http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/archives/96 Economics in an era of climate change: designing just solutions to crisis Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:19:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-2218 Building the Economic Case for Climate Action « Real Climate Economics Mon, 02 May 2011 20:21:41 +0000 http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/?p=96#comment-2218 [...] the most significant damages from climate change are likely to be associated with extreme events. Risk assessment and risk management are more appropriate frames for evaluating climate policy for these [...] [...] the most significant damages from climate change are likely to be associated with extreme events. Risk assessment and risk management are more appropriate frames for evaluating climate policy for these [...]

]]> http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-21 Colin Butler Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:12:10 +0000 http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/?p=96#comment-21 Good to hear you think there is a shift in perspective, but what you say (action as an insurance policy - the precautionary principle) has been pretty obvious and around for how long? decades at least. So, even if there is more recognition in certain parts of the economic literature is there any convincing evidence this will change global policy? I am sceptical Good to hear you think there is a shift in perspective, but what you say (action as an insurance policy – the precautionary principle) has been pretty obvious and around for how long? decades at least. So, even if there is more recognition in certain parts of the economic literature is there any convincing evidence this will change global policy? I am sceptical

]]> http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-20 Stephen DeCanio Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:36:34 +0000 http://realclimateeconomics.org/wp/?p=96#comment-20 Eban, it's a good guestion. The science suggests that if we can keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees C, we can avoid the most serious of the risks. This will require global action, however; the US, the EU, or Japan (or all of them together) can't do it alone. Therefore, the uncertainty about the effectiveness of buying the insurance arises from not knowing if we can get a truly global agreement. For this reason, intelligent diplomacy, including appropriate and equitable incentives for developing countries that are not yet large emitters of greehnouse gases, is as important if not more important than domestic emissions reduction legislation. Eban, it’s a good guestion. The science suggests that if we can keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees C, we can avoid the most serious of the risks. This will require global action, however; the US, the EU, or Japan (or all of them together) can’t do it alone. Therefore, the uncertainty about the effectiveness of buying the insurance arises from not knowing if we can get a truly global agreement. For this reason, intelligent diplomacy, including appropriate and equitable incentives for developing countries that are not yet large emitters of greehnouse gases, is as important if not more important than domestic emissions reduction legislation.

]]>