2% of national income is not something to declare a national emergency over unless you are in a very poor country.
Richard Tol also mentions that there has only been 27 studies of the economic costs of climate change:
Twenty-seven estimates is a thin basis for any conclusion. Researchers disagree on the sign of the net impact; climate change may lead to a welfare gain or loss. At the same time, researchers agree on the order of magnitude. The welfare change caused by climate change is equivalent to the welfare change caused by an income change of a few percent.
That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth.
As Tol wrote elsewhere, the reason why there are so few studies of the welfare cost of global warming is governments and bureaucracies do not like the small numbers they yield so they pre-emptively do not fund such research.
Few economists work full-time on the economics of climate change as their research results are too moderate to win repeat business and further research grants. Importantly, there is vicious criticism of what you say. Much better to just work on other topics.
One of the great tactical victories of the climate activists, I resisted the temptation to call them climate alarmists, is they keep going on about the science is settled and whether you are accepting the scientific results.
I have long argued let the science be settled, only the economics matters. The climate change activists do not want to talk about the economics that much except for the estimates by that political hack Lord Stern. Lord Stern has been on the losing side of history ever since he wrote a bad review of PT Bauer’s Dissent on Development where he said:
Dissent on Development is not a valuable contribution to the study of development.
The Stern Review puts the costs of unmitigated climate change at 5–20% of GDP (now and forever). The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds differently.
I followed the coding by the Guardian despite reservations. Including those struck by police cars in routine accidents, none of them police chases, conflates one database with another and does not touch on the issue of the wisdom of police car chases. Including people who drive cars at police or flee with kidnapped children in a car is stretching the definition of unarmed. The wisdom of shooting at a car with children in it is a separate issue. The safety of the hostage taker is not a responsibility of the police, the safety of the children kidnapped in that car was.
About 10% of police shootings of unarmed people resulted in murder charges and a few of those still under investigation read as suspicious and may result in charges as well as more evidence is gathered.
That 10% figure of police shootings that result in murder charges is much higher if you exclude people who collapsed while in contact with police from underlying poor health either in a struggle or after being tasered – 20 or more out of 62, drove cars at police (3), killed in crossfire (2) or were killed in police car accidents (5). The figure is even higher when you exclude a good number of those who are struggling with police and the police fired in self defence lawfully. That is, if a police officer shoot someone at a safe distance without good cause, they face a high probability of being charged with murder.
The database I used today for the above figure on shooting of unarmed Blacks takes less than an hour to work your way through to code them for yourself, so if you doubt my coding, do your own coding and put up a rival figure. I will even consider a guest blog by you if you lack a forum.
Update: When I shared this post on the dataisbeautiful sub-reddit, the first comment on that post was to denounce me as a racist for sharing.
Some public goods can be not provided much at all if even a few do not contribute – free ride. These are called weakest shot public goods. The link in the chain is only as strong as the weakest link for some public goods. The fighting against communicable diseases is an example of that.
Similar examples would be the protection of a military front, taking a convoy across the ocean going at the speed of the slowest ship, or maintaining an attractive village/landscape (one eyesore spoils the view).
Many instances of teamwork involve weak-link elements, for example moving a pile of bricks by hand along a chain or providing a theatrical or orchestral performance (one bad individual effort spoils the whole effect.)
Another example of weakest shot public goods is community cooperation after disasters. The quality of the public good provided is equal to the contribution of the weakest person who may start a criminal rampage despite the good efforts of everyone else.
People tend to be more cooperative after natural disasters. They realise their contribution is more important than normal to the maintaining of the social fabric which is currently hanging by a thread.
Vaccinations are example of a weakest shot public good. The quality of herd immunity depends fundamentally on just about everybody contributing by getting vaccinated. Not all public goods depend on the some of those contributions made. In some cases just a few people choosing to free ride can greatly undermine the public interest.
The reverse of a weakest shot public good is best shot public goods. Example of this is the development of vaccines themselves. The public good is only as good as the best effort at developing the new vaccine with all the others efforts pointless because the best of the vaccines is chosen.
The most curious people in New Zealand to oppose measures to address the under provision of weakest shot public goods are the New Zealand Greens.
Herd immunity protects those who cannot be safely vaccinated including new babies, those for whom the vaccine fails, which occasionally happens, and those with compromised immunity such as adults receiving chemotherapy.
We are all in this together. It is time for the New Zealand Greens to stop pandering to those are only think of themselves and what a free ride on others including the very sick and new babies.
Herd immunity requires vaccination rates of about 94%. The near universal vaccination rates required for herd immunity are to smaller margin to pander to an awkward squad who do not want to vaccinate despite the harm they do to others.
Harm to others is grounds and has always been grounds for public policy and public health interventions. Instead, the Greens are anti-science, anti-public health.
Measles is the most contagious disease known to man. Seven children died in New Zealand in the last measles outbreak in 1991. The dead are already too many from the anti-vaccination quacks and cranks.
Note: The house price index series is an index constructed with nominal house price data. The real house price index is an index calculated by deflating the nominal house price series with a country’s personal consumption expenditure deflator
The large differences in personality types between Green voters and Labour voters is one of the first explanations I have seen as to why someone joins and votes for one over the other given both are left-wing parties with fewer and fewer differences in policy.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments