
Nobel Prize Winner William Nordhaus vs. the IPCC on Climate Change - themodder666
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html
======
bryanlarsen
The author is using the term "present-discounted value" to describe the deaths
of millions of people and the extinction of a major portion of the species of
the earths.

You may have to put a dollar value on that sort of stuff to do economic
calculations, but you have to recognize that's what you're doing.

------
natch
This looks like an attempt to hijack the cred of a Nobel prize winner for the
benefit of pushing the agenda of one "Free Market Institute" based at Texas
Tech, in Lubbock Texas, the heart of Texas oil country. I would take
everything in this article with a large grain of salt. Especially the
characterization of positive steps toward addressing climate change as
"mitigations" \-- one person's mitigation is another person's highly
sustainable renewable energy source that will create jobs at time of sale and
installation, and pay dividends for decades to come.

~~~
themodder666
Read the article (or don't) and assail its contents (or don't). Ad hominem is
fundamentally unproductive.

~~~
AlexandrB
I don't think pointing out the biased nature of the source is an ad-hominem.
It's pretty standard critical analysis.

~~~
readams
That's literally what ad hominem means...

~~~
pwinnski
This is false.

Ad hominem refers to dismissing an argument out of hand based on the source.
In this case, people are willing to engage with the argument, but are
additionally pointing out the bias inherent in the source. This is not ad
hominem, just a bias warning.

~~~
ameister14
I don't think ad hominem is necessarily dismissing an argument out of hand -
it's ignoring the content of an argument in favor of countering the speaker.

Ad hominem isn't always irrelevant, but questioning a source's motivation
instead of responding to the arguments they make seems to be ad hominem.

------
jacknews
Truly the dismal science.

How do you put a dollar cost on mass-extinction? It's ludicrous to even try.

------
gmuslera
If money matters more than lives (even if it's your own or a lot of people you
might care enough), then he might be right.

If it doesn't, then he is wrong. Never cross a river that in average is 4 feet
deep, nor suppose that an increase of the global yearly average of temperature
of 2 degrees excludes the possibility of 55-60 ºC on very populated cities on
some particular day in a near future. That probably will kill a lot of people,
and cause a lot of health troubles to a lot more. And to make it worse, it
won't be an isolated event, it will keep happening and getting worse, and not
affecting just people.

If you see what he proposes as "it will be less expensive to kill a lot of
people", he might be technically right. And very wrong.

------
mc32
Basically he says Carbon is contributing to GHG and climate change but claims
that managing a 1.5C is more expensive than “going green”.

That is it would be long term cheaper to adapt to climate change than to
reverse it (with the proviso that we tax the externalities of carbon.)

It’s an interesting proposition and perhaps it does have economic merit. Of
course many people will dismiss it out of hand because it questions our
present assumptions.

------
whitneyrzoller
“According to its last update, published in early 2017, the Obama EPA reported
that the SCC in 2030, using the standard 3% discount rate, would be $50 per
ton.”

Does anybody know the context in which 3% is considered the “standard”
discount rate? The choice of a specific discount rate reflects/implies a
philosophical stance about the value of stuff in the future. I’m interested in
how 3% is the value we’ve converged on.

------
lumberjack
William Nordhaus and his cost estimates are themselves controversial and by no
means some kind of standard in the field of climate mitigation economics. For
people who paid attention, this was brought up when he won his prize. [1]

I dare say the IPCC knows better than both Econlib and Nordhaus. There isn't
much of an analysis here. They ignore the most obvious huge cost: the risk of
reaching the tipping-point after which global warming would be unstoppable.
They ignore the positive externalities of climate action, which are plenty in
themselves. They ignore the fact that it is not possible to not act now and
then suddenly put on the brakes on warming when we reach whatever target they
deem appropriate.

1\. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-
cli...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-climate-
catastrophe/)

~~~
delianmarks
The strange thing is that if there is such positive externalities for climate
policies why don't rich countries that can afford to pay more for energy be
more aggresive in reducing emissions? Even Germany, for instance, isn't
spending as much as it could to reduce emissions. If reducing emissions are so
important why aren't German business forced to purchase electricity at the
market rate(with renewable subsidies builtin) the same way consumers are?

Complaining about growth in rich countries basically misses the mark. It isn't
rich countries that are driving greenhouse emissions but developing countries
that can't afford renewable energy wihtout cutting investment and thus growth.
Less growth means that people in the present will be worse off as well and
they have less resources to ameliorate the social consequences of a stagnant
economy.

Of course, rich countries that cut growth will be less rich. That means all
else being equal workers will be paid less(because they live in a less wealthy
economy) and the lack of growth will cause similar (if more manageable) social
impacts as in developing economies. Saying that you could still be 'happy'
living in such a country misses the point entirely. You would never rationally
believe such an outcome of being economically poorer shouldn't be avoided if
at all possible.

------
danharaj
It sounds a lot less important that he's a Nobel laureate when you realize he
got the prize in economics and econlib is libertarian drivel.

------
pavlov
Having won the Nobel Prize doesn't necessarily mean someone holds reasonable
views in fields outside their immediate speciality.

1993 chemistry prize winner Kary Mullis supported AIDS denialists and
expressed an interest in astrology:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Personal_views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Personal_views)

~~~
ameister14
He won the Nobel Prize for his work in this specific sub-specialty. It's not
outside his field.

