The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States
); press coverage
) - "The signature effects of human-induced climate change
—rising seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent bouts
of extreme heat—all have specific, measurable impacts on our nation's current assets and ongoing economic activity. [The report] uses a standard risk-assessment approach to determine the range of potential consequences
for each region of the U.S.—as well as for selected sectors of the economy—if we continue on our current path..." [more inside]
Building a Green Economy,
Paul Krugman on the economics of Climate change.
The Freakonomics follow up, Superfreakonomics, contains a chapter
on climate change that lives up to the best selling contrarian style of authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. However actual climate scientists were not pleased with the chapter. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists
, the book "repeats tired global cooling myths," "unfairly trashes climate models" and "advocates rolling the dice on unproven technology" among other faults. They have also been accused of misquoting climate scientist Ken Caldeira
Levitt and Dubner respond to their critics, Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear
. [more inside]
Andy Grove on Our Electric Future
- "Energy independence [viz.]
is the wrong goal. Here is a plan Americans can stick to." Perhaps some infrastructure spending1,2
is in order? [etc., &c., cf.] [more inside]
The dangers of living in a zero-sum world economy
- naked capitalism
reprints (with added commentary) an FT article
by Martin Wolf on why it's vital for (civilised) society to sustain a 'positive-sum' world, otherwise: "A zero-sum economy leads, inevitably, to repression at home and plunder abroad." Wolf's solution? "The condition for success is successful investment in human ingenuity." Of course! Some
are calling for more socialism
, while others
would press on to build more megaprojects
. For me, at least part of the solution lies in environmental accounting
and natural capitalism
SUV sales are up.
In spite of higher gas prices and concern about global warming, Americans still want bigger cars. It might not be enough to save the Hummer H2
Have your war and heat it too?
As the war approaches the $350 billion mark, Cass Sunstein notes: "For the United States, the economic burden of the Iraq war
is on the verge of exceeding the total anticipated burden of the Kyoto Protocol
." Costs may rise as high as $10 trillion.
At least we know it wasn't about oil: in a good year, Iraq makes about $14 billion
on fossil fuels. (via
Alberta will face a disastrous competitive and economic disadvantage
if Canada signs the Kyoto accord. Meanwhile, this year has been one of the worst for smog in Toronto.
Some municipalities in Ontario are voluntarily looking towards alternate energy sources because they feel, in the long run the costs will be lower (lower health costs, avoiding higher fossil fuel costs, etc. - sorry, no link) What do you think? Is it possible to have economically viable alternative energy, and is the US setting a bad example for countries that feel they need to compete?