It's a bit worrisome that I find that many of the most rational and sensible takes on climate change come from economists. In a better world it would be environmentalists, ecologists and such that would have the saner views since it is their business to be focused on such issues. The earlier post Tyler Does Climate is one example that points to an economist's reasoned analysis. Here's another.

I am starting to appreciate how extremely model-dependent the field of climate forecasting is. That is not a good thing. As I wrote here, "The complexity of the process far exceeds the availability of data needed to verify the model. Even a broad consensus may prove fragile."

Under the circumstances, I think that the language that climate forecasters should be using ought to be careful and cautious about what they claim to know. The argument for trying to control carbon dioxide emissions is actually quite subtle and nuanced.

The argument would have to start by saying that the relationship between man-made carbon dioxide and global temperature is highly nonlinear, and there is a very large margin of error in estimating the effect. The error could be that we over-estimate the effect of emissions on global warming, but it could be that we under-estimate the effect. Particularly if we under-estimate the effect, we would want to err on the side of curbing emissions.

To me, that is the strongest argument that one can make for curbing emissions and still retain credibility. The more that Al Gore and company argue something differently, the more I am inclined to reject their religion.

Religion, politics . . . same thing it seems. In both cases you have unthinking advocacy that disrespects the minds of followers, and for good reason since they are followers. It's good to see reasoned analysis and pointed criticism of the so far useless political approaches.

One formal difference between the Bush plan (a critique is here) and that of the CDM (a critique is here) is that the CDM is part of a framework that seeks to reduce overall emissions. But the practical reality is that both programs, whatever their positive merits, cannot be honestly be justified as "reducing emissions" as they in fact make very small contributions to reducing the increase in GHG emissions. Consider that most countries participating in Kyoto will all but certainly fail to meet their modest emissions reductions targets.

For advocates of immediate action emissions reductions, under all current and proposed policies (that I am aware of) the future looks like an extended period of uninterrupted growth in greenhouse gas emissions, accounting games notwithstanding. All of the debate about action on emissions will be of little practical effect unless there are policy options on the table that can actually achieve real emissions reductions, not just a reduction in the rate of increase. Right now, there does not seem to be evidence of such options, and so long as the climate debate remains in its Graham-Rudman-Hillings phase, don’t expect to see such options, or much more importantly, significant efforts to create them. The conclusions of one scholarly article on Graham-Rudman-Hollings is worth thinking about:

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation has failed to control the budget deficit. However, the yearly ritual of preparing budgets that conform to the legislated requirements of this Act creates the illusion of deficit control and removes the incentive for developing real deficit controls.

It is great to argue that something should be done, but at some point the discussion has to be moved to what actions are worth doing and with what effects.

There is a common assumption that something can be done, that all that is needed is political will - the defeat of the bad fellows who are in governemnt now and their replacement with good guys. This is silly. Politics has nothing to do with this issue, it's a technological problem. We don't have a way to deal with the key issues. As Tyler put it:

I don't have a good plan for what to do. Imagine passing and extending Kyoto and turning 2/3 of the U.S. energy supply into nuclear, wind, and solar power. Heroic achievements, to be sure. But if China and India continue to industrialize, global warming will likely continue and perhaps accelerate, as I understand current knowledge.

Political will is irrelevant at best, but more likely destructive. Those seeking to advance themselves and their otherwise unrelated agenda using this wedge issue are low down varmints. But that's just another of those problems that we don't have a realistic solution for. An open season on them wouldn't help.