Wil, Thanks for prompting this stream. One of my concerns about the paper is that the treatment of costs and benefits does not take into account the whole range of factors that so many subsequent analyses have considered. (see, for example, the work about California by Alex Farrell and Michael Hanemann at UC Berkeley...). For example, where on the cost curve are we here? Haven't other analyses shown that modest CO2 reductions and energy efficiency programs have positive returns? I wonder of those of you who engage these CBA debates about climate could say a bit more about what the state of things is in these analyses. Secondly, I wonder what evidence there is that most of the political players in the US drama have actually commissioned, looked at or otherwise engaged actual evidence about costs. There is the 'famous' analysis during the Clinton years, but where are the others that are assumed to have informed rational policy making?
Lastly, to the paper's credit, it does a nice job of showing why many other countries found it politically easier to sign and ratify. --SV -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wil Burns Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:56 PM To: 'Paul Craig'; 'GEP-Ed' Subject: RE: Montreal and Kyoto Compared Well, some parts of this aren't even based on "outdated" assumptions; for example, even the IPCC First Assessment Report didn't characterize a 2.5C increase in temperature as "moderate," (not even the Toronto conferees in 1988 said that) and only in the world of economists e.g. Sunstein can we conduct the kind of mortality valuations in developing countries that tilt the cost-benefit analysis in favor of the no-action alternative. But, I agree, it's a superb piece to use in classes, though the one thing it fails to do is explain the political implications of the disproportionate impacts that Kyoto would have in certain sectors that are particularly capable of defending their interests. This may explain more of the story than a straight CBA. Wil Dr. Wil Burns Senior Fellow, International Environmental Law Santa Clara University Law School 500 El Camino Real, Loyola 101 Santa Clara, CA 95053 USA Phone: 408.551.3000 x6139 Mobile: 650.281.9126 Fax: 408.554.2745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Craig Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:52 AM To: GEP-Ed Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared Willett-- Great comment! Right on. I found this paper absolutely fascinating. The reason is that it clearly articulates the kind of thinking that actually drove US policy. It was and is politically salient, while being scientifically and economically narrow and outdated to the point of seeming almost bogus. Amazing. The article seems a relic from the past. Yet it's forthcoming this year in a legitimate journal. So much for Harvard's review process. I also learned about the "Joint Center". AEI and Brookings working arm-in-arm to promote this kind of work. AEI I understand. But Brookings! I'd thought better of them. Scary! Paul Paul Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "willett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "GEP-Ed" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> Cc: "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "NICHOLAS WATTS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:54 PM Subject: Re: Montreal and Kyoto Compared > > Ok, an interesting comparison of national benefits from national versus > global implementation. But otherwise, wow, a bizarre article. Perhaps > an example of how you cannot do good political science if you base it on > lousy climatology, old economic analysis, and pretend that there's no > such thing as technical innovation and change. If Nordhaus and Boyer's > estimates of the damages from climate change were remotely close to > correct, we wouldn't really be worried about this problem. Yes, George > Bush believes (or some of his advisors/donors believe) that the US would > be economicaly damaged by reductions in CO2. But he also believes that > evolution is unproven and seems to have difficulty distinguishing the > interests of the United States from the interests of the United States' > fossil fuel industry. The countries that are "foolishly" complying with > Kyoto are developing the technology of the 21st century. E.g. try > Googling: Siemens Wind Power, Vestas, REpower AG, Talisman Beatrice > Project, Shell Renewables, or, hey, even the US can do it -- Tesla > Motors. > > Willett Kempton > > > On 29 Aug 2006, at 14:38, Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith wrote: > >> I think this will be of widespread interest. >> >> G. >> ---------------------------------- >> Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith >> Emeritus Professor of Political Science >> University of California >> >> <MontrealKyoto.pdf> > >
