Let’s not forget that Nordhaus in 1991 claimed that 3 degrees warming (!) would only reduce national income by 0.25% of national income. The Noble prize in economics is awarded to the wrong people.
The main thing to remember listening to this doddering whatever is that he started out admitting he was more poorly informed than many in the audience and he is so right. Economists have utterly failed in their job to inform governments and the public as to the longer term costs of their policies---remember 2008? Just one example of many. Quantitative easing? How about the abandonment of the gold standard? The list is endless. He insists on a HARMONIZED carbon tax? Sure. You think developing countries will buy this? Or maybe you think the West will pay for their billions of consumers? China is building a new COAL-fired power plant few months with 700 of them planned. But what about the 1 graph that showed anything substantive? You know, the Prof. Mann 'hockeystick'. Well, Mark Steyn debunked that in Court but just look more closely at that red line. You will find the blue line stops near the bottom, barely visible under the red. The purely red line that shoots up to the top is pure bogus extrapolation. Unjustified given the observed fluctuations. Guys like this are very very dangerous. He is driven by blind moralistic urge which is, in turn, driven by an unreasoning fear.
Just a few days ago I listened to an interview of University of Vermont ecological economist Joshua Farley, who expressed a good deal of criticism on the approach to dealing with climate change as advanced by William Nordhaus. The interview took place on Planet: Climate. I urge anyone seriously concerned about the future of our planet to listen to Professor Farley.
A uniform carbon price will only serve to keep the poor, poor. It is well known that the poorer nations rely on high carbon energy sources and will continue to do so as long as they cannot afford newer and cleaner energy sources. I find it despicable to deny large portions of the world the opportunity to develop and improve the lives of their citizens. Without affordable energy they ave no chance to better their lives.
corporate rationing is the only restraint this economy could ever impose to make any difference. what was that saying, "you'll have to pry these emissions from my cold dead hands"
deny and opportunity to develop? WTF are you talking about? Who forced the developed world to produce billions of humans? you CANNOT have 8 billion humans having a carbon footprint of an average Westerner, otherwise we all die.
So why aren't we providing the money and technical oversight to bring them up to speed. Do the world's billionaires really need all of those magnificient yachts? It seems as though political ideologies are overcoming common sense. If climate change starts to erode civilization sugnificantly then the markets for commercial expansion will simply disappear as countries devolve into chaos as food and fuel disappear. I'll give you an example: like China, the Philippines (my home) is completely dependent upon inputs. We import about 6 million tons of wheat each year. We are beginning to eat like Americans. We have 7-11, Shakeys, McD, BK, and other Am food chains all over. What happens to much of the economy as CC destroys wheat and corn production around the world? Will the US export to us if they lose 1/2 of their crop? We also import 240,00₩ tons of feed for our chickens and pigs. Globilization is failing. Huge price hikes in minerals is already underway. China has now suspended gallium and germanium exports. And perhaps WW III has already started we just haven't acknowledged it yet.
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 Seriously? Who is this "we" that is going to provide the money to other countries? You're welcome to send your money to these countries. It is not my problem or responsibility to fund the energy needs of other countries. Most of those countries are third world authoritarian sh1tholes. Maybe if they tried freedom and capitalism, they would have better results with the use of their resources. Climate change is at least 90% nonsense. It isn't going to erode civilization. Try learning some actual science about the climate instead of making blind statements.
*Me* ‘What’s the deal with politicians pushing this climate-change stuff?’ *This guy* ‘I’ve incentivized honest, hard-working politicians to tax the living f*** out of plebs just trying to make ends meet’. *Me* ‘But that could result in political upheaval, the collapse of the global economy, mass starvation &/or war, resulting in the deaths of untold millions of people! Are you absolutely sure that that we can trust career politicians that keep buying beach-front property’? *This guy* ‘Trust me bro’.😎
What does combatting global warming have to do with sharply increasing the taxation rate? And what about the BILLIONS MORE "plebs" who will confront sharp declines in agricultural output arising from desertification?
they cover 80 percent of the world geography wise I believe , but how much do they represent in terms of yearly global economic output i.e. global GDP ?
This guy is so najve about reality.of cold econonimic reality and the damaging Impact on social life worldwide. He should specialize in a different area of economy before he help bring on disaster.
I like the idea but wouldn´t members of the club suffer a lot from others not participating as well? Trading-sanctions affect both sides, it impairs competition and increases the prices of goods. Would have been interesting to hear more about advantages of joining the club and especially how devoloping countries should agree on something like this since they´d have the biggest disadvantages from it
You would think a Nobel Laureate would understand you have to actually be following the scientific method to be doing science. Perhaps he can explain how it meets the requirements in the absence of both experimental reproducibility and a falsifiable hypothesis.
32:53 climate club is a good idea but there is again this character free ride, when we increase the members. We can impliment trade sanctions to those who are not into the club, and those in the 37:26 group can pay the abatement cost. Penalty taarif will bring them to join the club
Super interesting lecture! I understand some people find his presentation style not too engaging, but its worth pushing through the video. Very thoughtful insights.
Threats to climate change Continued trends for rapid warming The landscape on carbon pricing Current approaches to International agreements ( Kyoto protocol and Paris accord) Suggest a climate club to provide structure of incentives for strong action Scientific background: global CO2 emissions more than 2.5% a year. Even though we have taken steps in some of the countries, if everyone doesn't get to work on it, nothing is going to change .
We have long passed the point where market solutions like carbon pricing will help. That ONLY impacts mitigation and maybe adaptation but we need to remediate. I call it MAR. Regulation needs to happen but economists like Nordhaus worship market solutions and their values system opposes regulations.
I find it odd that he doesn't ever mention the negative economic impacts of tariffs when those are his final solution. It is basic economics that tariffs do nothing other than increase the price to the consumer. They don't hurt companies or incentivize change. Sanctions, such as zero trade for non-compliance, might work but I am doubtful.
What a non-sense. Assume 90% of countries are part of the ‚club‘ - 10% are not and pay high tariffs to trade with the 90%. That sure is an incentive for those ‚free rider nations’ to adhere themselves to Carbon emission limitations and join the club.
This scientists is not presenting the whole story. Sorry miss-read, he is not a climate scientist. He is an economist. To learn the climate science, please refer to real scientist who does not ignore the climate change but does not believe in Climate scare or catastrophe. Please readjust your mind so that not to learn climate dynamics from Nobel winner Algor but consult real science. I don't have much confidence on many of the Nobel Laurettes. First learn the science properly. The data shown here are purposely limited and lack details.
From a logical standpoint, Mr Nordhaus is absolutely right. A carbon price is probably the best way to transform the global economy in the direction to less emissions. However, I think he underestimates the socially disruptive effects. It would impact the living standard of millions of people. That's why it is never going to happen.
It’s the only fair way to do it. As it is today the rich countries buy up the poor countries Co2 quotas and leave them unable to have a revenue generating industry leaving them in a downwards spiral.
True, social systems would need to be in place to ensure it doesn’t hit low income people. But WITH climate change happening you get droughts (eg Afghanistan last year), floods (eg Pakistan this year) etc. Poor people suffer like this as well - Just in an uncontrolled way!
This guy put me to sleep and I couldn't watch the rest of it. Did he say how a carbon tax would hit developing countries? How are deveping countries going to keep the lights on, or develop their economies&get their people out of poverty, if the rich western countries make it expensive for them to burn their coal and oil, as these are the only energy sources they have?
Did anyone notice how this tariff idea is totally in accordance with Adam Smith's theory, to put it in terms of that- Nations acting in their own self-interest will benefit the world much better than they could if they were acting with an intention to benefit the world
@@ouss Firstly:What a stupid analogy. Second: You can’t conclude that a nazi victory would have been good for humans overall. It’s actually to the letter the same ideology the Globalists base their NWO, Build back better, Great Reset agenda on, a uniformed world with a centralized power structure.
Doesn't Planned Obsolescence mean unnecessary manufacturing? So that must result in more CO2. Where are climate scientists talking about Planned Obsolescence? The really annoying factor is that economists have to live on the planet with the rest of us. Economists don't have to do algebra and can ignore Demand Side Depreciation. What is NDP?
Economists are fantastic and have probably made your life much better than you'd be without it, but besides that, do you have any evidence of the degree that planned obsolescence (notice the proper grammar here as this phrase is not capitalized) actually contributes to more greenhouse gases? If not, then you're better off worrying about what we KNOW is contributing to large amounts of greenhouse gases.
Yes but remember that a small % can have a big effect. For example CFC's which cause ozone whole are even smaller %. And spider poison in the blood is even smaller.
@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 No, this is only true to some point. When the temperature rises above a certain level photosynthesis slows down and the trend for deforestation will prevail
@@michaelyulkin3543 The scenario you describe is so far from reality that it is totally irrelevant to the debate. And if/when/if it ever happened, it would likely create rainforests like it did before(you know the rainforest we call “the lungs of the earth”😉)
Nobel laureate William Nordhaus can tell when and where the flying bird gonna drop its fickle matter. He sounds like Nostradamus. Must be related to the ancients, WTF why would we want to reduce carbon dioxide, everything thing on the earth is carbon-based.
Why don’t we just tell the sun that it can’t come any closer and tell the poles that they have to stop their natural cycle of exiting an ice age. I mean, if we can make the climate we should be able to stop it as well, right? Someone needs to make an app for it.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the genius who said climate change wont affect industry too badly because much of it happening indoors.
Let’s not forget that Nordhaus in 1991 claimed that 3 degrees warming (!) would only reduce national income by 0.25% of national income. The Noble prize in economics is awarded to the wrong people.
The main thing to remember listening to this doddering whatever is that he started out admitting he was more poorly informed than many in the audience and he is so right. Economists have utterly failed in their job to inform governments and the public as to the longer term costs of their policies---remember 2008? Just one example of many. Quantitative easing? How about the abandonment of the gold standard? The list is endless. He insists on a HARMONIZED carbon tax? Sure. You think developing countries will buy this? Or maybe you think the West will pay for their billions of consumers? China is building a new COAL-fired power plant few months with 700 of them planned. But what about the 1 graph that showed anything substantive? You know, the Prof. Mann 'hockeystick'. Well, Mark Steyn debunked that in Court but just look more closely at that red line. You will find the blue line stops near the bottom, barely visible under the red. The purely red line that shoots up to the top is pure bogus extrapolation. Unjustified given the observed fluctuations. Guys like this are very very dangerous. He is driven by blind moralistic urge which is, in turn, driven by an unreasoning fear.
Just a few days ago I listened to an interview of University of Vermont ecological economist Joshua Farley, who expressed a good deal of criticism on the approach to dealing with climate change as advanced by William Nordhaus. The interview took place on Planet: Climate. I urge anyone seriously concerned about the future of our planet to listen to Professor Farley.
A uniform carbon price will only serve to keep the poor, poor. It is well known that the poorer nations rely on high carbon energy sources and will continue to do so as long as they cannot afford newer and cleaner energy sources. I find it despicable to deny large portions of the world the opportunity to develop and improve the lives of their citizens. Without affordable energy they ave no chance to better their lives.
corporate rationing is the only restraint this economy could ever impose to make any difference. what was that saying, "you'll have to pry these emissions from my cold dead hands"
deny and opportunity to develop? WTF are you talking about? Who forced the developed world to produce billions of humans? you CANNOT have 8 billion humans having a carbon footprint of an average Westerner, otherwise we all die.
So why aren't we providing the money and technical oversight to bring them up to speed. Do the world's billionaires really need all of those magnificient yachts? It seems as though political ideologies are overcoming common sense. If climate change starts to erode civilization sugnificantly then the markets for commercial expansion will simply disappear as countries devolve into chaos as food and fuel disappear. I'll give you an example: like China, the Philippines (my home) is completely dependent upon inputs. We import about 6 million tons of wheat each year. We are beginning to eat like Americans. We have 7-11, Shakeys, McD, BK, and other Am food chains all over. What happens to much of the economy as CC destroys wheat and corn production around the world? Will the US export to us if they lose 1/2 of their crop? We also import 240,00₩ tons of feed for our chickens and pigs. Globilization is failing. Huge price hikes in minerals is already underway. China has now suspended gallium and germanium exports. And perhaps WW III has already started we just haven't acknowledged it yet.
@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 Seriously? Who is this "we" that is going to provide the money to other countries? You're welcome to send your money to these countries. It is not my problem or responsibility to fund the energy needs of other countries. Most of those countries are third world authoritarian sh1tholes. Maybe if they tried freedom and capitalism, they would have better results with the use of their resources.
Climate change is at least 90% nonsense. It isn't going to erode civilization. Try learning some actual science about the climate instead of making blind statements.
And who do you think Climate Change will impact disproportionately?
*Me* ‘What’s the deal with politicians pushing this climate-change stuff?’
*This guy* ‘I’ve incentivized honest, hard-working politicians to tax the living f*** out of plebs just trying to make ends meet’.
*Me* ‘But that could result in political upheaval, the collapse of the global economy, mass starvation &/or war, resulting in the deaths of untold millions of people! Are you absolutely sure that that we can trust career politicians that keep buying beach-front property’?
*This guy* ‘Trust me bro’.😎
What does combatting global warming have to do with sharply increasing the taxation rate? And what about the BILLIONS MORE "plebs" who will confront sharp declines in agricultural output arising from desertification?
Oh dear, he falls in the usual traps then offers solutions that make things worse. It's a common pattern..
they cover 80 percent of the world geography wise I believe , but how much do they represent in terms of yearly global economic output i.e. global GDP ?
Total rubbish
1997 to 2023 is 26 years, not 33.
Confused?
This guy is so najve about reality.of cold econonimic reality and the damaging Impact on social life worldwide. He should specialize in a different area of economy before he help bring on disaster.
expected more granular and innovative solution from a Nobel laureate
I like the idea but wouldn´t members of the club suffer a lot from others not participating as well? Trading-sanctions affect both sides, it impairs competition and increases the prices of goods. Would have been interesting to hear more about advantages of joining the club and especially how devoloping countries should agree on something like this since they´d have the biggest disadvantages from it
¡Que pena! ...para mi es un obstaculo el idioma. Escuchar a los nobeles de economia es aprender mucho. Intuyo que es una grandisima conferencia.
You would think a Nobel Laureate would understand you have to actually be following the scientific method to be doing science. Perhaps he can explain how it meets the requirements in the absence of both experimental reproducibility and a falsifiable hypothesis.
32:53 climate club is a good idea but there is again this character free ride, when we increase the members.
We can impliment trade sanctions to those who are not into the club, and those in the 37:26 group can pay the abatement cost.
Penalty taarif will bring them to join the club
Super interesting lecture! I understand some people find his presentation style not too engaging, but its worth pushing through the video. Very thoughtful insights.
Threats to climate change
Continued trends for rapid warming
The landscape on carbon pricing
Current approaches to International agreements ( Kyoto protocol and Paris accord)
Suggest a climate club to provide structure of incentives for strong action
Scientific background: global CO2 emissions more than 2.5% a year. Even though we have taken steps in some of the countries, if everyone doesn't get to work on it, nothing is going to change .
We have long passed the point where market solutions like carbon pricing will help. That ONLY impacts mitigation and maybe adaptation but we need to remediate. I call it MAR. Regulation needs to happen but economists like Nordhaus worship market solutions and their values system opposes regulations.
I find it odd that he doesn't ever mention the negative economic impacts of tariffs when those are his final solution. It is basic economics that tariffs do nothing other than increase the price to the consumer. They don't hurt companies or incentivize change. Sanctions, such as zero trade for non-compliance, might work but I am doubtful.
Wrong, the tariffs put on cigarettes also made that less people are smoking today.
LOL read his book.
What a non-sense. Assume 90% of countries are part of the ‚club‘ - 10% are not and pay high tariffs to trade with the 90%. That sure is an incentive for those ‚free rider nations’ to adhere themselves to Carbon emission limitations and join the club.
This scientists is not presenting the whole story. Sorry miss-read, he is not a climate scientist. He is an economist. To learn the climate science, please refer to real scientist who does not ignore the climate change but does not believe in Climate scare or catastrophe. Please readjust your mind so that not to learn climate dynamics from Nobel winner Algor but consult real science. I don't have much confidence on many of the Nobel Laurettes. First learn the science properly. The data shown here are purposely limited and lack details.
only the if the UN is fully funded can this worldwide approach be accomplished.
what a giant load of bs, cooked books and faulty assumptions.
Correct. Follow the money. CO2 follows the temperature, not the other way around.
I'm not hearing anything about exponential growth, but I didn't listen to everything.
There are no solutions in the light of exponential growth.
From a logical standpoint, Mr Nordhaus is absolutely right. A carbon price is probably the best way to transform the global economy in the direction to less emissions.
However, I think he underestimates the socially disruptive effects. It would impact the living standard of millions of people. That's why it is never going to happen.
It’s the only fair way to do it. As it is today the rich countries buy up the poor countries Co2 quotas and leave them unable to have a revenue generating industry leaving them in a downwards spiral.
True, social systems would need to be in place to ensure it doesn’t hit low income people. But WITH climate change happening you get droughts (eg Afghanistan last year), floods (eg Pakistan this year) etc. Poor people suffer like this as well - Just in an uncontrolled way!
He does not know Michael Manns hockeystick has been debunked and calls it "the best proof I know".
This guy put me to sleep and I couldn't watch the rest of it. Did he say how a carbon tax would hit developing countries? How are deveping countries going to keep the lights on, or develop their economies&get their people out of poverty, if the rich western countries make it expensive for them to burn their coal and oil, as these are the only energy sources they have?
Did anyone notice how this tariff idea is totally in accordance with Adam Smith's theory, to put it in terms of that-
Nations acting in their own self-interest will benefit the world much better than they could if they were acting with an intention to benefit the world
Smith said that about INDIVIDUALS not nations.
Nazis were going to war for their own self interest but it didn't benefit the world much
@@ouss
Firstly:What a stupid analogy. Second: You can’t conclude that a nazi victory would have been good for humans overall. It’s actually to the letter the same ideology the Globalists base their NWO, Build back better, Great Reset agenda on, a uniformed world with a centralized power structure.
@@ouss individuals make up a nation
Doesn't Planned Obsolescence mean unnecessary manufacturing? So that must result in more CO2.
Where are climate scientists talking about Planned Obsolescence?
The really annoying factor is that economists have to live on the planet with the rest of us. Economists don't have to do algebra and can ignore Demand Side Depreciation. What is NDP?
Degrowthers are the only ones who talk about planned obsolescence in a meaningful way
Economists are fantastic and have probably made your life much better than you'd be without it, but besides that, do you have any evidence of the degree that planned obsolescence (notice the proper grammar here as this phrase is not capitalized) actually contributes to more greenhouse gases? If not, then you're better off worrying about what we KNOW is contributing to large amounts of greenhouse gases.
Would like to see a pie chart of the elements in our atmosphere posted more often...I think that many people don't realize how small co2 is
Yes but remember that a small % can have a big effect. For example CFC's which cause ozone whole are even smaller %. And spider poison in the blood is even smaller.
more co2 = more forests
@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 No, this is only true to some point. When the temperature rises above a certain level photosynthesis slows down and the trend for deforestation will prevail
@@michaelyulkin3543
The scenario you describe is so far from reality that it is totally irrelevant to the debate. And if/when/if it ever happened, it would likely create rainforests like it did before(you know the rainforest we call “the lungs of the earth”😉)
And humans only contribute with about 4% of that amount😉
Ugh... Mann is cited. Bad start to this lecture.
Nobel laureate William Nordhaus can tell when and where the flying bird gonna drop its fickle matter. He sounds like Nostradamus. Must be related to the ancients, WTF why would we want to reduce carbon dioxide, everything thing on the earth is carbon-based.
speaker = low energy beta
Why don’t we just tell the sun that it can’t come any closer and tell the poles that they have to stop their natural cycle of exiting an ice age. I mean, if we can make the climate we should be able to stop it as well, right? Someone needs to make an app for it.
You forget that the bulk of climate change is due to our abusive use of petrochemicals !