William Nordhaus: The Economics of Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2014
- In this informal talk, William Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University and author of two widely used models of the economics of climate change, makes the case for using markets to mitigate the issue of global climate change by putting a price on pollution.
If you experience technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to bfi@uchicago.edu.
![Chance The Rapper, DJ Premier - Together (2024) | [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVwTX6WP-MM/mqdefault.jpg)
6:00 skip long drawn out intro of death
lool but thanks
"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future!" - Danish proverb. That goes for all the modelling involved that predict extinctions and catastrophes.
His predictions are straigt to the point.
ruclips.net/video/Wp-WiNXH6hI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/1NOdTEIihFU/видео.html
Brilliant the power of Adam Smiths ideas reverberating this hard. Very impressive to witness it lay foundation for a remarkable power house of ideas and knowledge of the dismal science in a commonwealth country.
So in general agriculture productivity, with adaption is a net benefit. This lecture was done prior to satelite data analysis of world leaf cover. The earth has increased in leaf cover by 18 million square kilometers since 1982. 70% of this increase is due to faster plant growth and better drought resistance due to more atmospheric CO2.
bullshit
If I remember well the NASA 2016 study, the main reason for the greening of the planet is the warming!
Where are the dangerous impacts then?
Nordhaus is extremely unconvincing and very boring, as the all the IPCC boy scouts.
The interpretation of data depends on the selected dataset at the outset. Different interpretations can arise when choosing longer or shorter time periods.
Given that the Earth is 5 billion years old, why limit the selection to a period of 800,000 years? There have been much larger carbon peaks before this period.
Clearly, we are facing a selection bias, which means that choosing a specific period intentionally to support a particular hypothesis or conclusion can introduce bias.
lazy camera work, references to slides never shown.
In fairness to the BFI, they do actually cut to the slides every so often, and I _think_ they are actually showing all the important ones (possibly all of them) for example, he talks for a few minutes building up lines on a graph... and we see the completed slide at 18:20 etc. etc.
Strange. Paleo carbon is measured in thousand parts not hundreds
Correct, for most of the time, C02 has been 8000 ppm. We are at a low 400ppm, if it drops to 150ppn, plants die, along with everything else. We are in a C02 drought.
To transfer from fossil fuels to renewable Green Energy one has to create durable wealth that keeps all the benefits of what it replaces. One has to acknowledge how broke the governments àre, therefore we can't expect them to foot the bill. The scenario to have the required wealth to subsidize the manufacturing and installation of renewable Green Energy infrastructure is based on desert land flowing with Milk and Honey. We know since environmentalists don't prioritize humans; they will be the main group against this solution. With Peter Thiel saying in his book "Zero to One" you have to offer a contrarian scenario solution to the previous one offered where they say renewable energy is directly economically viable to get the Gold out of Green Energy. An observant conservative "C" student is offering sequencing the order of usage to get byproducts to subsidize the manufacturing and installation of required infrastructure.
Here is how we can put a price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and protect household purchasing power, and pressure the rest of the world to follow our lead: CitizensClimateLobby.org - check out the video, basics, and remi links under 'Our Climate Solution'. Then consider joining the 90,000 volunteers who think it is worth our time to do this. We need your help creating the political will to do this!
The Canadian government unveiled their plan to have $170 per ton carbon tax by 2030. I checked my last electricity bill. If we were living were in Alberta or Saskatchewan were most electricity is coal, our bill would increase $544 per month.
50:04 - He never answered the guy's question about what should be done with the government revenue collected by the tax. I have a hunch this was deliberate because the answer reveals a lot about one's underlying political ideology.
meerkat1954 well because under his premise it’s irrelevant. The tax is just used to creat a disincentive for adding carbon. However it wouldn’t actually work well cause china and india are not going to comply so it will just end up hurting everyone else to the point they simply find loopholes such as moving operations to countries not abiding by the tax
Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels with the current oversized, wasteful system as it is and people just expect more of the same.
Agreed, fundamentally we the people need to change our habits.
Also because there are plenty of examples of how governments have proposed ineffectice climate policies flushing billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain!
Nuclear could potentially be a 200-300 year stop gap solution and it’s much cleaner than fossil fuels. Public perception would have to change.
@@MovieRiotHD exactly
@@MovieRiotHD no, you don't need to change your habits. You need to understand the science. The science does not support doomsday scenarios, that's all politics and activism. Moreover, the science itself is in its infancy. They know very little and the demonization of CO2 is based on assumptions that are anything BUT concrete.
A carbon tax in the absence of any changes to electricity dispatching would make nuclear energy the clear winner with some hydroelectricity where sites allow. Unfortunately, the drive to connect renewables to the grid has caused regulators to severely destabilize the grid with 15 minute and even 5 minute real time power pricing, which allows renewables to reap huge profits but pay none of the prices associated with connecting variable sources of energy to the grid.
The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change
Steve Keen, 2021
ABSTRACT
Forecasts by economists of the economic damage from climate change have been notably sanguine, compared to warnings by scientists about damage to the biosphere. This is because economists made their own predictions of damages, using three spurious methods: assuming that about 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change, because it happens indoors; using the
relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time; and using surveys that diluted extreme
warnings from scientists with optimistic expectations from economists. Nordhaus has misrepresented the scientific literature to justify the using a
smooth function to describe the damage to GDP from climate change. Correcting for these errors makes it feasible that the economic damages from
climate change are at least an order of magnitude worse than forecast by economists, and may be so great as to threaten the survival of human civilization.
You keep making catastrophic predictions and yet the global human development index keeps rising. Did Steven Keen win the Nobel prize for economic analysis of climate change mitigation vs. abatement?
@@gregorymalchuk272 This is my first ever RUclips comment on climate change. I’m not sure where “you keep making” comes from.
The Nobel Prize in economics is nothing to be proud of.
Here’s from the publisher’s (Princeton University Press) summary of its 2017 book "The Nobel Factor":
"[T]he prize, created by the Swedish central bank, emerged from a conflict between central bank orthodoxy and social democracy. The aim was to use the halo of the Nobel brand to enhance central bank authority and the prestige of market-friendly economics."
Here’s from a 2014 article on The Local, Sweden, titled "Nobel descendant slams Economics prize": Nobel descendant and Swedish human rights lawyer, Peter Nobel:
"The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it's a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,"
(Unfortunately, RUclips doesn’t permit links in comments.)
#CultGreen
Carbon tax is much of the solution of climate change and revenue. Nice seminar and warms from India.
PAWN770 but your country won’t abide by it lol so its useless overall
22:20 yeahh this man is a fool
47:50
Go away from the IPCC please
Like the US is going to allow migration to the US as the result of climate change. The way people respond to foreigners and how that will impact to adaptation has to also be taken into account. So often we behave as if we believe humans act rationally (e.g., we'll adapt when it comes to agriculture). Nordhaus today, with the Trump administration in place, sadly knows that this is not the case. The extinctions that will happen are reason enough to work hard to turn this around for anyone who's not a psychopath.
Of course, a recent report by the Trump admin says that the increase could be as much as 8 degrees by the end of the century.
@@IExpectedBSJustNotThisMuchBS 8 degrees is NONSENSE territory. As a matter of fact 2 degrees is nonsense territory.
here we have an economist of great repute talking about science and potential risks over many scales and areas with which he has no more clue than a stoned college kid.
rd264 ok, so what did he miss?
HeresTheThing see Tony Hellers response to his idiocies .
@@crazyworldthis The whole ordeal is based on arbitrary assumptions. The economist here assumes that the science is settled and mature in understanding the system involved. It is anything but mature. In fact the science is in its infancy. We know VERY LITTLE about the planet's climate. Our data sets are only reliable going back a few decades and the confounders are innumerable.
Ok, but the people who make catastrophic predictions themselves aren't qualified to analyze the economic impacts of climate change mitigation vs. abatement. Notably lacking from catastrophists' predictions is any economic analysis at all, weather mitigation or abatement is better, whether we need to do anything at all, which things would be more efficacious on a tons of CO2 abated per dollar basis, and whether other human catastrophes like malaria and crop failures are actually worse and are more easily mitigated on a per-dollar basis than climate change is.
It is funny to watch very smart people speak eloquently about how important it is to do something now!! however they are basing an action that will cost real people real money based on computer models!! When they can prove to me that the computer models are correct (which they haven't been able to do since their inception) than i will start to listen. These academics have been talking to each other in their own circles for too long that they are starting to believe their own bullshit as fact.
What the hell is your comedy about?
No, what's funny/sad is reading rants like this. No doubt you're brighter and more capable than all the people who just awarded him the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work.
@@IExpectedBSJustNotThisMuchBS Obama got a Nobel peace price for doing nothing, while Trump should have received it instead.
Your response was not well thought out.
@@9avedon Obama is not a scientist. What he is doing is not peer reviewed, discussed and tested on the scientific field. But your criticism of the Nobel Peace Price is resonable, the part after the comma is a joke.
Hey, Joe, Global Warming is about statistics. It is like too much hamburger may lead to cardiovascular disease. We can see the trend. It's a fact, no bullshit. Enjoy your hamburgers anyway :-)
I am sorry to say this, but Nordhaus is unconvincing and extremely boring.
As all IPCC boy scouts.
all lies