are cited 365 times (I am 786). You are twenty years my senior? This is irrelevant, though.
You lecture me on climate economics, and on European climate policy. You are not known to have contributed much to the literature on climate economics, and you are not known to be deeply involved in European climate policy. Indeed, you lecture me on my area of expertise.
You may have noted that I do not return the favour, and lecture you on Australian politics or something I know nothing about, but you might.
And yes, I do have experience in bibliometry.
John & Richard
Now that the debate has degenerated to “my dick is bigger than yours” I have a question for you both: are you two going to be appearing at the same conference any time soon, say on a panel to discuss the economics of climate change? If so, it alone should be worth the price of admission!
Indeed, the debate has degenerated, Uncle M. In my defence, I’ll observe that Richard has been rude and offensive pretty much from day one, and I’ve done my best to exercise restraint until now.
John, again, data are not your forte. That was not day one.
Richard T no I haven’t I basically try to get a overview form quality science journalism from a number of different sources & in my opinion having done that for quite a number of years that gives a pretty idea about trends and who is saying what and what stands the test of time. It doesn’t mean that I cannot miss something.
While anti-environmentalists would want us to think it is all a myth cooked up by hippie types environmental degradation of the global environment has been highlighted as a concern by mainstream science for years.
I would be interested though to learn more if you have a link for these all the same.
For instance will the decrease in cold deaths be offset by heat stress deaths not to mention given that climate change is likely to affect a number of things vital for human survival water, food crops, disease -esp in places like Asia with millions that rely on a relatively consistent monsoon- I would be surprised to think a decrease in cold deaths would easily outdo all these.
I often find that like anything you can pick a few papers highlight a point that while true in a limited context doesn’t really disprove a stack of other research that goes in the opposite direction. Deaths from an increased risk of malaria is one example. There was an earlier debate here that some experts doubted this but I note new research coming out saying they expect more deaths from a number of different vectors including malaria.
One or even a few papers does not an argument make.
Basically I don’t get into google debates -here’s my paper where’s yours- while quite aware of the fallacy from authority as a lay person I’ll use an overview from a number of sources including an overview from respected science publications, which I’ve found to be more reliable and a better indication, rather than getting into debates with anti-environmental types that have a bad history of confirmation and disconfirmation bias. Given the crap that has been going on about AGW itself I for one will not argue with same types who now pick and choose there facts and want to discount any harmful effects. This by no means you are one, it just I cannot be bothered wasting my time to find you are indeed one.
The debate between John and Richard (the substance, not the size, aspect) is interesting and seems to me to relate to some of the issues that Heilbroner writes about in his book Behind the Veil of Economics, in the chapter on the Problem of Value. He discusses the empirical valuation of social provisioning and refers to a further level of abstraction behind this is some structure or principle behind the facts.
In that abstraction one gets into issues of the theory of value. One particular area is in the normative approach to value and consequently, price.
He states that “The gravamen of the normative approach is therefore that the order manifested by an economic structure should be that which its ruling element (including the most broadly defined democratic constituency) desires it to be. Two objections have been lodged against this… The first is the undeniable arbitrariness of political valuation, always open to challenge from a different political starting point. This argument brings us to the affirmation and defense of moral and political principles in general… The second is more germane … it is the charge that political or moral intervention will be of no avail because some other ordering principle will assert itself over and above the wishes of the moralists. …The point can also be made that politically or morally determined prices may not be compatible with the technical requirements of provisioning. This objection thus leads logically to the second of the answers to the value problematic in itself – an answer that eschews all reference to moral standards and that seeks the value of principle of value in some entirely nonmoral element or principle discoverable within the economic world.” Heilbroner 1998, p 110-111.
Any comments?
Richard (Tol)
In the abstract to your paper with Gary Yohe, A Review of the Stern Review, you state:
“…a strong case for emission reduction even in the near term can nonetheless be made..
“…doing nothing in the short term is not advisable even on economic grounds.
“…its (the Stern Review’s) more important messages: that climate risks are approaching more quickly than previously anticipated, that some sort of policy response will be required to diminish the likelihoods of the most serious of those risks, and that beginning now can be justified by economic arguments anchored on more reliable analysis.�
From this it sounds like you believe that climate risks are real, and that early action should occur.
Yet your comments on this blog seem in the main to be critiquing the work and comments of those who support action, and much less on the opposite.
I find this inconsistent, and maybe you can throw light on it.
Yes I know many don’t like old Phillip Adams but this is a good talk.
Climate Change and Human Security
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
BTW thanks SATP no surprise there just like your government the only moral leadership you have is self-interest.
Simonjm,
In addition to the balance of lives to be lost due to global warming and the true parameter values of sacrosanct economic parameters capable of determing the value of all things except financial assets, Tol could tell you how many angels fit on the head of a pin if he chose to lend his weighty expertise. However, as it seems the only thing he appears to have time for is his homoerotic obsession with JQ’s crimes against economics, I figure we should leave him to it.
Just thank your lucky stars you didn’t go for a PhD.
Majorajam I prefer my mental gymnastics in philosophy and by the rate I’m going I’ll be 80 before I get to put some letters behind my name.
BTW rather than how many angels fit one can fit on a pin head I rather know how many fat rich Americans have passed through that eye of a needle and are currently in Heaven? 😉
#75
Simon: Changes in cold-related cardiovascular deaths are an order of magnitude larger than changes in heat-related ones. The scenarios that generate emissions also have that infectious diseases will disappear, while cardiovascular disorders will surge. That is why cardio dominates the other health problems. This is a taboo subject.
#76
Roger: All true. The ethical tradition (what the price ought to be) runs from Aristotle via Marx to Quiggin and Stern. The thinking is that there is an enlightened scholar who is so smart and wise that he can decide how you and I should think and feel. The empirical tradition (this is what the price is, and who am I to argue) is much younger (140 years or so). The thinking is that people will express their ethical choices in the market, and that the market price thus reflects the will of the people (albeit on the basis of one dollar, one vote).
#77
Mark: Yes, an economic case for emission reduction can be made. The choice is not between whether or not to reduce emissions. The choice is about how much to reduce emissions. The problem with analyses like Stern’s is that anybody with half a brain can pick holes in it, and that it therefore makes a case for debate rather than action.
Richard T I’ll take in the cold-related cardiovascular for the moment- though I wonder if given water scarcity whether heat stress could get much worse at least in some regions- but what is the rationale that “infectious diseases will disappear”? From what I’m seeing the increased temp will enable disease vectors into new regions, plus extend their breeding season.
People will be richer, at least according to the scenarios that’ll give you substantial climate change. They’ll have better sanitation, better health care, and surfaced roads.
Water scarcity and heat stress have no obvious relationship, as water stress does not mean that drinking water is scarce.
Indeed Simonjm, malaria, dengue fever, encephalitis and the like may have a reputation as pernicious diseases, but they’re nothing compared to a good cold snap. After all, people will be richer, and they will spend their increased riches on sanitation and better health care and roads, while spending on carbon emissions AND blankets and sweaters is a bridge too far. And while it may seem contradictory to the mere lay reader to have such vast improvements in public goods in a world so profoundly debilitated by the tragedy of the commons they can’t get it together to reduce carbon emissions, the experts know better.
If it’s not clear by now that Tol is telling stories, it should be. He advocates modest cuts in greenhouse emissions while claiming that environmental treaties are unworkable and extolling the virtues of a warmer tomorrow. He rattles on about cardiovascular disease but hand waves the far more pertinent, (which is to say, pertinent), and complex issue of drinking water. It’s denialism repackaged, (and let’s face it, the allusion to CVD is retro). At best, Tol wears his science like a straight jacket, at worst, he’s pushing an agenda. In any case, he’s not worth listening to.
The challenge that confronts us is not to derive precise and precisely meaningless cost-benefit estimates to quibble over as Rome burns, it is to discern the salient information from the noise in the face of the massive uncertainty that characterizes the issue of climate change. In other words, to adapt our thinking to the problem at hand, rather than seeing it as a nail because we happen to be holding a hammer.
What we know is that human activity has been and is changing the atmosphere dramatically in a way that has a theorized, (physically demonstrable), effect on climate which, if not confirmed, is certainly not contradicted by the empirical evidence. We furthermore know that there are feedback effects from a changing climate and that these give rise to the possibility of severe climate change, the effects of which all can agree would be cataclysmic (though we do not know the scale of that possibility, we do know from geological history it is nowhere near remote enough for comfort). We also know that we do not know the effects of even middle of the distribution levels of warming beyond inane analysis of the costs of building dikes, etc., including and especially on the ever volatile geo-political landscape.
On that basis of those risks to the well being of humanity, even future humanity, the operative imperative is Kantian duty. We have a duty to sacrifice on behalf of the civilization that has been entrusted to us, just as we have a duty to sacrifice on behalf of the family that has been entrusted to us. That duty includes taking corrective action against unacceptable levels of risk to the habitability of the only planet we have. I am aware that orthodox economics eschews such notions, but I am also aware that orthodox economics can’t explain why a man leapt off a New York City subway platform the other day to save a complete stranger from an oncoming train at great peril to himself, (to say nothing of its failure in the realm of asset returns). There are some things you simply know without having to know.
Majorajam: In fact, I was just summarising papers in academic journals. To make matters worse, the majority of infectious disease epidemiologists think that I am a raving lunatic for suggesting that there is a relationship between climate change and infectious diseases — received wisdom is that there is none.
You suggested? A search on google scholar using the keywords “climate change” and “global warming” turns up 1,640 hits. The same search adding author:Tol gives 3 hits. Of the prior search, this is the first paper that comes up. What are the odds of that given the broad consensus you site? On second thought, scratch that- I like Quiggin and Stern am no good with numbers.
It is an interesting conclusion that CVD will soar as infectious disease is terminated Arnold style. I would’ve thought that given the disproportionately higher resources dedicated to researching treatment and cures for the former, CVD might be the disease that waned in importance. Wouldn’t you know it, common sense has failed me again.
When does the model predict malaria will disappear by the way? I’m making vacation plans.
The search is actually “global warming” and “infectious disease”. I tried climate change which turns up circa 2500 hits, but then figured that would snare too many unrelated articles.
Majorajam – “He advocates modest cuts in greenhouse emissions while claiming that environmental treaties are unworkable and extolling the virtues of a warmer tomorrow.”
Interesting that you said this. I am interested in where in the world Richard Tol lives. I have found that a lot of the time people that think a warmer world will be better generally come from a colder climate. I could be wrong and Richard lives in Singapore or something but it would be interesting to know Richard’s geographical location to see if it fits with what I have seen in past discussions on this topic.
Richard can you reveal what sort of climate you live in most of the time? No probs if you do not want to but it would be interesting.
Ender: Richard Tol is attached to various universitesi and institutes in Dublin, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Pittsburgh. All are known for cool summers and rather cold and damp winters. JQ lives in Brisbane which is often very hot and humid in the summer, albeit less so than Dubai and Port Moresby, and warmish in the winter. Forecast for today in Brisbane: max 28, (record 41.4 in 2004, survived even by JQ)
Majorajam probably does not live in Australia, with its zero malaria despite being partly in the tropics with their much more trying weather than even Brisbane suffers. He/she also thinks Scientific American is a serious peer-reviewed journal!
Tim – thanks for that. I live in Perth, Western Australia. There is a tendency for cool climate people to underestimate the effects of heat often to their deaths. I guess if these people spent a year in Port Headland for instance they would not be so keen on the effects of warming. I did have a conversation with a person that was arguing that extreme cold is worse than extreme heat. My position was that both are equally bad and high heat can kill just as fast as cold. The person I conversed with did not agree and it did turn out that he was from a colder climate and had never experienced really high temperatures.
I guess it is natural for cool climate people to welcome a bit of warming. Whereas people in hotter temperatures do not want it to get even hotter.
Ender: I’m an academic. The conclusions of my work are independent of my location. That is a feature known as reproducability.
What matters is so much where I live (Dublin) but rather where I take my holidays — I typically head to cooler places (preferable Sweden) for the summer because I cannot stand heat.
Majorajam: Google is not the best source, and I am not an epidemiologist. A few hardcore malaria researchers occasionally attend climate workshops, and they tell me that they are the exception. Most malaria people think that “development” is the only external factor in the spread of this disease. Our model, which has development at 90% and climate at 10%, is an outlier in this literature.
You missed a conditionality. The IPCC scenarios ASSUME that Africa will grow rich fast (and emit lots of carbon dioxide). No nation or community has ever combined material well-being with a high prevalence of infectious disease, and it is clear why they would not if you consider how cheap countermeasures for diarrhoea and malaria really are.
“because I cannot stand heat.”
From the tenor of your contributions to this blog, Richard, that is glaringly obvious.
Richard – “I’m an academic. The conclusions of my work are independent of my location. That is a feature known as reproducability.”
I am not implying that they are – please do not get me wrong. It is just interesting to me that it seems like warm is good people seem to be from cold climates which is probably just natural.
It was 41.5 degrees C in Adelaide about a week ago, which I think is higher than the European heatwave of 2003 in absolute terms. The European heatwave was several standard deviations away from the mean and that is why it killed so many people.
A likely impact of climate change is increased variability of the weather as well as increased temperatures. The increased variability could mean that while average temperatures will increase, the frequency of extreme cold events will not neccessarily decrease.
It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis of weather measurements and test whether the climate change we have experienced so far has affected the frequency of extreme cold events or not. Does anybody know if anyone has done this?
Ender: Yes, warming is good in cold places, and bad in hot places. However, adaptation matters too — so deviations from the norm are more important. There have been reports of cold deaths in Dhaka of all places, although not that many.
So let me see if I have this straight- we’re extrapolating from the development history of subtropical nations the eradication of infectious disease in mostly tropical nations all whilst keeping medical technology static, not to mention the dna/rna of mosquitoes and pathogens (these have an empirically observable habit of ‘adapting’ as well). Is that a fair synopsis of the assumptions that have you making definitive statements about the effect on mortality rates from disease of global warming?
Speaking of, if you’re an outlier in such analyses, you’d have to put these guys somewhere in the stratosphere. As a quick scan of that paper will demonstrate, and I’ve barely done that, 10% is pretty confident stuff. You must be one of those base jumper types. Just for my own edification, what function of average warming yields distributional properties of the effect of ENSO that get you to 90/10? Is it fair to assume there was some rounding involved?
I guess what I’m trying to make clear is that I didn’t miss anything, (not even the note of rebuke in your post of the IPCC’s assumption that Africa will undergo catch-up productivity growth). Rather, it is you who misses the point by the seriousness with which you take your forecasts.
Richard, since we disagree a lot, let me endorse the point you’ve made about adaptation. The main costs of global warming (including impacts on natural environments) arise because of he need to adjust to changed climates, not because one kind of climate is absolutely worse than another.
Majorajam: I know these people and their work well. Their model is a bit most pessimistic than ours about climate change, and a bit more optimistic about development. But, there is no real contradiction.
Richard no, you cannot seriously make blanket statements like “warming is good in cold places”! So say the polar bears, krill and eskimos, among others, anyway. Perhaps if you’ve simply elided words like “… felt to be …” or something similar then it may become a reasonable thing to say, but otherwise – the way you have it – it’s what all the IPCC fuss is about, while I’m sure it’s not what Ender is on about.
BTW I thought Gary Yohe presented well at Yale the other day, as did Stern and Nordhaus (notably) of the presentations I watched on the video available.
Is that so? Then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind disclosing what god forsaken assumptions are required to make the passage beginning, “Climatic variations and extreme weather events have profound impacts on infectious disease.” not contradict your prior statement,
On second thought, never mind. By now I’ve learned you don’t do questions, only ‘summaries’.