Talk:Economic analysis of climate change/Archive 1

Expansion request
This data seems relevant. It would be interesting to see something like Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif in this article, but without the controversial and potentially inaccurate future projections (and with data filled in for the missing years). -- Beland 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There very much needs to be more on negative externalities and tragedy of the commons and marginal private cost and marginal external cost. The style is poor and does not have much structure. May I suggest some social and private utility analysis with some references to tragedy of the commons?

An extraordinarily biased article?
I read through the page hoping to find a balanced number of arguments representing the possible hazards and benefits of global warming, but instead the page is just one long rant about how much worse everything will be. It is declared, with a single reference to a Social Democratic newspaper, that food production will go down. Incidentally, others, including professors at Stanford, have taken an opposing view.

I think that this page would benefit from being split into two parts for each area, namely the costs and the benefits. This would lead to a far more balanced article than the current one, which deserves a gigantic POV stamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.8.90 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that this article should have a balanced number of arguments representing the possible hazards and benefits of global warming is like suggesting that an article on the earth should have a balanced discussion about whether it is flat or not. Maybe the wikipedia article on pigs should have a balanced discussion about whether they fly or not... Woood (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're analogy is terrible. There have been studies that have shown that many of the "costs" of global warming have been exaggerated, or assume that people will just sit there and die in response to climate change (not changing their eating habits, no modernization of living standards). I've heard very few studies saying that the earth is flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.104.131 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased. It seems to be highly dependent on the IPCC as a source. Splitting into costs and benefits would be useful. J Bird (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I am by no means a climate change skeptic, I would say that there is too much reliance on the IPCC. Why aren't the opinions of non-affiliated economists given more prominance. As far as I am aware they do not by and large think that global warming is not a problem. However, many have alternative solutions to the problem. Inclusion of these figures would strengthen the case for intervention - as they would not be, as some see it, tarred by the IPCC brush Ralphmcd (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a heavy reliance of the article on the IPCC reports. I've used these reports since they are literature assessments, and have widespread political and scientific acceptance. Any criticism of the IPCC's work needs to be valid. In my view, it does not make sense to give consideration to unjustified criticisms of the IPCC. Enescot (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, there seems to be very little discussion of a carbon tax in the article (sorry if I missed it). I know there is a seperate page for this, but as far as I know a large selection of economists favour this to cap and trade Ralphmcd (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did remove some info from a previous revision on carbon taxes that explained their use in correcting externalities. At the time, this information seemed unnecessary since it was already covered in the carbon tax article. This also applies to the comparison of carbon taxes and permits (see carbon tax and carbon emission trading). The section in the economics of global warming article on "Paying for an international public good" does give a brief introduction to the idea of emissions trading. Enescot (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How does this make sense?
In the begining of the Mitigation section: "The sooner action must be taken, the shorter the period over which costs must be spread,..." Shouldn't this be: The sooner action takes place, the longer the period.... or possibly: The sooner the problem needs to be solved, the shorter the period ....

or is it just me? 130.225.79.64 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Wondering

And here's another, from Intro, para. 2: "McKibbin and Wilcoxen do not endorse GDP as a welfare measure." ???, tagged. Puzzled, Pete Tillman 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just discovered this page, and it strikes me it could be titled "McKibbin and Wilcoxen define the Economics of global warming" Yikes! It's all very well to have a scholarly source, but there are in fact more than two researchers discussing this important subject. I'll see what more I can turn up. I'm attending a graduate seminar on global warming and we've got a stack of assigned readings I can look through.Birdbrainscan 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cost of Reducing Fossil Fuel Use
I started editing and found it needed some better background to set up what the question is. I wrote some basic background, but I realize this is not sourced and could potentially be criticized as original (though I didn't think up any of this myself.) I'll have to get busy looking for sources. Obviously the big omission here is failing to mention the Stern Report - that's got to be added. Birdbrainscan 03:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong type of fork...
This is almost an exact copy of Effects of global warming. A lot of this stuff, like agriculture, migration, etc. shouldn't be in here. ~ UBeR 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. If I hear no objections, I would like to shrink the sections:Effects on agriculture, Water scarcity, Environmental, Northwest Passage, and eliminate Mountains, and Health. Then some of the other redundant sections can have the appropriate material redistributed. Hal peridol 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, does anyone have something that can replace the first graph?Hal peridol 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Stern, Figure 13.3,p261 - "Schematic representation of how to select a stabilisation level"? Woood (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stern is government propaganda, not a credible source. Rtol (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Predicatory article?
Do we realize that this long article contains no more than arguably unreliable predictions? Economists cant tell what's going to be tomorrow's overnight rate. Good economists ackowledge that economics should not be used as a predicatory science. The Stern Review has been ridiculed enough that even climate activists are hiding it. The title should be changed to something like "Economic theories of global warming effects" or something like that. Also, this article should be tagged as controversial or something. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The predictions are made by verifiable reliable sources and repeated here, not as original research. 75.18.208.222 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Birth Control
I've removed Birth Control from a list of possible mitigating factors. There is no citation to support it, and it doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant, at least, it shouldn't head the list. The number of humans on the planet is only a very indirect driver of global warming. Today, the vast bulk of CO2 emission is being emitted by the developed world, which make up only about 1/6 of the population of the planet. These countries also have (with a few exceptions, notably the US) sharply sub-replacement birth rates. The expected rise in future CO2 emissions will come from the economic development of the rest of us, especially in China and India. China also has a subreplacement birthrate due to its infamous one-child policy, but that hasn't stopped its CO2 emissions from rising rapidly along with its economy, nor even stopped its population from growing as lengthening life spans.

A glance at the wonderful Gapminder website will show that, except for the freakish exception of Saudi Arabia, countries with high CO2 emissions have low birth rates. The greatest birth rate is occurring in poor countries, largely in Africa, which are negligible contributors to global warming. For example, the CO2 emissions of Congo (population 52 million, fertility rate 6.7 births per woman) are comparable to those of New Brunswick, NJ, population 43,000. David s graff 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about birth contol in the developed world? Woood (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not important. If it has been discussed in reliable sources and deserves the weight, then mention it.  Yet, low birthrates and high emissions are both linked to high development.  Birth control has nothing to do with this, the demographic transition in the developed world occurred long before the invention of modern birth control when the only available methods of birth control were delayed marriage and abortion.  In this particular case think of it this way: high development contributes to high emissions (through industry) and to low birthrates (the opportunity costs for women of having kids is too high so they have fewer kids, Saudi Arabia is an exception, and thats fine since as we all know, women probably have less opportunities outside the house there.)  Brusegadi (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Extra image
I have added another image to the lead section of the article. This illustrates hoe Integrated Assessment Models so far have failed to take into account the higher possible values for climate sensitivity that are obtained from Global Climate Models (also from Palaeoclimate data). This can lead to underestimates of costs of climate change. This relates to the discussion in the section "Economic Impacts of Global Warming" on Weitzman's recent (2008) work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woood (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This figure is a downright lie and I removed it therefore. The figure suggests that no uncertainty analysis was ever performed with the DICE and FUND models before 2008. Nick Stern had better read: Nordhaus, W.D. (1994), Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change The MIT Press, Cambridge. Nordhaus, W.D. and J.G.Boyer (2000), Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England. Nordhaus, W.D. and D.Popp (1997), 'What is the Value of Scientific Knowledge? An Application to Global Warming Using the PRICE Model', Energy Journal, 18, (1), 1-45. Tol, R.S.J. (1999), 'The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions', Energy Journal, 20, (1), 61-81. Tol, R.S.J. (2003), 'Is the uncertainty about climate change too large for expected cost-benefit analysis?', Climatic Change, 56, 265-289. Rtol (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken link
Heads up on the cost distribution section, the link supplied is a 404: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/about/director/pubs/jeem2002.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.55.225 (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate change or global warming
This article discusses not only the increases in temperature that the world is likely to experience over the coming centuries (i.e. global warming), but also the related topic of climate change. Thus would it be appropriate to change the title to that effect. In any recent (i.e. since 2000) academic literature you read, climate change is used instead of global warming. In addition, Google Trends has more news articles talking about climate change than global warming. What are the arguments against making this change?

Niel.Bowerman (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved diagram
I've moved the diagram of aggregated damage impacts from the introduction into the body of the article. I think the diagram is better placed in the section of the article which discusses the Stern Review. Enescot (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Block quotes from IPCC report
I felt the introduction to the section on economic impacts needed to be changed. The IPCC report was cited, but because of how similar the article text was to the report (almost word-for-word), I felt that quotation marks were necessary:

Article:

"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of projected damages and benefits from climate change across the globe are now available. These are often expressed in terms of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the aggregate of future net benefits and costs, due to global warming from carbon dioxide emissions, that are discounted to the present. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, tCO2) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)[2]."

IPCC report:

"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe (i.e., the social cost of carbon (SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are discounted to the present) are now available. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide), but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350 per tonne of carbon (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide) [20.6]."

Enescot (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agriculture
I have deleted the paragraph below:

The impacts of climate change on agriculture are a mix of positive and negative effects. Higher temperatures will allow farmers to grow different crops. Rainfall will increase in some places at some times, but decrease in others. The negative effects of drought are mitigated by a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which will improve the water use efficiency of crops. As prices move in the opposite direction of yields, the market will dampen the impact of climate change on cropping patterns.

It is unsourced and, in my mind, biased.Enescot (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It may or may not be biased, but it would be better to change it or flag it as unsourced than to have deleted it. There is no doubt there would be some gross agricultural benefits from global warming, and the IPCC report 2007 acknowledges this. J Bird (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring and new 'Kyoto Protocol' section
I've revised this section:

'Benefits

Nordhaus and Boyer estimated that the present value of benefits from mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol would be $120 billion, far below the likely costs. "Other studies reach similar conclusions".[46] Richard Tol concludes that "the emissions targets agreed in the Kyoto Protocol are irreconcilable with economic rationality."

However, the Stern Review produced much larger benefit estimates, of between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of GDP. The difference reflected a number of factors, the most important of which were the choice of discount rate, the use of welfare weighting for effects on people in poor countries, a greater weight on damage to the natural environment and the use of more up-to-date scientific estimates of likely damage.'

I have two problems with the above revision. Firstly, the second paragraph does not logically follow the first. The Stern Review, as far as I can tell, did not do a cost-benefit analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. The Stern Review's CBA is not directly comparable to Nordhaus et al's criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

One other problem I have is that the description of the Stern Review is not sourced. For this reason, I have deleted some of the points made. I've revised this section under a new heading of 'The Kyoto Protocol' and moved some text to an earlier part of the article on the Stern Review. I have renamed the existing section on 'benefits' to 'co-benefits'. Enescot (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Environmental section revision
I've revised the section below:

'Environmental

Secondary evidence of global warming — reduced snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. [...]

Increasing carbon dioxide may increase ecosystems' productivity to a point. Ecosystems' unpredictable interactions with other aspects of climate change makes the possible environmental impact of this unclear, though. An increase in the total amount of biomass produced may not be necessarily positive: biodiversity can still decrease even though a relatively small number of species are flourishing.'

This is all unsourced, and in my view, biased. The descriptions are vague. I've revised this section in line with the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. I've deleted a large part of the text above.Enescot (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Forced "green" investment is an economic boon?
Maybe if you are a Keynesian this makes sense to you, but I fail to see how forced "green" investments are inherently a good thing. This article (under the section labeled "investment") seems to argue that the new infrastructure needs of a "green" economy will create jobs and therefore help offset the costs of the changes with the benefit of more jobs. I assume that is the crux of their argument, because they don't really expand on it. This is the fallacy that governments through regulation and subsidization can "create" jobs. If this were true, we would have achieved utopia a long time ago. Here is some empirical evidence that debunks the "green" job creation myth: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.104.131 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course corporations will actually love the new regulations and subsidies, as they will be the beneficiaries of a system based on force. Corporatism and big government go hand in hand, as during the era of regulated airline travel in the US created monolithic corporations with no fear of competition or strife. "Green" jobs are pork, and corporations are the main beneficiaries of pork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.104.131 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Impacts v mitigation
There's been a bit of edit warring going on between: The combined effects of global warming may impact particularly harshly on people and countries without the resources to mitigate those effects. This may slow economic development and poverty reduction, and make it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. and: The combined effects of global warming may slow economic development and poverty reduction, and make it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

The second formulation is more accurate.

There is no empirical support for a negative correlation between impacts of climate change and ability to pay for mitigation. Impacts are generally higher in poor countries, and abatement costs are generally lower there as well, but it is not clear how the latter relates to ability to pay.

Anyway, the comparison is false. Individual people and countries cannot significantly affect climate change, regardless of their ability to pay. Richard Tol (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats all very well as assertion, but it is not what the 2rd reference says - it goes quite specific in saying:
 * Poorer developing countries are most at risk since they are more reliant on agriculture, more vulnerable to coastal and water resource changes, and have less financial, technical and institutional capacity for ‘adaptation’.
 * That is basically the first part of the sentence which you state isn't supported. We have to keep to what the reliable sources say. (i haven't addressed the 2nd part - since you seem to agree on that one) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is simply a confusion between "mitigation" and "adaptation". In this literature, mitigation means emission reduction. Adaptation means reducing impacts by other means. Although adaptation mitigates the impacts, the word mitigation should be avoided as it is confusing. I edited the text. Richard Tol (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, i hadn't noticed the mitigate link, which does confuse the sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Insurance
The following paragraph has been deleted by probable socks of a banned editor, but it still (IMMO) is not adequately sourced or its relevance established. In fact, it has no present established sources, the AAIS link can be found at archive.org, but it cannot be verified whether it's the opinion of AAIS or of an individual. If an individual, his/her credentials need to be determined.

An industry very directly affected by the risks is the insurance industry; the number of major natural disasters has tripled since the 1960s, and insured losses increased fifteenfold in real terms (adjusted for inflation). According to one study, 35–40% of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related (ERM, 2002). Over the past three decades, the proportion of the global population affected by weather-related disasters has doubled in linear trend, rising from roughly 2% in 1975 to 4% in 2001 (ERM, 2002).

Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. This article is so bad, and some of its editors, that I have long given up trying to contribute. Richard Tol (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement is not helpful for improving the article. Please comment on content, not on the contributors.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I did some editing - not intended at all to be disruptive - prior to noticing this. Administrators, please revert these if they are viewed as disruptive, although please give some feedback to a recently-returned editor (me!) on why these changes are viewed as disruptive. (I don't argue at all with the general scientific consensus on the existence and costs of climate change, BTW.) Allens (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision of aggregate impacts
I've done a fairly extensive revision of the section on aggregate impacts, and made some other more minor changes. I've written a new description of aggregate impacts based on Smith et al. (2001), and moved several sub-sections to other parts of the article: These sub-sections do not deal with aggregate impacts but with cost-benefit assessments of climate policy. My ordering of the section on "Optimal strategies for mitigation" is chronological, and I've deleted the sub-section headings.
 * "Copenhagen Consensus" to "Optimal strategies for mitigation"
 * "Garnaut Climate Change Review" to "Optimal strategies for mitigation"
 * "Australian Treasury" to "Optimal strategies for mitigation"

I've completely rewritten the sub-section on "Criticism of aggregate costs" and renamed it "Advantages and disadvantages" (of aggregate analyses). I did this because I felt the previous revision was biased against aggregate analysis, and I've tried to rebalance this. My references are Smith et al. (2001) and Pearce (2003).

In my view, the article is currently too long (over 70 KB) so I've made some cuts. I've shortened down the quote from IPCC (2007) on aggregate impacts. The social cost of carbon estimates given in IPCC (2007) are contained in the carbon tax article, and I don't see the need in having them in this article as well. I've also shortened the description of the Stern Review, since this has an article devoted to it. Enescot (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks very reasonable now. Richard Tol (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of agriculture and deletion of insurance
Revision of agriculture and deletion of insurance

I've rewritten the section on agriculture and deleted the section on insurance. Here's the insurance section that I deleted:

"An industry very directly affected by the risks is the insurance industry; the number of major natural disasters has tripled since the 1960s, and insured losses increased fifteenfold in real terms (adjusted for inflation). According to one study, 35–40% of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related. Over the past three decades, the proportion of the global population affected by weather-related disasters 'has doubled in linear trend', rising from roughly 2% in 1975 to 4% in 2001."

"Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, said on 12 April 2007 that the threat of climate change must be an integral part of every company’s risk analysis. According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared 'Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now.' It noted that weather risks for households and property were already increasing by 2-4 % per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some."

"Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that 'the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends' could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike."

"In the United States, insurance losses have also greatly increased. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%. Gross increases are mostly attributed to increased population and property values in vulnerable coastal areas, though there was also an increase in frequency of weather-related events like heavy rainfalls since the 1950s"

This sub-section was in the section on economic impacts. I do not think this is an appropriate assessment of economic impacts. It is a general description, not specifically based on economics, and so I deleted it. The article is too long. If anyone wants to have a section on economic impacts on the insurance sector, it should, in my view, be much shorter (probably one or two sentences), and should be more specifically be based on economic analysis.

I've replaced the sub-section on insurance with a more general one, called "Industry, settlements, and society". It's based on a literature review by Wilbanks et al. (2007), and is specifically about economics.

In my revision of the sub-section on agriculture, I deleted the quote from IPCC (2007) and replaced it with information from a literature review by Schneider et al. (2007). The quote from IPCC (2007) was not specifically an economic assessment, but the new revision is. Enescot (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But surely its effects on insurance costs worldwide is a very notable economic impact that global warming is having, and will continue to have? How can it not be mentioned here? I think the section should be reinstated, improved, extended if necessary, and if it becomes too large for this article, moved to its own sub article with links from here. Removing it en bloc because it is too big and complex seems counter-productive. --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The original piece was mostly about insurance companies trying to sell insurance. Much better now. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nigelj,

No, I don't agree, but, of course, reinstate it if you want to. In my opinion, however, it is unjustified to have so much of the section on economic impacts devoted to such a small sector of the global economy. This is an article on the economics of global warming, therefore, in my view, it should concentrate on the largest impacts at the global scale.

I agree that it might be useful to have a separate article on the impacts of climate change on the insurance industry, but I think it could be improved – it does not answer questions like: At the moment, figures are given without sufficient context and are therefore not particularly informative. Enescot (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of the overall economic size of the sector, how will sector be affected by climate change? How does this compare with other difficulties that the sector faces? etc.

Deleted projections of climate change and rewrite
I've deleted some sections because I felt that they were fairly low quality. Also the article needs to be cut down substantially because it is still too long. I've added some new info based on literature reviews by Nicholls et al. (2007) and Mimura et al. (2007).

I deleted the section on climate change projections since it didn't have much information on economics. Emission scenarios do include some economic analysis, but the section, as it was, did not highlight this.

I've deleted the sections on "Water", "Migration" and the "Northwest Passage" and replaced them with new sections on "Regional impacts" and "Vulnerability". The previous section on Migration dealt with generally non-economic topics and did not, in my opinion, reference any particularly useful sources. There was a reference to economic impacts on small islands and I've covered this in the new section on regional impacts and vulnerability.

The section on the Northwest Passage, again, in my view, was not particularly informative, and rather biased. I've replaced this with a sub-section on "Coasts and low-lying areas". The benefits of climate change as set out in the Northwest Passage are given alongside the predicted negative impacts. Enescot (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good (wo)man. Keep at it. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and rewrite of several sections
I've deleted the sections on "Development", "Environmental impacts", and "Contamination by sector and cost of reducing fossil fuel use". I've expanded some other sections to compensate.

Development
In my opinion, the section on development was not very informative, at least in terms of an economic assessment. I've deleted it but have attempted to convey the same information in the section on "Vulnerability". In this section, I describe the vulnerability of developing countries to climate change based on Smith et al. (2001).

Environmental impacts
The previous section on "Environmental impacts" was, in my view, rather poor, and didn't explain why the citied impacts were important from an economics point-of-view. I deleted the section and briefly expanded the "Vulnerability" section to compensate.

Health
I've rewritten the section on "Health". Much of the previous information in this section was not specifically to do with economics. The bit that did deal with economics was rather biased. My new revision attempts to correct this problem.

Contamination by sector and cost of reducing fossil fuel use
I deleted the section on "Contamination by sector and cost of reducing fossil fuel use" and have expanded the "Mitigaton section on "Optimal strategies for mitigation" to compensate. A lot the information in the Contamination section was repeated elsewhere in the article, and so was unnecessary. Enescot (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Mitigation and adaptation
I've rewritten the intro to this section and renamed it "Climate policy". I deleted the section on the Kyoto Protocol because the article is too long. I've attempted to give a better description of cost-benefit analysis than was given in the previous revision. I've also written a list of arguments favouring modest and stringent near-term emissions abatement. Enescot (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of mitigation
I've restructured and rewritten the section on mitigation. I've deleted the sections on co-benefits, energy efficiency, and investment. I deleted these section because the article is too long, and I didn't think they were entirely necessary. I've rewritten the section on cost estimates for mitigation. Enescot (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, congratulations. Since 11th Jan, you have managed to get this article down from 71,989 to 37,652 bytes diff. At this rate, given another week, it'll be gone altogether. What's the plan you're working to? --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My plan has been to improve the article and reduce its size. I think 30 KB is a reasonable size to aim for. I still think that several sections of the article are poor, and I may delete them. Enescot (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "I deleted the section on the Kyoto Protocol because the article is too long" is a classic. A keeper. --TS 13:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted policy suggestions and expanded integrated assessment
I've expanded the section on integrated assessment, concentrating on marginal damage estimates and cost-benefit analysis. I think that this is more useful than a scattered and biased overview of climate policy, with no economic analysis. Enescot (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted some more sections
I've deleted the sections on "Cost distribution", "Inter-relationships between countries", and "Gradual change vs climate surprises". I've added new sections on regional aspects of mitigation, and equity of mitigation.

Cost distribution
I think this is now adequately covered in other sections. The issue of regressive carbon taxes is covered in more detail in the article on carbon taxes. This issue is hinted at in the section on emissions taxes – "Distributional and equity considerations usually result in differential tax rates for different sources".

Inter-relationships
This covered a distributional issue that is now described in the new section on equity. This particular distributional issue should not, in my view, take priority over other distributional issues. Because of the wide range of equity issues, which can't all be explained in this article, I've said "Unlike efficiency, there is no consensus view of how to assess the fairness of a particular climate policy".

Climate surprises
The issue raised is dealt with elsewhere:

"If a damage function is used that shows smooth and regular damages, e.g., a cubic function, the results suggest that emission abatement should be postponed. This is because the benefits of early abatement are outweighed by the benefits of investing in other areas that accelerate economic growth. This result can change if the damage function is changed to include the possibility of catastrophic climate change impacts."

Other changes
I've shortened down the further reading list and external links. Since this is a global issue, I don't see why there should be a bias towards US research institutions, so I've deleted these links. Enescot (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

what's going on?
This is now a horrendous article. It wasn't all that great before, but it has gone markedly downhill. Why are we allowing this wholesale revision of articles, taking them from mediocre, down to a level below.

Who thinks this is an actual improvement?-- SPhilbrick  T  20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Specifics:
 * Style - it now reads like a glorified outline, rather than English prose. This is progress?
 * Citation style - e.g. "Desanker et al. (2001:490)". I assume this style has a name, and some people like it. I hate it, and rarely see it in Wikipedia. We ought to be stamping it out, not encouraging it.  This is an encyclopedia for people, not a faux scientific journal.
 * "Social Cost" You can't just introduce terms of art, use them without definition or links to definition.
 * "Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand." Population, fine, but you imply, without even a reference, that increasing GDP per capita increases food consumption? And it's material? Not without a cite, you don't.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The contents of the article has greatly improved. If you do not like the style, you are free to improve it. Richard Tol (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first step to improving it is to revert to a version prior to the recent changes, but I'm not about to make such a drastic change without discussion here first. Apparently, others feel differently. Would you support such a reversion? If not, please explain why this version is better?-- SPhilbrick  T  18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stock and flow pollutants
I've reverted this change. The cited source uses the term "pollutant." The reader of the article may not know the difference between stock and flow pollutants. Enescot (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, you have no reference attached to the sentence with the word "pollutants". There is an earlier reference, but I only found one instance of the word "pollutants" in the reference, and it wasn't used in the context you used it. Please identify the specific page, as it is a long document, and not easy to search. I did not find the word "stock" in the reference. Did you mean that your phrasing of stock and flow comes from this references or someplace else? If this reference, please identify where. If elsewhere, please provide a reference. I agree that the reader may be interested in the difference, but your sentence doesn't explain it very well.


 * Please self-revert, until you can provide proper foundation for the sentence. This article is under a one revert rule, which means you were not supposed to make the change you made, but you can self-revert it. Provide proper support, post about it here and we can see it if should be restored.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you have no reference attached to the sentence with the word "pollutants"

I did not feel this was necessary. The beginning of the section states:

This section describes the science of climate change in relation to economics (Munasinghe et al., 1995:39-41)

You can read this as:

This section describes the science of climate change in relation to economics, and is based on a book chapter by Munasinghe et al. (1995:39-41)

'''There is an earlier reference, but I only found one instance of the word "pollutants" in the reference, and it wasn't used in the context you used it. Please identify the specific page, as it is a long document, and not easy to search'''

Page 39.

'''Please self-revert, until you can provide proper foundation for the sentence. This article is under a one revert rule, which means you were not supposed to make the change you made, but you can self-revert it. Provide proper support, post about it here and we can see it if should be restored.'''

With respect, I don't think your criticism has any basis, and I'm not going to revert the change I made. Enescot (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Munasinghe reference is stronger on the economics than it is on the climate science. The stock versus flow is a very minor comment in a long paper, purportedly to contrast this analysis to other environmental analyses (but even that comparison is poorly explained). The inclusion is this article is not warranted. At best, it is a poorly worded explanation of why we care more about the level of GHG than we do about the annual emissions, but is there anyone who didn't know this? You've introduced some terms of art, without explanation, in an attempt to explain an insignificant point no one needs explaining.
 * This is compounded by the incorrect use of the word pollutants. While it is in the paper, it is quite clear they are being very sloppy in their wording - they don't really care, as it doesn't affect the economics, but you've essentially excerpted the weak part of the paper, without getting at the good part of the paper. The authors actually conclude that CO2 is "the most important GHG]". Anyone who is paying attention knows better. While those who read the popular literature may similarly be mislead, anyone who does a little bit of reading, starting with Greenhouse gas, knows that water vapor is a far more significant contributor to warming. Nobody claims water vapor is a pollutant. So they refer to GHGs as pollutants, partly because they ignored the elephant in the room, but even there, they are mistaken. At the time this was written, CO2 wasn't considered a pollutant. (It shouldn't be now, but that's a different debate).
 * It seems clear the authors had some background in analyzing economic impact of other environmental pollutants, and came to this paper with the same mindset. I'll re-emphasize, their poor wording choice doesn't obviate their economic analysis, but just because a paper has decent economic analysis doesn't mean we should use it to quote obviously wrong facts.


 * In summary, the phrase "Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are stock pollutants" is literally false, in the reference to pollutants, and unimportant to the paper and to this article in the reference to "stocks". I think it should be removed, as it is both wrong and useless.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Food demand citation
''Land-use change: Land-use change plays an important role in climate change, impacting on emissions, sequestration and albedo. One of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand. Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.''

The source for this is stated in the introduction to the section:

Fisher et al. (2007:178-194) assessed the baseline scenarios literature [...] Enescot (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The link attached to Fisher (which, by the way, is no where near the claim) is to a general IPCC site: IPCC reports with dozens of hundred and thousand page reports. Please provide a more specific link. -- SPhilbrick  T  17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the reference. The sentence you added is a rewrite of this sentence:


 * Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.


 * That sentence is an inartful summary of the subsequent text:


 * Total world food consumption is expected to increase by over 50% by 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003). Moreover, economic growth is expected to generate significant structural change in consumption patterns, with diets shifting to include more livestock products and fewer staples such as roots and tubers.


 * In others words, the IPCC authors were making two different, and valid points. One, that population growth alone will drive up food demand and second, that economic growth will change the consumption patterns, with increased emphasis on (land intensive) meat. I agree with the IPCC points, but I don't think your summary captures the points. -- SPhilbrick  T  17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Drivers of food demand
I have restored the sentence I wrote - Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand. This sentence was deleted by SPhilbrickT. Here are the comments that SPhilbrickT made in his/her deletion of this sentence:

"Baseline scenarios: Removed, as this is (1) a poor summarization of the points made in the paper . See talk page. Feel free to add the point cirrectly, but this is misleading. (2) And you still need a proper reference, not a link to a general page"

(1) My use of the cited source is entirely appropriate. (2) The reference that I have provided is more than sufficient. Enescot (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is quite inappropriate. I removed some material and explained why, suggesting that some mention could be added if properly done. The sentence, as originally included, and as re-added by you, has an improper synthesis without proper foundation. You are welcome to argue why it might be acceptable, but simply restoring with the claim that it is supported is not the way we resolve issues. This is supposed to be a collaborative community.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply
As I understand you (SPhilbrick T):
 * you acknowledge that my edit is based on this sentence :

Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.


 * you are critical of the above sentence
 * you think that my edit inadequately summarizes this paragraph:

''Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption. Total world food consumption is expected to increase by over 50% by 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003). Moreover, economic growth is expected to generate significant structural change in consumption patterns, with diets shifting to include more livestock products and fewer staples such as roots and tubers. As a result, per person meat consumption is expected to show a strong global increase, in the order of 25% by 2030, with faster growth in developing and transitional countries of more than 40% and 30%, respectively (Bruinsma, 2003; Cassman et al., 2003). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) scenarios projected that global average meat consumption would increase from 36 kg/person in 1997 to 41–70 kg/person by 2050, with corresponding increases in overall food and livestock feed demands (Carpenter et al., 2005). Additional cropland is expected to be required to support these projected increases in demand. Beyond 2050, food demand is expected to level off with slow-down of population growth.''


 * because my edit does not adequately summarize this paragraph, you think that it is misleading
 * you think that I have improperly synthesized ideas.

Response to these points


 * you are critical of the above sentence [from Fisher et al]

While you are entitled to your own opinions on the Fisher et al source, this does not entitle you to delete reference in the article to parts of this source that you disagree with.


 * you think that my edit inadequately summarizes this paragraph [from Fisher et al]

My edit is not intended to summarize the entire paragraph. It is intended to provide a short explanation of the dominant drivers in land-use change. The fact that there is room for improvement in this regard does not entitle you to delete the initial attempt that I have made at a summary.


 * because my edit does not adequately summarize this paragraph, you think that it is misleading

I do not see how my edit is in any way misleading. The sentences of my edit in question are:

''One of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand. Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.''

these sentences are based on the sentence [from Fisher et al]:

Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

I think my edit is an accurate reflection of this sentence.


 * you think that I have improperly synthesized ideas [from Fisher et al].

I reject this claim. My edit is constructed as follows:

''(1) Land-use change plays an important role in climate change, impacting on emissions, sequestration and albedo. (2) One of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand. (3) Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.''

(1) is based on:

''(a) Understanding land-use and land-cover changes is crucial to understanding climate change. (b) Even if land activities are not considered as subject to mitigation policy, the impact of land-use change on emissions, sequestration, and albedo plays an important role in radiative forcing and the carbon cycle.''

(2) and (3) are based on:

(c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

Synthesis in the article:

(1) and (2):

Land-use change is explained to have an effect on the climate. A dominant driver in land-use change is then mentioned. (1) and (2) are related because they are both about land-use change. Land-use change in both sentences are used in the same context of climate change mitigation.

(2) and (3):

Sentence (2) is about a dominant driver in land use change (food demand). Sentence (3) is about dominant drivers in food demand (population and economic growth). In both sentences, land use change, food demand, and population and economic growth are all discussed in the context of climate change mitigation.

Synthesis in the source:

''(a) Understanding land-use and land-cover changes is crucial to understanding climate change. (b) Even if land activities are not considered as subject to mitigation policy, the impact of land-use change on emissions, sequestration, and albedo plays an important role in radiative forcing and the carbon cycle.''

[...] (c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

Sentences (a) and (b) follow one another in the source, as shown. Sentence (c) follows sentence (b) in the same section of the source, entitled "Land-use change and land-use management". Three paragraphs separate sentences (b) and (c):

''(i) Over the past several centuries, human intervention has markedly changed land surface characteristics, in particular through large-scale land conversion for cultivation (Vitousek et al., 1997). Land-cover changes have an impact on atmospheric composition and climate via two mechanisms: biogeophysical and biogeochemical. Biogeophysical mechanisms include the effects of changes in surface roughness, transpiration, and albedo that, over the past millennium, are thought to have had a global cooling effect (Brovkin et al., 1999). Biogeochemical effects result from direct emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere from deforestation. Cumulative emissions from historical land-cover conversion for the period 1920–1992 have been estimated to be between 206 and 333 Pg CO2 (McGuire et al., 2001), and as much as 572 Pg CO2 for the entire industrial period 1850–2000, roughly one-third of total anthropogenic carbon emissions over this period (Houghton, 2003). In addition, land management activities (e.g. cropland fertilization and water management, manure management and forest rotation lengths) also affect land-based emissions of CO2 and non-CO2 GHGs, where agricultural land management activities are estimated to be responsible for the majority of global anthropogenic methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For example, USEPA (2006a) estimated that agricultural activities were responsible for approximately 52% and 84% of global anthropogenic CH4 or N2O emissions respectively in the year 2000, with a net contribution from non-CO2 GHGs of 14% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in that year.''

''(ii) Projected changes in land use were not explicitly represented in carbon cycle studies until recently. Previous studies into the effects of future land-use changes on the global carbon cycle employed trend extrapolations (Cramer et al., 2004), extreme assumptions about future land-use changes (House et al., 2002), or derived trends of land-use change from the SRES storylines (Levy et al., 2004). However, recent studies (e.g. Brovkin et al., 2006; Matthews et al., 2003; Gitz and Ciais, 2004) have shown that land use, as well as feedbacks in the society-biosphere-atmosphere system (e.g. Strengers et al., 2004), must be considered in order to achieve realistic estimates of the future development of the carbon cycle; thereby providing further motivation for ongoing development to explicitly model land and land-use drivers in global integrated assessment and climate economic frameworks. For example, in a model comparison study of six climate models of intermediate complexity, Brovkin et al. (2006) concluded that land-use changes contributed to a decrease in global mean annual temperature in the range of 0.13–0.25°C, mainly during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, which is in line with conclusions from other studies, such as Matthews et al. (2003).''

''(iii) In general, land-use drivers influence either the demand for land-based products and services (e.g. food, timber, bio-energy crops, and ecosystem services) or land-use production possibilities and opportunity costs (e.g. yield-improving technologies, temperature and precipitation changes, and CO2 fertilization). Non-market values – both use and non-use such as environmental services and species existence values respectively – will also shape land-use outcomes.''

Comparison of synthesis in edit and the synthesis in the source:

Similarities:
 * They both follow the same structuring of ideas:
 * (a) and (b) are associated with (1)
 * (c) is associated with (2) and (3)

Differences:
 * There is a separation between sentence (b) and (c) in the source, but there is no separation between sentence (1) (associated with (a) and (b)) and sentence (2) (associated with sentence (c)).

Does the difference in the syntheses of my edit and the source represent an improper synthesis?

That depends on how important the omission of paragraphs (i)-(iii) are from the article. In my opinion, omission of summaries of these paragraphs does not make the synthesis of sentences (1) and (2) problematic. I say this because the basis of sentences (2) and (3) is a sentence that appears to be independent statement, which is sentence (c):

(c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

In my opinion, the independence of this sentence lies in its unambiguous nature. It is phrased as a statement, without any caveats being used:

(c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

In my opinion, this sentence is "free-standing". It can be paraphrased without any possibility of misrepresenting any aspect of the source on which it is based. This depends on an accurate paraphrasing of the sentence, which is what I attempted when I wrote sentences (2) and (3):

''(2) One of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand. (3) Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.''

These sentences are based on sentence (c):

(c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.

Comparison

Similarities:
 * Both say that food demand is a dominant driver of land-use change
 * Both say that population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand

Differences:
 * The information in sentence (c) is contained within one sentence. The information used from sentence (c) is spread between two sentences in the article (sentences (2) and (3)). Sentence (2) states that:

one of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand

whereas sentence (c) states:

Food demand is a dominant land-use driver

Sentence (3) states that:

Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.

sentence (c) states that:

population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption

In my opinion, these differences are not significant, and my paraphrasing is sufficiently accurate.

Does the omission of information contained within the paragraph which sentence (c) is part of result in sentence (3) being misleading?

No, in my opinion. Let's review the paragraph that sentence (c) is part of. I have broken down each sentence of the paragraph into individual lines for clarity:


 * (c) Food demand is a dominant land-use driver, and population and economic growth are the most significant food demand drivers through per person consumption.
 * (d) Total world food consumption is expected to increase by over 50% by 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003).
 * (e) Moreover, economic growth is expected to generate significant structural change in consumption patterns, with diets shifting to include more livestock products and fewer staples such as roots and tubers.
 * (f) As a result, per person meat consumption is expected to show a strong global increase, in the order of 25% by 2030, with faster growth in developing and transitional countries of more than 40% and 30%, respectively (Bruinsma, 2003; Cassman et al., 2003).
 * (g) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) scenarios projected that global average meat consumption would increase from 36 kg/person in 1997 to 41–70 kg/person by 2050, with corresponding increases in overall food and livestock feed demands (Carpenter et al., 2005).
 * (h) Additional cropland is expected to be required to support these projected increases in demand.
 * (i) Beyond 2050, food demand is expected to level off with slow-down of population growth.

Summary of each sentence, its relationship with sentence (c), and a comment on whether the omission of the sentence in question ((d) to (i)) undermines the independent referencing of sentence (c) by sentences (2) and (3):

Sentence (d)

(d) Total world food consumption is expected to increase by over 50% by 2030 (Bruinsma, 2003).

- is a projection of total food consumption.

(c) and (d)

(c) refers to economic and population growth being significant drivers of food demand through per person consumption. (d) is a projection of total food consumption. Both sentences are at least in part related to food.

Omission of reference to sentence (d) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (d) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Sentence (e)

(e) Moreover, economic growth is expected to generate significant structural change in consumption patterns, with diets shifting to include more livestock products and fewer staples such as roots and tubers.

- Economic growth is expected to alter food consumption patterns.

Omission of reference to sentence (e) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (e) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Sentence (f)

As a result, per person meat consumption is expected to show a strong global increase, in the order of 25% by 2030, with faster growth in developing and transitional countries of more than 40% and 30%, respectively (Bruinsma, 2003; Cassman et al., 2003).

- Meat consumption is projected to increase.

Omission of reference to sentence (f) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (f) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Sentence (g)

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) scenarios projected that global average meat consumption would increase from 36 kg/person in 1997 to 41–70 kg/person by 2050, with corresponding increases in overall food and livestock feed demands (Carpenter et al., 2005).

- meat consumption will drive up food and livestock feed demands

Omission of reference to sentence (g) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (g) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Sentence (h)

Additional cropland is expected to be required to support these projected increases in demand.

- More cropland will be required to support increased food and livestock feed demands

Omission of reference to sentence (h) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (g) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Sentence (i)

Beyond 2050, food demand is expected to level off with slow-down of population growth.

- Following 2050, food demand is expected to level off with a slow-down in population growth.

Omission of reference to sentence (i) in the article:

I do not see how not mentioning sentence (g) in the article undermines the case for the paraphrasing of sentence (c) (in sentences (2) and (3)).

Overall comments on sentence (c) and its relation with sentences (d)-(i)

Sentences (d) and (i) explain projections of food demand, economic and population growth. These sentences are related to sentence (c) but their omission from the article does not prevent sentence (c) being paraphrased on its own.

Additional checks

Is there any information that contradicts sentence (c)?

I do not know the answer to this question, and I do not see it as my responsibility to check. If other editors find contradictory information, they can add it to the article. Finding contradictory information, however, does not justify the deletion of sentences (2) and (3), which are based on sentence (c). Rather, any contradictory information should be added so that it supplements sentences (2) and (3). For example:

''(2) One of the dominant drivers in land-use change is food demand. (3) According to Fisher et al (2007), population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand. Author (date), however, disputes this [...]''

Does the information contained in Fisher et al contradict sentence (c), and therefore make its independent paraphrasing misleading?

This was asserted you (SPhilbrick T). I can find no evidence to substantiate this claim. However, I could be wrong, since I haven't read the entire assessment by Fisher et al. Again, I do not see this as my responsibility. However, if any editors think that my paraphrasing of sentence (c) is misleading, they should add to the article. I do not accept that any editors are entitled to delete sentence (3), which is based on sentence (c). As I have already stated, I think that my paraphrasing of sentence (c) is adequate. I also think that I have constructed a paragraph containing my paraphrased sentence that is also adequate.

Summary and conclusions


 * Point 1. I reject the view that I have produced an edit that improperly synthesizes ideas.
 * Point 2. I reject the view that I have produced an edit that is misleading.
 * Point 3. I reject the view that criticism of the source material (Fisher et al) justifies the deletion of my edit.

Points 1 and 2:

I have explained the way in which I constructed the edit that is in dispute. I think that my edit closely follows the source material. I have not synthesized information improperly. The changes that I have made are to dispense with information that I feel is of less importance than other information. I have done this in full regard as to the importance of the information I am using. In other words, I have assessed the statements that I have paraphrased, and in my interpretation, these statements can be paraphrased independently of other statements in way that is fair and balanced. Central to my argument is the correct use of sentence (c), which is paraphrased in the article in sentences (2) and (3). My interpretation of sentence (c) is that it is free-standing, in that it can be separately paraphrased with the exclusion of sentences (d)-(i), without its (sentence (c)'s) paraphrasing being misleading.

Point 3:

Criticism of the source I have used, in my opinion, does not justify the deletion of information in the article based on that source. Firstly, the Fisher et al is an expert literature assessment that has been published and peer-reviewed. This underlying strength of the source I have used means that I do not think that statements made in the article based on the source can be removed without proper justification. By "proper justification", I interpret this as meaning that I have in some way misused the Fisher et al source. As I have already stated, this is an accusation that I completely reject.

You (SPhilbrick T) have criticized sentence (c) of the source on which I based sentences (2) and (3) contained in the article. You have described sentence (c) as an "inartful summary of the subsequent text". This may be your own opinion, but this opinion does not undermine the reliability of the source in question, and consequently, it cannot be used as a justification in removing sentence (3). If you do not agree with sentence (c) as contained in the source, you should cite a source that directly contradicts or challenges the assertion made by Fisher et al in sentence (c). A personal analysis of Fisher et al by you (SPhilbrick T) is, in my opinion, not sufficient, since it is original research. I stress that the source challenging sentence (c) would need to directly challenge the source or argument in question. It is not adequate for you to cite a particular source in your own argument challenging sentence (c). This would be no different to the analysis that you have already presented, which in my view, constitutes original research (i.e., your analysis of Fisher et al that led you to conclude that sentence (c) was an "inartful summary of the subsequent text").

I am not an expert in the area of climate change mitigation, therefore I need to see an independent analysis, from a reliable source, to back up your criticism of sentence (c). This would provide you with a basis on which to challenge sentence (c). By "challenge", I do not mean that in the sense of sentence (3) (which is based on sentence (c)) being deleted. I mean it in the sense of the article being supplemented with more information, e.g.,

''(3) According to Fisher et al, population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand. However, author (date) challenged this view etc''

Enescot (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Prose template addition
I added a couple of templates. This article has been converted from the desired prose format to a collection of lists. It reads more like an outline of a proposed paper than an actual article. While the prior version wasn't exactly FA material, this is a step back. I think the best way to improve this article is to restore the older version, and work on improving that one. This version has too many problems to serve as a starting point.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I accept that a prose version of the article might be more encyclopedic, but the existing structure allows a lot of information to be covered efficiently. I don't agree that the old version of the article should be restored. As I've explained in previous posts, I think that the earlier version, as of pre-2010, had many problems:
 * Cost-benefit analysis, which is a central part of the economics of climate change, was not adequately explained.
 * There was very little, if any, information on adaptation and developing scenarios.
 * The description of the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate and biased.
 * Much of section on mitigation was fragmented, with arbitrarily cited papers being used to make specific, rather than generalized, points.
 * Some of the article was irrelevant and not based on economic analysis, e.g., the previous sections on insurance, health, and ecosystem impacts. These topics are now part of other articles where their inclusion is more appropriate – climate change and ecosystems and climate change, industry and society.
 * Some of the article was just direct quotes from various sources.


 * I'm uncertain as to what the criticism of the article being like a "proposed paper" is supposed to mean. Admittedly the style is like a review, with very little in the way of direct, unattributed, statements. I've used this style because this is a controversial topic, and content is open to challenge. It therefore makes sense to maintain a distance between my own views and the source's views, as is suggested by the style "According to source 1..." etc. This is also useful from the perspective of confidence statements, which have to be directly attributed to a source, e.g., "Source 1 concluded, with medium confidence, that...". Enescot (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stern's SCC estimate and World Bank (2010)
I've rewritten the bit on the Stern v. Nordhaus assumptions. I think I was wrong to interpret Stern's SCC estimate as being interchangeable with a CBA. I see now that the World Bank were referring to a study where Stern's assumptions were used to produce an optimal concentration target. This is different to the SCC estimate cited by Fisher et al, which is, I believe, for a "business-as-usual" emissions path. This is not consistent with the rest of this section, which deals with finding an "optimum" emissions path. Enescot (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in impacts section
I've corrected a mistake I made in the impacts section. The previous revision gave GDP impact estimates measured against temperature increases by the year 2100, i.e.,:

[…] a small increase in global mean temperature (up to 2 °C by 2100, measured against 1990 levels) would result in net negative market sector impacts […]

This reference to the year 2100 is a mistake. In fact, the temperature increases are not given as occurring by a particular date. In other words, the stated GDP impact estimates do not take into account differences in the rate of future warming.

I've added reference to the SRES projections used by IPCC (2001). I think it helps to give some kind of reference as to what future temperature changes might be. Enescot (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Shortened and moved section on financing climate change mitigation
I've shortened the section on financing climate change mitigation. It's now contained in the mitigation section of the article. The full section is contained in the economics of climate change mitigation article. Since I had trouble verifying some minor parts of the section, I've revised it slightly and added new references. Enescot (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of per capita emissions?
I requested clarification a while back on why per-capita emissions were of interest (Emissions section), particularly for an economics article. I haven't seen any explanation of this; I would like to open a discussion of deleting references to per-capita emissions. Allens (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed your tag. For the help of other editors, here it is in braces:


 * Two-thirds to three-quarters of the increase in CO2 emissions are projected to come from developing countries, although the average per capita CO2 emissions in developing country regions will remain substantially lower than those in developed country regions.


 * I've added some information on equity issues relating to emissions which I think addresses this question. Clearly important sources do discuss this issue, see Banuri et al (1996 and 2001) for example. This issue is also discussed in other wikipedia articles. Enescot (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acknowledging that this is a matter of viewpoints ("equity" is a matter of viewpoints - "fairness" - since I'm pretty sure that you're not talking about financial equity...). I trust that you've made clear in the article that this is the viewpoint of those sources, not of the article? I'll be working myself on adding sources mentioning overpopulation in less-developed countries such as India (emissions/population is decreased by overpopulation), and on sources for lower GDP-per-emission in such countries. The combination of your and my efforts should help make the article more balanced. (What are the other articles in question, so that I can likewise try to help make sure they're balanced? Thank you.) Allens (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. In this article, I've tried to clearly attribute all analysis which involves either implicit or explicit value judgements. The articles linked-to in the section on equity and emissions contain information relating to equity and emissions. Enescot (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniform carbon tax
I've removed the sentence in braces below


 * A carbon tax would impose different burdens on countries due to existing differences in tax structures, resource endowments, and development. {Whether these differing burdens are a good idea is a matter of debate.}

It, unlike the rest of the section ("Paying for an international public good"), is not sourced, and also doesn't provide much in the way of analysis. Enescot (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource

 * But Will the Planet Notice?: How Smart Economics Can Save the World by Gernot Wagner publisher Hill and Wang (September 27, 2011) ISBN-13: 978-0809052073

99.190.87.173 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

IPCC citations
I'm thinking of changing the IPCC citations in this article. A description of the change I intend to make is on Effects of global warming, and more detailed info is available on Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/citation. Basically the change would make it quicker and easier to cite the IPCC reports, since a lot of repetitive information contained in the citations would be removed. I'd probably make the changes gradually, and not change all the IPCC citations at once. Enescot (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource Renewable Power trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-25/fossil-fuels-beaten-by-renewables-for-first-time-as-climate-talks-founder.html Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales November 25, 2011; excerpt ...

99.181.134.37 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of subsidies and funds
Although the article mentions the use of subsidies to promote CO2 emissions control, it fails to mention an issue which concerns both camps in the AGW debate, namely that of misapplication and abuse of subsidies. One of the key objections to climate control measures in the UK (apart from the obvious one, that the science is inconclusive) has been the subsidizing of loss-leader projects and industries which (according to some sources) do little or nothing to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, which have doubtful economic or social value, and which could not continue to exist without ongoing heavy subsidy. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

A question which could also be raised is as to how much funding is being diverted away from other potentially beneficial environmental and scientific work into CO2-related projects. It is hard to gather any information on this aspect, but the suspicion must exist that it is so. For example, if it were not for the panic to develop carbon capture technology, would greater funds be available for fusion and photovoltaic R&D? --Anteaus (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource
Thanksgiving News Flash: Things Are Getting Better! by John Horgan Scientific American November 22, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, but I missed the relevance to this article. I didn't see an reference to global warming. Did I miss it?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential resource

 * Scientists Challenging Climate Science Appear to Flunk Climate Economics by Andrew C. Revkin in NYT January 30, 2012, from Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. 99.35.12.74 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good article and relevant. However, at present, the article is in poor shape, and I see many pressing issues that should be addressed first. If some of the economic gibberish is improved, it might then be appropriate to see if this link can be incorporated.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Spacing with degree symbol
I removed the spaces (normal and nbsp) before the degree symbol. This is normal American usage for both scientific and non-scientific texts, recommended by the University of Chicago Press and Oxford University Press. And I thought it was required by this, from the MOS: "The percent sign, and units of degrees, minutes, and seconds for angles and coordinates, are unspaced." However, I then came across this discussion from 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_25), which points out that several scientific style guides require a space before the symbol. Looking at the MOS, the prescription is not as unambiguous as I thought. It might be interpreted as being about coordinates and saying nothing about temperatures. So it seems that this question has still not been settled. If someone wants to revert my edit and restore the spaces I won't object, even though I still think it will look odd to 99% of American readers. It would be helpful if the MOS could come up with a more explicit rule for temperatures. Margin1522 (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, looks like I didn't read far enough. The MOS does recommend "but 18 °C for a temperature". So I am going to revert my own edit and restore the spaces. I still think it looks odd. Any comments? Margin1522 (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it :) Doesn't look odd to me. Vsmith (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis
The section claims that the monetary metric is willingness to pay, as opposed to net present monetary values. The two are not, in general, close to each other. The notion of using "willingness to pay" is an interesting concept, but it is not the canonical use (if Cost–benefit analysis is accurate), so some justification, and a reference is needed. If one is found, then the claim that it is "standard" should be changed. More likely, it is simply a mistake to claim that the CBA should be using "willingness to pay".-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I will change the metric to the more usual net present value.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a mistake - I've added the appropriate references to a reliable source, and revised the section.


 * I'm not sure what your argument is. In CBA where WTP is used, usually everything is still aggregated into a monetary value, with risk accounted for using certainty equivalents, which is then discounted to produce present values.


 * You state that "The section claims that the monetary metric is willingness to pay, as opposed to net present monetary values. The two are not, in general, close to each other." What are you comparing WTP-derived valuations with? Enescot (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation style
As detailed in the Citation style tag, there should be a consistent style. There doesn't seem to be a predominant style, so I'm starting the discussion on what style to use. – Temporal User (Talk) 08:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Over the last year, I have been gradually revising the citations in this article. I think the harvnb template works well, e.g., see effects of global warming. I find revising citations very tedious, so I've broken up the workload. Enescot (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Kaya identity
I see some issues with the Kaya identity. I tried accessing the original book, but was unable to, so I hope someone with access to the book can contribute.

Editorial
 * why is the identity split out on two lines? (I tried to fix it and failed)
 * While I appreciate that it is an identity, which explains why the identity symbol is used, I have seen the identity included in several sources with an equals symbol. Don't we need at least one reference using the identity symbol to avoid OR?
 * The article Kaya identity expresses the identity using LaTeX and a different set of symbols. Unless someone articulates a good reason for a different presentation, the presentation should be the same.

Content
 * This identity has four factors, but the identity in the IPCC has three. Which is the preferred version?
 * The IPCC identity refers to GHG, while this page uses . I understand that is sometimes used as a placeholder for GHG, but that doesn't mean we can be so cavalier. My guess is that the original talks about GHG or emissions, not  -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had no difficulty accessing the cited sources . The publications are also available commercially


 * These issues are explained in the cited sources. The use of the Kaya identity in this article exactly follows its use in the cited source (Stern, 2006). I checked Kaya identity. Indeed, it presents the identity using LaTeX, but its content is the same as here, apart from the use of an equals sign instead of an equivalent sign. The cited source uses an equivalent sign. I don't see this as a major issue, either sign appears acceptable.


 * You are incorrect about the cited source referring to GHGs (presumably individually or aggregated to CO2-eq) rather than to CO2 only. There is nothing "cavalier" about using the Kaya identity to express changes in CO2 rather than CO2-eq. The two uses (three components or four) depends on what analysis is being presented. Decomposing into four components allows carbon intensity per unit of energy use to be distinguished from energy intensity of GDP. This is entirely consistent with the use of the Kaya identity in the IPCC report . Enescot (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote from IPCC


 * The reason can be illustrated by using the Kaya identity, which decomposes the emissions as follows:
 * GHG = Population x GDP per person x Emissions per GDP
 * or: (graphic not reproduced)
 * where GHG stands for greenhouse gas emissions, GDP stands for economic output, and POP stands for population size.
 * Why do you claim it doesn't use GHG?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that the IPCC report only refers to the 4-component, CO2-only Kaya identity. The IPCC report refers both to the identity that is cited in the article and the identity which you have cited – see the link that I cited previously, or page 66 (PDF numbering) of this report. Enescot (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

New Climate Economy Report
I noticed an IP user tried to add and  but was reverted for "probable block evasion". I would like to know what editors think of those sources. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first is essentially self-published, and I doubt they are considered "experts" in all the relevant fields, which is what would be required for it to be a WP:RS. The second source from the NYT notes the first one, so the first may be significant, but not reliable.  Unless The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate can be considered a reliable source in itself, which seems unlikely, its publication can only be used for proof of its (the publication's) existence. not for any proof of accuracy.  I do believe that the NYT source alone could be used to source the statement that "A report has asserted that the costs of mitigation may be less than the costs caused by the effects." in the body; it's not definitive enough to support the statement in the lead.  The IPCC reports have been considered reliable, even though there are few, if any, economic experts involved in writing the reports.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the costs of mitigation are greater than the costs caused by the effects? There are plenty of high-quality sources on the question. E.g. described at . EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's an error on my part; that wasn't what the added unreliable source said. The statement actually added was unsourced and tangential, to a lead which is already too long, per WP:LEAD.  If a reliable source could be found, it could be added to the body.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The best-cited MEDRS-class sources on the subject,, , , and , are all in agreement that the strictly financial benefits of transition to sustainable energy outweigh the costs, without regard to years of productive life lost, which is currently somewhere around 11 million per year primarily due to drought- and flood-related communicable tropical disease transmission rates. EllenCT (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Impacts section
I'm thinking of revising economics of global warming. In my opinion, the main problem with this section is that it does not discuss non-monetized impacts. A risk-based approach would account for the full range of climate change impacts. This is relevant to the article, since a broad understanding of climate change impacts is necessary when making policy decisions. There's already an article on the effects of global warming, so it's probably only necessary to present a brief summary of the most important risks and benefits of climate change.

The section's coverage of monetized impacts should be revised in view of more recent studies.

References:


 * Jacoby, H.D. Informing Climate Policy Given Incommensurable Benefits Estimates
 * Jones, R.N. (2004) Managing Climate Change Risks
 * , p. 23. Paper website at the American Economic Association.
 * . Link to workshop.

Enescot (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * did you do that? EllenCT (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not sure I understand your question. What am I supposed to have done? Thanks. Enescot (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * revising the Impacts section, as you said you were thinking of at the beginning of this section? EllenCT (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on a draft revision of economics of global warming. Enescot (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction not too long
I tried to find discussion about too long introduction here, but failed. I am removing the "too long" tag then, given the size of the article.Zezen (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Lange's comment on this article
Dr. Lange has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

""If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is necessary to assign weights to particular individuals"

I would suggest: "If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is possible to remedy this by assigning weights to particular individual's loss or gain and re-calculate net present value"

"Policies National Both climate and non-climate policies can affect emissions growth. Non-climate policies that can affect emissions are listed below (Bashmakov et al., 2001:409-410):[107]

Market-orientated reforms can have important impacts on energy use, energy efficiency, and therefore GHG emissions. Price and subsidy policies: Many countries provide subsidies for activities that impact emissions, e.g., subsidies in the agriculture and energy sectors, and indirect subsidies for transport. Market liberalization: Restructuring of energy markets has occurred in several countries and regions. These policies have mainly been designed to increase competition in the market, but they can have a significant impact on emissions."

This sub-section is heavily referenced to an article from 2001 that seems to be concerned about market-based reforms to regulation that had been centered around the state. My concern is that it ignores that any reforms to human systems will impact energy use and efficiency, regardless of whether they are market-based or not. Both market and non-market reforms can increase or decrease energy use and efficiency. For example, many studies (such as Fischer-Vanden et al, Resource and Energy Economics 26(1), 2004) have found the the move to market-based systems in the Chinese economy was a factor in the decline in energy intensity per GDP during the late 1990s and early 2000. In short, this part seems biased against market reforms because of the manner in which the word "market" is used."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Lange has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference 1: Lange, Ian & Polborn, Sarah, 2012. "Can lobbying encourage abatement? Designing a new policy instrument," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-03, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.


 * Reference 2: Lange, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2006. "On the Importance of Equity in International Climate Policy: An Empirical Analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-42, ZEW - Zentrum fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson's comment on this article
Dr. Peterson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Ok, but partly outdated (e.g. section on global future Scenarios,Emission projections, regions, national policy, major reports (e.g. not the latest IPCC Reports)"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Peterson has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Matthias Weitzel & Michael Hubler & Sonja Peterson, 2012. "Fair, Optimal or Detrimental? Environmental vs. Strategic Use of Border Carbon Adjustment," Kiel Working Papers 1792, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Bosetti's comment on this article
Dr. Bosetti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"1) When talking about scenarios no references to shared socio economic scenarios, SSPs which are the asis of this science today. SRES are long gone. 2) The distinction between emission scenarios and global future scenarios is unclear and, possibly, inappropriate 3) The latest key references for emissions is the WGIII 5th AR of the IPCC. Sres are in the past. The figure on projected total CO2 is from 2000! 4) temperature and concentration also refer way too old science. 5) This is a wiki entry that is unorganize and the reader gets lost before understanding what is the point.

Reference: Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environmental Change (2016)."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Bosetti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Massetti, Emanuele & Tavoni, Massimo, 2012. "Incentives and Stability Of International Climate Coalitions: An Integrated Assessment," CEPR Discussion Papers 8821, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Economics of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316140445/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/azar_1998_four_crucial_issues.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/azar_1998_four_crucial_issues.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr?url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
 * Added tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economics of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503041746/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-j-p.html to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-j-p.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Economics of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111115828/http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf to http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160513232928/http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf to http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160513232948/http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012/ to http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072334/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/26/34258255.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/26/34258255.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515193620/http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/gheal/EnvironmentalEconomicsPapers/NBER%20Climate%20paper%2090198-w13927.pdf to http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/gheal/EnvironmentalEconomicsPapers/NBER%20Climate%20paper%2090198-w13927.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410171605/http://go.worldbank.org/BKLQ9DSDU0 to http://go.worldbank.org/BKLQ9DSDU0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721015616/http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/GarnautClimateChangeReview-DraftReport-Ch1andPrelim/%24File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Draft%20Report%20-%20Ch%201%20and%20Prelim.pdf to http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/GarnautClimateChangeReview-DraftReport-Ch1andPrelim/%24File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Draft%20Report%20-%20Ch%201%20and%20Prelim.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213183842/http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm to http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Appalling
This article is appallingly bad William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not least because it is doing a poor job of distinguishing Pol and Econ. This is the Econ article; Politics of global warming is the Pol one William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of taking up the challenge of improving the article. Have demoted it to C-class and changed importance to high. Hope other people will have time to help. Femkemilene (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to find a calculation of fossil fuel phase out air pollution co-benefits?
As you can see I have added the following: "it has been estimated that 3.5 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution from fossil fuels. According to Professor Sir Andy Haines at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine the health benefits of phasing out fossil fuels measured in money (estimated by economists using the value of life for each country) are substantially more than the cost of achieving the 2 degree C goal of the Paris Agreement. "

The problem is that I am not an economist and cannot find the calculation in the paper at https://www.pnas.org/content/116/15/7192 Have I just not looked hard enough - is it there? If not does anyone know where there is a calculation? Presumably one would have to multiply the value of life for each country by the number of deaths for each country by year and sum to get a figure for each year then graph this over time. I see a spreadsheet of the number of deaths by country but no monetary figures. Also where is the estimate of the cost of fossil fuel phase out by year to which any graph above should be compared? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Found a better cite at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/276405/9789241514972-eng.pdf?ua=1 but if anyone has more details it would be good to know.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Source
Hello, I'm an editor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. We published an article on climate change and central banks in our economics magazine, Econ Focus. I hope it's appropriate to note it here in case it may be helpful.

"Central Banks and Climate Risks," Econ Focus, Second/Third Quarter 2019. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2019/q2-3/feature1 RichmondFedEditor (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)