From https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Media/Nordhaus_slides.pptx
@ProfSteveKeen says “Nordhaus ignores tipping points”
24 Oct 2019 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, environmental economics, global warming
Exaggeration About Global Warming Is Greater Than Ever
04 Oct 2019 Leave a comment
in climate change, development economics, economics of information, energy economics, entrepreneurship, environmental economics, global warming, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: climate alarmism
Why is the reduction in GDP levels so small? @GreenpeaceNZ @Oxfamnz
30 Jul 2017 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, economic growth, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming
The global reduction in the level of GDP between now and 2060 is estimated to range between 0.6% and 4.4% if nothing is done. In the case of developing countries undergoing growth miracles, we are all talking about 6 months GDP growth! Russia and Canada will be overrun by tourists in the event of runaway climate change.
Source: The Economic Consequences of Climate Change The damages from selected climate change impacts to 2060 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-5-en
Bjorn Lomborg: How to fix global warming smartly
08 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, climate change, economics of regulation, environmental economics, global warming
Matthew E. Kahn’s Keynote Address for 3rd Urbanization and Poverty Reduction World Bank Conference
11 Feb 2016 Leave a comment
in climate change, environmental economics, global warming, transport economics, urban economics Tags: climate change adaptation, Matthew Kahn
The Economics of Red State vs. Blue State Carbon Politics
25 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, climate change, constitutional political economy, economics of climate change, economics of media and culture, economics of regulation, energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics
1. My JPAM 2000 paper documents that suburbanites drive more and consume more electricity than urban residents.
2. My 2011 JUE paper documents that center city liberal resident NIMBY zoning regulation has deflected more development to the suburbs where people live a high carbon life (see paper #1 above) and then oppose carbon pricing.
3. My co-authored 2013 JPUBE paper documents that energy intensive manufacturing industries seek out cheap electricity price areas. Whether U.S carbon pricing and the resulting higher electricity prices would nudge them to move oversees remains an open question.
4. My co-authored 2012 EER paper documents that more educated people are more likely to have installed solar panels and to go off the grid and thus not pay higher electricity prices.
5. My 2013 EI paper documents that Congress Representatives oppose carbon mitigation regulation when they are conservative, their district is poorer and their district is high carbon. Nancy Pelosi and Tom Steyer are in liberal, rich, low carbon San Francisco. There, it is easy to comply with carbon regulation. They will pay few new costs for such low carbon regulation.
6. My co-authored 2015 JAERE paper documents that even in California and within counties that suburbanites vote against low carbon regulation relative to center city residents. Since we control for the fact that liberals live in center cities, this 3rd variable does not explain the urban form/voting correlation.
7. In my co-authored 2015 JUE paper we document that U.S protectionism through the Buy America Act has hindered the improvement of our bus fleet as a green technology.
Source: Environmental and Urban Economics: The Economics of Red State vs. Blue State Carbon Politics
Afghan Women in 1950 vs. 2013
17 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
Does global warming denial and the anti-vaccination movement march to the same anti-science step?
03 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in climate change, economics of information, economics of media and culture, environmental economics, global warming, health economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: anti-vaccination movement, climate alarmists, expressive politics, expressive voting, psychology of persuasion
In the last post, I presented evidence, collected as part of the CCP Vaccine Risk Perception study, that showed that the trope has no meaningful connection to fact.
Those who accept and reject human evolution, those who believe in and those who are skeptical about climate change, all overwhelmingly agree that vaccine risks are low and vaccine benefits high.
The idea that either climate change skepticism or disbelief in evolution denotes hostility to science or lack of comprehension of science is false, too. That’s something that a large number of social science studies show. The CCP Vaccine Risk study doesn’t add anything to that body of evidence.
Vaccination rates are a serious issue. Do those that are trying to lift vaccination rates think they going to get anywhere by calling people stupid, corrupt and in the pay of a multinational.
Of course not. This matter is serious. It’s a real public health risk.
People are persuaded to vaccinate through gentle messages providing facts in a way they can understand that also respects their knowledge, their intellect, and their concerns for the safety of the children. You don’t win people over by insulting them.
The climate alarmists are so insulting because they have no interest in persuading the people that are actually talking to. They are reaching out to members on the audience were are on the margin, and appealing to their political base, including the fundraising base by showing how staunch they are in slaying the Dragon.
Are the climate models still running too hot?
26 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in climate change, environmental economics, global warming
Global Warming Was Worth It
22 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, development economics, growth disasters, growth miracles, liberalism Tags: modernity, The Great Enrichment, The Great Fact
- Higher incomes that allow people to make livings that afford them more than merely survival or avoiding starvation.
- A low poverty rate.
- High quality and diversity of employment opportunities. Rather than the choice of being a farmer or being a blacksmith, the average citizen should have an array of careers to choose from, and the ability to be industrious and take risks for profit.
- The availability of housing. On an average night in the United States, a country with a population of somewhere around 350 million, fewer than one million people are homeless.
- Consistent GDP growth.
- Access to quality health care.
- The availability of quality education. (I suppose we could quibble over the word “quality,” but certainly there is widespread free education availability.)
- High life expectancy. Worldwide life expectancy has more than doubled from 1750 to 2007.
- Low frequency of deadly disease.
- Affordable goods and services.
- Infrastructure that bolsters economic growth.
- Political stability.
- Air conditioning.
- Freedom from slavery, torture and discrimination.
- Freedom of movement, religion and thought.
- The presumption of innocence under the law.
- Equality under the law regardless of gender or race.
- The right to have a family – as large as one can support. Maybe even larger.
- The right to enjoy the fruits of labor without government – or anyone else – stealing it.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments