Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 64681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Drosophila melanogaster
Contact:

Economics of Climate Change

June 10th, 2014, 11:34 am

There are different kinds of chicken... here in NL we have 'plofkip'. You can put 10^6 of them in a big shed.Chicken ain't nothin' but a bird
Last edited by Cuchulainn on June 9th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Compatibility means deliberately repeating other people's mistakes."
David Wheeler

http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Economics of Climate Change

June 10th, 2014, 11:39 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnThere are different kinds of chicken... here in NL we have 'plofkip'. You can put 10^6 of them in a big shed.Chicken ain't nothin' but a birdWe have several types, too.
 
User avatar
DavidJN
Posts: 1781
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Economics of Climate Change

June 13th, 2014, 12:29 pm

Let me attempt to bring this thread back on topic. Paul Krugman (love him or hate him, that's your choice) weighed in on this topic recently and quoted a study commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce (a very business-friendly private organization) that estimates the US could make a significant dent in their outsized greenhouse gas emmissions at a cost of only 0.2% of GDP per annum. Krugman describes this as inexpensive and, to the extent that the estimates are true, I am inclined to agree.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Economics of Climate Change

June 13th, 2014, 1:11 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidJNLet me attempt to bring this thread back on topic. Paul Krugman (love him or hate him, that's your choice) weighed in on this topic recently and quoted a study commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce (a very business-friendly private organization) that estimates the US could make a significant dent in their outsized greenhouse gas emmissions at a cost of only 0.2% of GDP per annum. Krugman describes this as inexpensive and, to the extent that the estimates are true, I am inclined to agree.Does this "significant dent" guarantee a total halt to global climate change or only delay the change? How confident are the costs estimates, the dent estimates, and the climate change impact estimates?Just because something is inexpensive, does not imply it is worth doing.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Economics of Climate Change

August 11th, 2014, 1:32 pm

A particular factor for the US and EU is farming.Climate "change" is better termed "climate volatility with an unknown probably positive drift term", which I guess is a lot less snappy.A bit more heat (or less in the case of the UK which will get colder), a bit more or less rain etc are easy to cope with if we have some idea of the probable outcomes.But we don't.That uncertainty will lead to more crops getting trashed and of course higher risk premia.The US and EU, like Soviet Russia have effectively nationalised their agriculture, farmers are better modelled as franchise holders than businesses. The state provides insurance, marketing, loans, research on relevant issues, training of staff and where necessary cooperates to mitigate gross violations of both legal and rational standards of food handling....just like McDonalds and its franchisees.The difference of course is that McD is designed to make money, so services are provided at greater than cost and if some franchisees go bust that's just business.Farmers are coddled by providing cheap loans, insurance below cost and by governments making it a criminal offence for other countries produce to compete with its own.Where necessary to protect its client/franchisees , the government will buy up food.What we have here is the government selling put options at below cost at a time when volatility is rising. That's going to be very expensive, pushing up the price of food even faster than adaptation to climate change would imply and of course we are in effect putting up taxes to push up the price of food.
 
User avatar
pakhijain19
Posts: 10
Joined: August 11th, 2014, 10:04 am

Economics of Climate Change

August 19th, 2014, 5:16 am

The criticism that ?the? discount rate is wrong in any of Stern, Garnaut or Nordhaus? work reveals a basic misconception about the approach to discounting (Stern 2008: 12). While the approach of each differs, none of these three economists uses a single discount rate. Rather, the real discount rate depends on the rate of growth of per capita consumption, so it is endogenous to each particular model run. This is appropriate for ?non-marginal? policy problems such as climate change whose effects are potentially large relative to the economy as a whole (Stern 2007:39). In contrast to ?marginal? problems that are the conventional subjects of cost-benefit analysis, whether or not global emissions continue as ?business as usual? has the potential to result in very different paths for future global wellbeing. When a policy problem is non-marginal, conducting welfare economics must involve comparing the present value of welfare on these different paths directly, with present values calculated using the discount rate consistent with each path given its consumption growth rate (Stern 2007:50).Oil Tips Advisor
 
User avatar
tagoma
Posts: 18679
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 5th, 2015, 6:47 pm

Fire!QuoteIn 1995, fire made up 16 percent of the [US] Forest Service's annual appropriated budget?this year, for thefirst time, more than 50 percent of the Forest Service?s annual budget will be dedicated to wildfire.Along with this shift in resources, there has also been a corresponding shift in staff, with a 39 percentreduction in all non-fire personnel. Left unchecked, the share of the budget devoted to fire in 2025 couldexceed 67 percent, equating to reductions of nearly $700 million from non-fire programs compared totoday?s funding levels. That means that in just 10 years, two out of every three dollars the Forest Servicegets from Congress as part of its appropriated budget will be spent on fire programs.(...)Climate change has led to fire seasons that are now on average 78 days longer than in 1970. The U.S.burns twice as many acres as three decades ago and Forest Service scientists believe the acreage burnedmay double again by mid-century. Increasing development in fire-prone areas also puts more stress on theForest Service?s suppression efforts.
Last edited by tagoma on August 4th, 2015, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
dweeb
Topic Author
Posts: 142
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:10 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 6th, 2015, 3:01 pm

Bloomberg - animation of monthly temperatures over the last 135 years to 2014 relative to the 20th century average - 2014-hottest-year-on-record
 
User avatar
tw
Posts: 1176
Joined: May 10th, 2002, 3:30 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 16th, 2015, 9:18 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: dweebBloomberg - animation of monthly temperatures over the last 135 years to 2014 relative to the 20th century average - 2014-hottest-year-on-recordAn excellent and provocative animation! Do I read that correctly that the hottest single month over the past 135 years was a February? Wow.
 
User avatar
dweeb
Topic Author
Posts: 142
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:10 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 16th, 2015, 1:44 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: twQuoteOriginally posted by: dweebBloomberg - animation of monthly temperatures over the last 135 years to 2014 relative to the 20th century average - 2014-hottest-year-on-recordAn excellent and provocative animation! Do I read that correctly that the hottest single month over the past 135 years was a February? Wow.Temperatures appeared to be up significantly during WW2 and then declined for a while - military industrial output??
Last edited by dweeb on August 15th, 2015, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
tagoma
Posts: 18679
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 29th, 2015, 3:45 pm

NOAA & friends; Research to measure cost of climate change, improve prediction of severe weather red: more growthblue: slower growth
Last edited by tagoma on August 28th, 2015, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
samudra
Posts: 730
Joined: December 23rd, 2002, 2:48 pm

Economics of Climate Change

August 29th, 2015, 4:31 pm

Water and drug resistant strain of virus it seems to me 2 of the most critical issues.In India water table is depleting so fast that unless solar power becomes extremelycheap and desalination becomes affordable there will be catastrophe.Virus and bacterial strains are morphing at alarming level( I have 8 doctors in my familyand believe me what I hear from them is scary as hell ....). No major new antibiotics is in pipeline. The climate changes are so monstrous unless major discoveries happen I have a feeling 50 yearsfrom now human civilization can become extinct. Piping(desalination/transportation India specific) is an area where multibaggers may be there. But how economies of scale will be achieved in desalination (I mean the tech part) is not clear.But major return on investment from climate change will come from India. India face themaximum danger from climate change and major innovation has to be there in Indiaby 2040 else human beings may not survive in India no drinking water would be there.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Economics of Climate Change

August 31st, 2015, 3:50 pm

India has no shortage of water at all, nor indeed does at the opposite end of the economic spectrum does California.Both have corrupt governments that buy votes through subsidised water use. OK India is more corrupt, but it is the same structure.If water is priced properly by a market rather than a politician then you don't get water shortages.Water shortages, like famines are political constructs, not technical or economic ones.Under British rule and indeed under the rule of the even worse scumbags before, famines were normal and horrible in India.Yet since it became a democracy there ahsn't been one, even though after the British left the efficiency of India dropped hard before recovering.This is because famines cost serious numbers of votes and when India was ruled by British emperors and local warlords they simply didn't care. India is made worse by the fact that you have to directly bribe officals to get the underpriced water. This is because if a firm is making money getting you water then they try real hard to get you water, if the outfit supplying water loses money on each drop then you have to persuade them.Because water is supplied at below cost in both California and India, the infrastructure doesn't get the necessary investment and of course it means it is wasted.Israel and Norfolk, UK are both categorised as drought areas, Israle is also rather hot. But by intelligent use of water and market pricing both grow serious amounts of food.India doesn't have a shortage of water, but of honesty.Desalinisation is horribly expensive but is likely in India simply because the multinationals building big project can dole out serious bribes.Climate change makes this worse, since politicians instinctively protect the established ways and vested interests and of course officials see oportunities for new bribes.
Last edited by DominicConnor on August 30th, 2015, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.