In the model, different policies are evaluated on the basis of their contribution to economic welfare (or more precisely, consumption) of different generations.

The next three equations, (A.7) through (A.9), are standard accounting
equations that include the definition of consumption, per capita consumption,
and the capital balance equation.

(A.7) Q(t) = C(t)+ I(t)
(A.8) c(t) = C(t)/L(t)
(A.9) 1 K K(t)=I(t)−δ K(t− )

c(t) = per capita consumption of goods and services (2005 U.S. dollars per person)
C(t) = consumption of goods and services (trillions of 2005 U.S. dollars)
I(t) = investment (trillions of 2005 U.S. dollars)
K(t) = capital stock (trillions of 2005 U.S. dollars)
L(t) = population and proportional to labor inputs (millions)
Q(t) = net output of goods and services, net of abatement and damages (trillions of 2005 U.S. dollars)

According to the model per capita consumption in 2005 was $6620 (2005 USD).
Since you are so wise and all of us who disagree with you are so idiotic, perhaps you could enlighten us unwashed masses as the the value
the DICE model give to additional deaths? to increased levels of disease? to refugee crises? to the loss of low lying cities and nations? to lost environments? to lost species?

did you skip all economics courses when in college or something?

I probably took about as many econ courses as you took science courses.

Again,

Note that the economic optimum places no intrinsic value on climate stability or other non-economic or non-anthropocentric values. It does include an estimate of non-market damages from climate change, but these incorporate the costs of climate change only to the extent that they are of (economic) value to humans.

and

In the model, different policies are evaluated on the basis of their contribution to economic welfare (or more precisely, consumption) of different generations...
It does not make any case for the social desirability of the distribution of incomes over space or time of existing conditions

You are simply being an idiot. Becuase econmists translate things into a common denominator (money) does not mean the money is all important.

A computer model only models the assumptions put in to it. I suggest that the model Steve cites is badly flawed.

Heh. That is precisely one of the complaints of the AGW skeptics. Funny, how when the shoe is on the other foot, you use the same argument.

By the way Cernig, Nordhaus is not an AGW skeptic. He believes it is happening.

David Pimentel, professor of ecology and of entomology in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, says the actual toll will be millions annually as climate change creates a favorable climate for disease-causing organisms and food-plant pests.

But that doesn't matter to the two Horsemen Steves. They're only interested in dollar bills.

OK, try this: has the model cited taken into account the loss of industry that death toll represents?

The world's largest insurance company, Munich Re-Insurance, estimates the cost of climate-driven impacts at $30 trillion for the century, not $22.6 trillion. Britain's biggest re-insurer has said that climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065.

A computer model only models the assumptions put in to it. I suggest that the model Steve cites is badly flawed.

Regards, C

Non-market things would be like a sunset or something like that.

Tell that to someone buying a home with a great view. :)

Potential additional deaths due to refugee crises, disease etc., the loss of low lying cities and island nations are only tallied as to how they effect the bottom line, so your statement

Uhhhmmm, no, those would have economic value. Seriously, did you skip all economics courses when in college or something? Such a statement is just idiotic.

is only valid if you entirely discount all effects that are not monetary.

Economics isn't the study of money, but of the economy. Non-market things would be like a sunset or something like that.

A common sense approach like this is likely to be shot down with more emotional arguments and scare tactics.

E.g. grewgills.

Dude, smart people argue against taxes, lol.

You mean Greg Mankiw isn't smart? I think your definition of smart needs some re-calibration.

Smart people have been arguing for carbon taxes and more importantly petroleum taxes, for years, to address the actual environmental and security costs of our energy use. I think it's good that we're now reduced to arguing about the relative merits of various carbon taxation schemes.

Dude, smart people argue against taxes, lol.

and we are reduced as always to arguing with Liberals about the cockamamie.

Smart people have been arguing for carbon taxes and more importantly petroleum taxes, for years, to address the actual environmental and security costs of our energy use. I think it's good that we're now reduced to arguing about the relative merits of various carbon taxation schemes.

Proponents of major policy changes like to use "tipping point" to rush changes and the always useful "how much is human life worth" to void any rational economic analysis. You just can't win using facts and figures against unprovable catastrophic predictions that use "as mush as" or "as many as" to inflate the consequences.

Now throw that into the political arena where these decisions will be made and the emotional arguments get even more weight. Decision makers often forget that poverty can cause death and good economic policies can prevent poverty.

I've already mentioned my preference for considering the implications of proposed policy over debating the science when discussing global warming and climate change and this p......

Note that the economic optimum places no intrinsic value on climate stability or other non-economic or non-anthropocentric values. It does include an estimate of non-market damages from climate change, but these incorporate the costs of climate change only to the extent that they are of (economic) value to humans.

In short, the optimum in this report is only economic and gives no value to anything else. Potential additional deaths due to refugee crises, disease etc., the loss of low lying cities and island nations are only tallied as to how they effect the bottom line, so your statement

So, the policies people like Gore are suggesting are actually worse than the problem and are far worse than the optimal policy.

is only valid if you entirely discount all effects that are not monetary. Is this what you intended? Is this what you really think?

I'm sure the complaint about this will be that it doesn't do enough, highlighting a point I've made before: the problem of conflicts in goals or even of means in politics is less severe than the problems posed by differing assessments of risk and reward.

In my experience politicians tend to underestimate risks and overestimate rewards. This may be what makes them politicians.