Yet another weird SF fan


I'm a mathematician, a libertarian, and a science-fiction fan. Common sense? What's that?

Go to first entry


 

Archives

<< current
 
E-mail address:
jhertzli AT ix DOT netcom DOT com


My Earthlink/Netcom Site

My Tweets

My other blogs
Small Sample Watch
XBM Graphics


The Former Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse:
Someone who used to be sane (formerly War)
Someone who used to be serious (formerly Plague)
Rally 'round the President (formerly Famine)
Dr. Yes (formerly Death)

Interesting weblogs:
Back Off Government!
Bad Science
Blogblivion
Boing Boing
Debunkers Discussion Forum
Deep Space Bombardment
Depleted Cranium
Dr. Boli’s Celebrated Magazine.
EconLog
Foreign Dispatches
Good Math, Bad Math
Greenie Watch
The Hand Of Munger
Howard Lovy's NanoBot
Hyscience
Liberty's Torch
The Long View
My sister's blog
Neo Warmonger
Next Big Future
Out of Step Jew
Overcoming Bias
The Passing Parade
Peter Watts Newscrawl
Physics Geek
Pictures of Math
Poor Medical Student
Prolifeguy's take
The Raving Theist
RealityCarnival
Respectful Insolence
Sedenion
Seriously Science
Shtetl-Optimized
Slate Star Codex
The Speculist
The Technoptimist
TJIC
Tools of Renewal
XBM Graphics
Zoe Brain

Other interesting web sites:
Aspies For Freedom
Crank Dot Net
Day By Day
Dihydrogen Monoxide - DHMO Homepage
Fourmilab
Jewish Pro-Life Foundation
Libertarians for Life
The Mad Revisionist
Piled Higher and Deeper
Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism
Sustainability of Human Progress


























Yet another weird SF fan
 

Saturday, May 31, 2014

A Quantitative Way to Look at Global Warming

We can look at global warming in terms of the social cost of carbon. If we translate the claims of the various sides into claims of beliefs about the social cost of carbon, we can translate “97% of scientists agree global warming is a problem” to “97% of scientists agree the social cost of carbon is greater than zero.” This is not an argument against someone claiming that the social cost of carbon is only $10 per ton of carbon. In the other direction, “the activists won't stop until they collapse Western Civilization” can be translated into “the activists won't stop until they impose a carbon tax of over $1000 per ton of carbon.” This is not an argument against someone claiming that the social cost of carbon is $100 per ton of carbon. Can we turn the argument into a discussion of which social cost of carbon is correct?

Disclaimer: It looks like some of the calculations in my last post on the topic confused cost per ton of carbon and cost per ton of CO2. You may want to do your own calculations.

Addendum: An analogy that just occurred to me. You can think of the cap-and-trade vs. carbon taxes controversy as a controversy about dealing with negative externalities by means of commanding that a quota be filled vs. monetary payments. In other words, it resembles the 1960s/1970s controversy of conscription vs. paying enough for a volunteer army (which was a controversy about dealing with positive externalities by means of commanding that a quota be filled vs. monetary payments).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Profiles
My Blogger Profile
eXTReMe Tracker X-treme Tracker

Site Meter
The Atom Feed This page is powered by Blogger.