Comments on: Spontaneous Decarbonization in the MIT Analysis of Cap and Trade

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:35:33 +0000

Hi DeWitt,

“The scenario assumes we would be emitting 50% less CO2 equivalent in absolute terms than what we are currently emitting by 2050 while per capita GDP would be only 2% less than the do nothing case.”

OK, thanks. Yes, I see that I was confused about what the “2% less” was. I was thinking “2% less fossil fuel.” But it’s 2% less GDP.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:54:08 +0000

-5-dean

have a look at the Pielke et al. 2008 paper I referenced. We discuss the technical aspects of this issue there.

I think that the burden of proof lies with those assuming spontaneous decarbonization, not with those who raise questions about it.

By: dean

dean — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:22:09 +0000

The term “spontaneous decarbonization” is a strange choice. Economic growth rate has been ahead of energy consumption (thus greenhouse emissions as well) for decades now. For example, $4/gallon gas last year led to significant improvements re transportation. 2.6% economic growth vs 1.1% emissions doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. It seems conservative.

Of course it’s true that baseline assumptions will affect the results of models. But you present nothing that indicates that these numbers are unreasonable or implausible for the control case. I don’t have the time now to read the report, but unless you look at _why_ they chose those numbers and present some substantive critique of that, I can’t see how pointing out that results change if the assumptions are different adds anything to the debate.

By: DeWitt Payne

DeWitt Payne — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:57:11 +0000

Mark,

The scenario assumes we would be emitting 50% less CO2 equivalent in absolute terms than what we are currently emitting by 2050 while per capita GDP would be only 2% less than the do nothing case. In the do nothing case, GDP per capita approximately doubles as the population increases by about 50%. The do nothing case, however, assumes that CO2e emissions per unit of added GDP will decrease by more than 60% so that absolute emissions in the do nothing case only increase by about 30%. It’s not at all clear we know how to do that, much less actually reduce emissions.

By: Jon Frum

Jon Frum — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:22:01 +0000

I wouldn’t let that Nobel prize bother you – a Nobel prize in the Dismal Science says about as much about rigorous science as a Nobel prize in poetry would. Krugman is 5% scientist and 95% advocate. Can you really imagine him writing that cap-and-trade would destroy the American economy? He lends his Nobel prize weight to “his side,” and does so with a smile. All such advocates know that if they told the truth about the costs of their program, the vast majority of citizens would never accept it. Thus, you have glorious ends justifying disingenuous means.

By: jae

jae — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:39:55 +0000

Does anyone remember if there was EVER a government-supported estimate of the cost of some program that proved to not be greatly under-estimated? Is anyone really sufficiently naieve to believe that someone, no matter how many prizes they have won, can predict the GDP to two decimal places? More importantly, does anyone TRUST these folks? Give me a break.

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Sun, 03 May 2009 04:23:33 +0000

Headline: “An Affordable Salvation”

The money quote: “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.”

So let me get this straight: If the U.S. (not even the world!) emits 2 percent less in 2050 than it would without taking any action, “salvation” will be achieved?

How is that not absolutely junk science?