[extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Mon Apr 16 22:49:27 UTC 2007
On 4/6/07, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> > be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> > the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> > decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> > losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> > from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> > I feel no pressing need to find solutions.
> Rafal, I believe you are going to have to cite a reference for this. And in
> particular, is the perspective only a U.S. perspective or a "world neutral"
> perspective? And if it were framed in "world neutral" perspectives ( i.e.
> we relocate all individuals living on islands < 10m above sea level to Great
> Bear lake in CA [significantly warmer at some point in the future]) would
> the consequences still be $50B+?
### Here is the link (secondary but with links to the original book):
Sorry, I was quoting numbers out of memory, so only a 23 billion
dollars gain is predicted :(
Indeed, there are countries that are likely to suffer a net loss as a
result of warming. I am not familiar with any credible (i.e. produced
by professional economists and published in economics journals)
estimates of the worldwide impact. It is important to note that the
regions most likely to gain are the arid and semiarid regions - the
primary mechanism of the beneficial effect of CO2 fertilization is the
reduction of transpiration from leaves. If there is a lot of CO2 in
the air, plants can absorb all they need while keeping their stomata
partially closed, which leads to less evaporation. So, surprisingly, a
lot of hot places will be better off too.
> I would like to see the discussion take a perspective of "What is the most
> extropic path?" How does one save the greatest number of people at the
> least cost? So one might devote those funds toward advancing things like
> nanotechnology R&D.
### I do not believe that nanotechnology will amount to anything
before the AI singularity. For saving the greatest number of people at
the lowest cost, see the Copenhagen Consensus
More information about the extropy-chat