Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I don't buy the notion of insurance. [...] If we go that way, why don't you take an insurance against a big meteorite collision, against a major volcanoe explosion (the Tambora explosion in 1815 caused Europe to cool several degrees for more than 5 years and an estimated 200.000 deaths), and why not an insurance for the Earth stopping to spin ?

miniTAX wrote:

I don't buy the notion of insurance. [...] If we go that way, why don't you take an insurance against a big meteorite collision, against a major volcanoe explosion (the Tambora explosion in 1815 caused Europe to cool several degrees for more than 5 years and an estimated 200.000 deaths), and why not an insurance for the Earth stopping to spin ?

Right. Natural disasters just occur. There's nothing we can possibly do against it. Not even when we have an understanding of the causes.



(Then again I suppose you wouldn't call tsunami warning systems an "insurance". And earthquake-safe buildings. And monitoring systems in the mountains that give us an avalanche warning level. And those that inform us about the risk of volcanoe eruptions.)

The AGW believers would make a better argument by convincing the skeptics or foot draggers of the costs they will incur by NOT dealing with AGW prevention now.

Sir Nicholas (Nick) Stern (born 22 April 1946) was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003 and is now a civil servant and government economic advisor in the UK.

He earned his B.A. in mathematics at Peterhouse, Cambridge and his D.Phil. in economics at Nuffield College, Oxford. He taught from 1986-1993 at the London School of Economics, becoming Professor of Economics, and from 1994 until 1999 was the Chief Economist and Special Counsellor to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. His research focuses on economic development and growth, including books on Kenya and the Green Revolution in India.

He was knighted and recruited by Gordon Brown, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, to work for the British government where, in 2003, he became second permanent secretary at H.M. Treasury, initially with responsibility for public finances, and head of the Government Economic Service. Having also been Director of Policy and Research for the Commission for Africa, he was, in July 2005, appointed to conduct reviews on the economics of climate change and also of development, which led to the publication of the Stern Review. He ceased to be a second permanent secretary at the Treasury though he retains the rank; the review team he heads is based in the Cabinet Office.

Excellent point you made. Did you get the news about the Stern Report last week? That's exactly the point he is making.

mintax wrote :
"So Canada or Siberia, which would benefit from warming (how otherwise, it's cold countries!) ..."

i can't speak for siberia , but warming will NOT be a benefit to canada .
1) the melting icecap would drown many low-lying areas of canada
2) birds now flying from the south to the arctic during the sommer would lose their nesting grounds . i believe the loss of many bird species now nesting and breeding in the arctic would not benefit canada or the earth .
3) warmer temperatures in the prairies would impact the prairies (one of the bread baskets of the world) adversely . increased temperatures would likely result in extended dry periods impacting the grain growing capacity of the prairies (you may have heard of the dust storms and dry periods of the 1930's that were quite devastating to the farming communities in the prairies ) .
4) there would be an increase in the variety and number of destructive pests (insects) that are depending on mild winters (since they would no longer be killed off by extented freezing temperatures ) .
we have already noticed that insects that could not survive the cold canadian winters as little as thirty years ago , are now making their "home" in canada year-round .

so one canadian says : thanks , but no thanks to warmer winter temperatures .

looking at a map of the world will show that "warm regions" are usually not suitable for growing food grains , africa perhaps being the best example .
hbg

You're of course correct, but shouldn't you have told Foxfyre as well that the Stern report is voodoo science according to miniTAX? :wink:

foxfire wrote :
"No, warning systems of dangers that are known to exist are not insurance. But people who build their house in an avalanche zone can buy insurance that will pay in the event an avalanche damages or destroys the house. People can buy flood insurance and are encouraged to do so especially if they live on a known flood plain. Especially in areas where such damage is more a matter of "when" rather than "might", the cost of such insurance can be prohibitive. This accounts for the large number of people who did not have flood insurance in New Orleans for instance. They would rather take their chances than use grocery and/or movie, drugs, tobacco, booze, etc. money for insurance. "

1) warning systems REDUCE the cost of insurance .
simple example : smoke alarm system and alarm system against break-and-enter reduce our cost of insurance .
2) i understand that in canada , insurance companies are not permitted to sell insurance to home-owners who build in a flood plain - i believe the simple reason is that flood plains should be undisturbed .
3) what about the people of new orleans who were not able to afford flood-insurance now ?
isn't that somewhat like NOT fixing the worn brakes on a car ?
is it smarter to have a crash - perhaps killing innocents in the process ?
hbg

looking at a map of the world will show that "warm regions" are usually not suitable for growing food grains , africa perhaps being the best example .
hbg

In the matter of global warming, even AGW, the only 'insurance' is to prevent or reverse it, if that can be done. And the argument here is whether it is reasonable to do that or whether we would better use our 'insurance' money to improve the quality of life in a changing climate.

I'm not sure that Stern has made that argument.

The Negev has the soil and water.

We stayed several days at a kibbutz in the middle of the Negev, and their plants not only grow faster, but bigger. They use water drip systems throughout, and a once desert is now an oasis with vegetations from many parts of the world. The farm we visited in the south of the Dead Sea grows fruits and vegetables that are in high demand. They grow it in the open and in greenhouses. It's an amazing operation, considering there was nothing like it in modern times.

I wonder if you've ever heard of "contour bunding", miniTAX.

Foxfyre wrote:

In the matter of global warming, even AGW, the only 'insurance' is to prevent or reverse it, if that can be done. And the argument here is whether it is reasonable to do that or whether we would better use our 'insurance' money to improve the quality of life in a changing climate.

I'm not sure that Stern has made that argument.

Whatever it is promoting, mitigation (reverse the global warming trend by GHG reduction) or adaptation (better dams, buldings, alarm system, irrigation...) the Stern report would lead to nothing since it concludes by: "all nations must be involved in the effort".
The mitigation stragegy of Kyoto is useless, costly and it is failing: even Japan is considering jumping out of the wagon*. The effective way is adaptation and I am for it (even if it is recommended by Bush).

*EUROPE'S ISOLATION DEEPENS AS JAPAN JOINS CANADA'S KYOTO SCEPTICISM