The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Energy]

Well well, look what the cat dragged in....

Since July 28, the U.S. Senate has held two hearings, and the White House has released a new report and a video spot. The central message is that delay in addressing climate change is dangerous.

As they say, caveat emptor—buyer beware.

The campaign’s centerpiece is a report from President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) warning that failure to act now would cost upwards of $150 billion annually, just for starters.


For one thing, the CEA imagines a world in which every country adopts an ideal set of policies that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost possible. Its report cites a large number of studies done by climate modelers along these lines.

The catch is that the people who do that computer modelling have been moving toward realization of how unrealistic and unhelpful those studies are.

This, if you recall, has been my argument all along.

Even if I give you the alleged impact of "climate change" and even if I give you that man is causing it, neither of which is supportable on the evidence at a level that withstands scientific scrutiny there is a final, functional and indisputable fact: The rest of the world will not go along because doing so means an end to their economic advancement.

It's not just advancement -- it's also cost.  As is noted in the cited article the CEA's "assumptions" include a belief that the governments and policies involved will be enacted at the lowest possible cost.  This is a fantasy; as I have pointed out repeatedly, including in my missive By The Numbers, if we cared about the "lowest possible cost" for anything in government we would have no poor people and you could pay cash for all of your medical expenses -- even, with very few exceptions, catastrophic events.

Instead we have a system that costs 10x what other, free-market systems cost for the same procedures among first-world nations, including those such as Japan.

At its core the facts are that the "damage" to US interests are likely to be minor or non-existent, even if the underlying precepts are correct, and I do not believe they are.  But if they turn out to be correct the best path of action is mitigation strategies in those parts of the world where impact would occur -- not only will that be more likely to succeed, since it doesn't depend on anyone other than those who choose to participate, it will be cheaper besides.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.