Nobelist Krugman Attacks "Junk Economics"

Nobel prize-winning NYT columnist Paul Krugman has an excellent piece on climate economics 101, "An Affordable Salvation." It follows an economic lesson he gave on his blog to anti-green Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson. Krugman explains:

It's important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when "green economy" enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it's implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.

I do not believe climate action is all gain, no pain -- and try hard not to leave that impression on this blog. I run through what the most credible major independent studies find here: "Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost -- one tenth of a penny on the dollar."

Krugman cites similar findings from EPA and the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Even with stringent limits, says the M.I.T. group, Americans would consume only 2 percent less in 2050 than they would have in the absence of emission limits. That would still leave room for a large rise in the standard of living, shaving only one-twentieth of a percentage point off the average annual growth rate.

To be sure, there are many who insist that the costs would be much higher. Strange to say, however, such assertions nearly always come from people who claim to believe that free-market economies are wonderfully flexible and innovative, that they can easily transcend any constraints imposed by the world's limited resources of crude oil, arable land or fresh water.

Needless to say, people like Newt Gingrich, who says that cap-and-trade would "punish the American people," aren't thinking that way. They're just thinking "capitalism good, government bad." But if you really believe in the magic of the marketplace, you should also believe that the economy can handle emission limits just fine.

Precisely.

As Krugman put it even more pithily in his dissing of Samuelson, people who push junk economics believe:

Limits on the world supply of oil, land, water -- no problem. Limits on the amount of CO2 we can emit -- total disaster.

Funny how that is.

The opponents of climate action believe in the limitless power of the free market to do everything -- everything that is except avoiding catastrophic global warming. If only it were funny, as opposed to utterly tragic.

But Krugman, who won his Nobel prize for international economics work on trade theory, has an extra argument on behalf of climate action now:

Right now, the biggest problem facing our economy is plunging business investment. Businesses see no reason to invest, since they're awash in excess capacity, thanks to the housing bust and weak consumer demand.

But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment -- investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that's just what the doctor ordered.

This short-run economic boost isn't the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly.

So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.

The time to act is most certainly now.

Related Posts:

• How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics -- "The media's decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress"


• Newt Gingrich's voodoo cap-and-trade economics


• Obama, cap-and-trade, and voodoo economists


• Voodoo economics reporting, 7: Failing to report the consensus that action is cheaper than inaction

Comments

[rshrink]

We have a couple of people pushing water vapor as the cause of global warming. Just to be clear, this theory comes from Monte Hieb, who doesn't share his credentials, but it turns out, he is a mining engineer. Here is one thing I found written about him. Look him up. He is like a tobacco tycoon acting as an authority on lung cancer.

"If I am looking for an 'education' on mining engineering, I would possibly consult Monte Hieb, since he worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. If I were an fossil hobbyist I would probably look at his amateur fossil website."

[mioffe]

Dear Rshrink & Guitarsandmore, ask yourself why in Hawaii always cool and around 70-80 degree of Fahrenheit, when in Texas, around 100? It is only because of evaporation, not carbon dioxide. Writing that I do not argue with you to be green or brown. If you cover all Texas with solar cells, temperature there will not go down, because the same sun energy will heat the air. Only additional evaporation could cool the air.
Efficiency of using sun energy by solar cells less than 5%, even if they are cheap (they are not cheap and need batteries).
Trees are the best pump of water in the world, using sun energy and saving it for hundred of years in form of wood. Evaporation of water could cool the air. Wood energy in the small power plant can provide us with the cheapest, closest to customer source of energy, where we can use not only electricity, but also and heat. This process could make climate in Texas like in Hawaii. All gases from these power plants can be solved in water and watering the same forests. Together with ash it will be the best nutrition for growing trees. Natural gas and coal can be used in proportion, when they are not so dangerous for environment without any expensive cleaning process.
Electrical transportation instead of gas-ethanol cars and no any dependence from wind, which not always blow, or sun, which not always shine.
We have forests all around USA, Canada and Mexico.

[rshrink]

Do you know what pollution is?

[rshrink]

"The Dirty Facts on "Clean Coal abec accce americas power clean coal climate change coal coal industry environment global warming Top Ten Reasons Clean Coal is Dirty ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #1: "Clean" Coal Increases Rates of Disease The United States burns more than a billion tons of coal each year – that’s 20 pounds of coal for every person in the country, every day. According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #2: "Clean" Coal Kills Jobs Despite coal industry claims that coal mining creates lots of jobs, the truth is that coal mining employment has been declining for decades, due to increased use of machinery instead of manpower. In West Virginia alone, coal mining employment has plummeted from 126,000 miners in 1948 (who produced 168 million tons of coal), to just 15,000 miners employed in 2005 (who, with the help of machinery, produced 128 million tons of coal). ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #3: Burning "Clean" Coal Emits Mercury Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise. Mercury in mothers' blood and breast milk can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardatio­n." (Rest of quote below)

[rshrink]

cont. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #4: Burning "Clean" Coal is Fuel for Global Warming The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #5: "Clean" Coal Kills Miners The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002 ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #6: "Clean" Coal Wastes Huge Quantities of Water Coal mining requires an estimated 70 to 260 million gallons of water every day. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #7: "Clean" Coal Pollutes Seafood and Freshwater Fish 49 U.S. states have issued fish consumption advisories due to high mercury concentrations in freshwater bodies throughout the country. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S.

[rshrink]

#8: "Clean" Coal Destroys Mountains Instead of traditional mining, many coal companies now use mountaintop removal to extract coal. Coal companies are increasingly using this method because it allows for almost complete recovery of coal seams while reducing the number of workers required to a fraction of what conventional methods require. Mountaintop removal involves clear cutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to blast away as much as 800-1000 feet of mountaintop, and then dumping the waste into nearby valleys, often burying streams. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #9: "Clean" Coal Kills Freshwater Streams More than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried or damaged by mountaintop removal mining. At least 724 miles of streams were completely buried by valley fills from Appalachian mountaintop removal between 1985 and 2001. 400,000 acres of rich and diverse temperate forests have been destroyed during the same time period as a result of mountaintop mining in Appalachia. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------- #10: "Clean" Coal Costs Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies The U.S. government continues to aggressively fund coal-related projects despite all that is known about coal’s impacts on health, climate and the economy. The Department of Energy is currently seeking $648 million for “clean coal” projects in its 2009 budget request, “representing the largest budget request for coal RD&D in over 25 years.”

[mioffe]

Rshrink: “And if you want to do the "what if," thing, then what if you are wrong and they are right? And they have an enormously greater knowledge of this than you do. Who should we trust?”
We need to trust nobody! Physics of atmosphere is about wind, convection, sun and infrared radiation, evaporation, reflections and ocean streams. It is level of 6-10 grades. Most people are lazy and prefer to believe. Al Gore believed his friends-scientists, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Tomas Friedman and millions of other believed Al Gore, etc, etc. This is the problem.
Please read and try to check every word, as I did, maybe from believer you will go to real knowledge.
Sonofliberty: “The Greenhouse effect is a property of Atmopheres in general.
The thinner a planet's atmosphere, the less heat is retained, thicker and you retain more heat.
Now, if you generate more gas you make the atmosphere thicker so it retains heat better.

That, in a nutshell is that period.”
Are you serious, that increasing carbon dioxide from 280 parts per million to 350 ppm you will make atmosphere thicker?
Topgunna: “The warmer the earth gets, the more efficient the rain cycle, the more heat gets vented through cloudbursts, making warming self-limit­ing.”
I completely agree with you, but our knowledge contradict theory of Al Gore, and I hope that somebody will tell our Government – stop believing, check and recheck recommendation of Al Gore they are dangerous!

[Guitarsandmore]

Is this guy arguing in favor of astro turf or against it? I can't tell.

Look kido, you can't believe mankind can continue to pump crap into the air, land, and sea, for hundreds of years without dire consequences.

How much money are we spending on health care costs year after year for heart disease and cancer caused by air pollution?

How much money is spent on wars fought over oil such as both Iraq wars? How many lives lost both sides? How much extra in health care cost for the wounded?

How many terrorists are being funded by the black gold oozing out of the desert?

The price of gas jumping from $ 2 per gallon to $5 per gallon ruins our economy every time it happens for years.

How many mountain tops have been destroyed mining coal?

How many miners develop black lung disease?

How many fish and other wildlife are being destroyed forever?

How many forests are being devistated?

How much money is wasted transporting fossil fuels around the globe and then trucking them to their end destinations?

Sunshine is delivered to your doorstep everyday for free!

No mining is required!

No transportation is required!

You can't seriously think burning coal and oil are a better idea than turning sunlight, wind, and wave motion into energy.

never mind the ppm the 300 vs the 500. ..........­the air - it stinks! - and its making everyone sick!

out with the brown and in with the green.

its easy!

[rshrink]

For the fourth time in two days and maybe this one will get in, Thanks guitarsand. Good work.

[mioffe]

VoteLibertarian: “Can someone finally answer these questions about climate change initiatives? What are we trying to accomplish? What is the ideal climate we are trying to achieve? IS the current worldwide temperature ideal? If not, then when? Just seems like there is no end game. It seems we are just expected to go along with these expensive lifestyle changes and never ask why.”
Dear Libertarian, I will try to answer on your questions. You need to be patient to read everything. I haven’t time to explain shorter.
By The Associated Press Sat Oct 20, 2007, 4:30 PM ET, BANGKOK, Thailand: “Cities around the world are facing the danger of rising seas and other disasters related to climate change.
Of the 33 cities predicted to have at least 8 million people by 2015, at least 21 are highly vulnerable, says the Worldwatch Institute.

[mioffe]

They include Dhaka, Bangladesh; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Shanghai and Tianjin in China; Alexandria and Cairo in Egypt; Mumbai and Kolkata in India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Tokyo and Osaka-Kobe in Japan; Lagos, Nigeria; Karachi, Pakistan; Bangkok, Thailand, and New York and Los Angeles in the United States, according to studies by the United Nations and others.
More than one-tenth of the world's population, or 643 million people, live in low-lying areas at risk from climate change, says U.S. and European experts. Most imperiled, in descending order, are China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt, the U.S., Thailand and the Philippine­s.”
In 2006 Al Gore wrote his famous book “An Inconvenient truth”. He is a good writer. After that I found another his book “Earth in the balance.”
I had a pleasure to read his books and a lot of skepticism to believe in his solutions.
His first book “Earth in the balance”, 1992 “Take the question about clouds, for example. A small number of scientists argue that we don’t have to worry about global warming because when the greenhouse gases trap more heat from the sun in the atmosphere, the earth will automatically produce more clouds, which in turn will serve as a kind of thermostat to regulate the earth’s temperature”. “… it is clear that doubling CO2 will in fact increase global temperatures and in the process subject us to the risk of catastrophic changes in global climate patterns”.

[mioffe]

Al Gore knows about clouds but he was so concentrate on danger for environment that narrows his interest only on carbon dioxide. “But our annual production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is already so large and is increasing so rapidly that simply stabilizing the amount already in atmosphere would require significant changes in the technology we use and in way we live our lives.”

As I see as the most dangerous his achievement that mass media almost agreed with his point: “…when 98 percent of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2 percent disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible.” Here politician’s point of view is “winning, if percentage prevail.”
In science most often genius of one man confront millions, who think different. Al Gore wrote about Galileo: “Even he had had to bend to the convention of his day.
Ironically with his percentages as making decisions, who are right, he came close to judges of Galileo.
“Indeed, sometimes the remaining uncertainties are cynically used by partisans of the status quo for the express purpose of preventing the coalescence of public support for action.”

But imagine that Al Gore made mistake, how smart will be public support for action?
And I am insisting that he made mistakes. He confirms that by his own statements.

[mioffe]

Al Gore: “The chemical and thermal dynamics of global are extremely complex, but scientists are looking especially carefully at the role played by one molecule: carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have been producing increasing quantities of CO2’ and we are now dumping vast amount of it into the global atmosphere… But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air, or 355 per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role in the greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90 percent of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the earth back toward space, retaining them long enough to maintain the earth’s temperature in rough equilibrium.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature levels overtime is well established…
The amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has fluctuated significantly over time in cycles lasting tens of thousands of years. The ice ages, for example, correspond to period when CO2 concentrations were relatively lower than they have been for the last 15,000 years. A few years ago, scientists from the Soviet Union and France conducted an extensive analysis of the tiny bubbles of atmosphere trapped in the ice in the deep hole they drilled in Antarctica two miles down through 160,000 year’s worth of ice.

[mioffe]

After learning to read the ice the way foresters read tree rings, they found a striking correlation between the ups and downs of CO2 and of temperature during all that time. As can been seen…CO 2 level fluctuated between 200 parts per million (ppm) during the last two ice ages and 300 (ppm) during the period of great warming between the two ice ages. The global average temperature rose and fell along a line that seems to match the line measuring CO2.
Surprisingly, however, the range of this natural illustration is quite small compared to the changes caused by humankind. We are driving CO2 from its warm level of 300 to over 600 ppm-with most of that change occurring since World War II. In fewer than fifty years, we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when this century began. For not only are we putting huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are also interfering with the normal way CO2 is usually removed from the atmosphere­.”

If Al Gore will ask himself: “Why during 160,000 years change of carbon dioxide from 200 ppm to 300 ppm created changes in temperature almost 10º C? Why right now we change CO2 level from 285 ppm to 355 ppm during 100 years and have temperature changes only around 1º C?”
I hope he will be not so sure about role of carbon dioxide in nature.

[mioffe]

In my opinion deep hole in Antarctica also didn’t prove correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature how it understand and explain Al Gore.
It is a fact-absorption of any gases, including carbon dioxide is better in colder water, than in hot water.
It is possible that increasing of temperature increased level of carbon dioxide because in hot water less absorption of carbon dioxide. Hotter water of Oceans released gases including carbon dioxide in air.
“The ice ages, for example, correspond to period when CO2 concentrations were relatively lower”, because cold water of Oceans solved more carbon dioxide from the air. It is not a statement, it is only suggestion but on the same level as statement of Al Gore.
In both cases we need more research, and maybe they existing, but I do not know about them.

It is very significant achievement of science and technology, but despite of that poor analysis.

At the same time he is good observant of nature:
“When I was flying over the Amazon rain forest in a small plane, I was struck by what happened immediately after a thunderstorm moved across an area of the forest: as soon as rain stopped, clouds of moisture begun to rise from the trees to form new rain clouds that moved west, driven by the wind, when they provided the water for new rain falling out of new thundersto­rms.”

It is marvelous confirmation how nature “immediately after a thunderstorm” cool hot air of forest by evaporation.

[mioffe]

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, more important, than carbon dioxide. Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. That means that water vapor is lighter than almost all others gases in the air.

It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. It takes only one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
It take 80 kcal of energy to melt one kg of ice, when its temperature will be 0º C.

“As soon as rain stopped, clouds of moisture begun to rise from the trees to form new rain clouds.”

If it will be water vapor Gore will not see it because water vapor is invisible gas. He saw “Clouds of moisture begun to rise from the trees”. Trees were so hot that creates a lot of water vapor and clouds of moisture-fog with small droplets of water. These clouds of moisture together with water vapor rise from the trees to form new rain clouds.”
Gore confirms by this statement that in air we have not only water vapor as greenhouse gas, but always and water moisture-small droplet of water mixed with air and different greenhouse gases.

It takes a lot of energy to evaporate water, the same amount of energy released, when vapor became droplets. What is the difference?

Energy released on cloud level and escape to space. It cool air of the earth better than anything else does.

[mioffe]

Look at tail after jet. Sometimes that tail is disappearing. The same we can see with fog, small clouds. It is energy of infrared radiation again and again produce water vapor from small droplet of water mixed with air. This process additionally cool the air, bring water vapor on higher level, where latent heat released by condensation of water vapor will more easily escape to space. It is happen with every drop of rain, fog, and cloud many times before drops will be so big, that despite continuos evaporation came to the ground. It is dynamic process of cooling the air and earth by special properties of water.

“First the skeptics argue that some feature of the global climate system may serve as a kind of thermostat to regulate temperatures and keep them within the narrow range we are used to-in spite of our apparent willingness to allow the blanket of greenhouse gases to thicken.”

Skeptics are right-property of water, water vapor, and ice is the best natural thermostat, which operate millions of years in our planet.

Water in oceans collects heat and by Streams regulate climate. Water of Golf Stream creates climate of Europe.

Water vapor takes extra heat from the land and water droplets in air. Ice also takes and releases heat. As long as we still have enough ice in poles, Alaska, north Canada, Europe, Russia, Greenland, and Antarctica we still will have possibilities to slow any changes in average temperature in the world.

[mioffe]

“Second, they argue that even if temperatures do go up, they probably won’t go up more than a few degrees, and that won’t make much difference. Indeed, it may even be beneficial­-especiall­y in those parts of the world that presently too cold for our liking.”

Here I am completely agreed with Al Gore, better to keep balance in the nature and don’t risk, if we can, better to escape any changes as long as possible.

“Third, they argue even if the changes we are causing are likely to be significant, we should wait until they occur and then adopt to them rather than move now to prevent the worst consequences by ceasing or modifying the activities causing them…
As for first, I think this vain hope for the magic thermostat go back to an unwillingness to recognize the new relationship between humankind and the earth, in which we really can now affect the entire global environmen­t.”

“And thus far, the search for powerful enough thermostat has proved to be fruitless. For example, speculation that the cloud system might somehow cancel the effects of all the extra greenhouse gases has not withstood analysis.”

Let look at his analysis.
“It is true that the water vapor in clouds both contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing radiant energy and play a cooling role by scattering light, in part back to space; as a result, any change in the number and distribution of clouds would have big impact.”