Comments on: The UK Climate Change Committee Illustrates How Not to Do Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Policies http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: MIKE MCHENRY http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118&cpage=1#comment-13321 MIKE MCHENRY Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:59:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118#comment-13321 There is an article in the April 4-10 edition of the ECONOMIST titled "Greenstanding" about Britain and renewables. It gives a very down beat view. At the end it mentions ministers enthusiasm for nuclear. There is an article in the April 4-10 edition of the ECONOMIST titled “Greenstanding” about Britain and renewables. It gives a very down beat view. At the end it mentions ministers enthusiasm for nuclear.

]]> By: Sylvain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118&cpage=1#comment-13318 Sylvain Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:57:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118#comment-13318 Roger, I have a few questions: How can a cost benefit analysis be done on a regional policy that, even if they were able to reach the goal, is influence by worldwide activity ? Also, aren't the premise of such analysis flawed from the start, by imputing all the cost to a single climate forcing, when your father's works show that climate change is influenced by other forcing like land use, which is probably a more important forcing? Roger, I have a few questions:

How can a cost benefit analysis be done on a regional policy that, even if they were able to reach the goal, is influence by worldwide activity ?

Also, aren’t the premise of such analysis flawed from the start, by imputing all the cost to a single climate forcing, when your father’s works show that climate change is influenced by other forcing like land use, which is probably a more important forcing?

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118&cpage=1#comment-13316 Mark Bahner Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:50:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5118#comment-13316 Hi Roger, I haven't followed the British Climate Change Act, but the "Climate Realists" blog says: "What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefitBut these figures were based on the Government’s original plan to cut CO2 emissions by only 60 per cent. A last-minute amendment had this to 80 per cent (a target which can only be achieved by closing down most of Britain’s economy), so our “climate change minister”, Ed Miliband, was obliged to produce new figures." "These he has now belatedly slipped out via the Department of Energy and Climate Change website – no thought of reporting them to Parliament – and truly mind-boggling they are. The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1,024 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent." http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3169&linkbox=true So per that blog, the UK was initially going to have a 60 percent reduction requirement by 2050. That was projected to cost £205 billion and return benefits of £110 billion. But then the 80 percent reduction would have costs of £404 billion (twice the costs) but benefits of £1,024 billion (roughly 10 times the benefits). Obviously, the "Climate Realists" blog numbers are somewhat different from yours, but I thought it was pretty interesting to read about the iteration from the 60-percent-reduction legislation to the 80-percent-reduction legislation. Hi Roger,

I haven’t followed the British Climate Change Act, but the “Climate Realists” blog says:

“What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefitBut these figures were based on the Government’s original plan to cut CO2 emissions by only 60 per cent. A last-minute amendment had this to 80 per cent (a target which can only be achieved by closing down most of Britain’s economy), so our “climate change minister”, Ed Miliband, was obliged to produce new figures.”

“These he has now belatedly slipped out via the Department of Energy and Climate Change website – no thought of reporting them to Parliament – and truly mind-boggling they are. The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1,024 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent.”

http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3169&linkbox=true

So per that blog, the UK was initially going to have a 60 percent reduction requirement by 2050. That was projected to cost £205 billion and return benefits of £110 billion. But then the 80 percent reduction would have costs of £404 billion (twice the costs) but benefits of £1,024 billion (roughly 10 times the benefits).

Obviously, the “Climate Realists” blog numbers are somewhat different from yours, but I thought it was pretty interesting to read about the iteration from the 60-percent-reduction legislation to the 80-percent-reduction legislation.

]]>