At 01:55 PM 8/30/2006, you wrote:
Well, some parts of this aren't even based on "outdated" assumptions; for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scientifically and economically narrow and outdated to the point of seeming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>
>
>
