Paraphrasing Hamlet, “Is it better to mitigate CO2 emissions from sources such as fossil fuels or adapt to global changes that might happen if emissions were not regulated? Ah that’s the question.”
The IPCC and its cohorts think that man-caused emissions (CO2) must not be allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere to the extent that the global temperature will rise 2ºC. Failing to do that, they say that the globe will experience some catastrophic events.
Others think that CO2 emissions are unlikely to cause serious problems, but even if the temperature rises exceeds 2ºC, adaptation to these events, e.g. sea level change or heavy rains, is the best course of action.
Both actions have a cost. So can the cost of these two alternatives be calculated? The answer is yes and it can be done using the IPCC and cohort’s climatology and inter-temporal investment appraisals. The methodology was developed by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. His calculations and references can be examined by clicking here.
The methodology shows that mitigation is 50 times more expensive than adaptation.
This pretty much blows the “precautionary principle” out of the water. Using it would be like buying fire insurance for your house that would cost, each year, more that the value of the house.
You can view a YouTube video that takes you through the logic and conclusions by clicking here. Relax; you do not have to do any math to understand the presentation.
Two additional thoughts on this. The 50 to 1 cost analysis was calculated using the IPCC 4th assessment (issued 2007) data. The new IPCC 5th assessment will be issued this year or early next year. The advanced information indicates that the new assessment dials back CO2’s effect on global temperatures. Using the 5th assessment data would make mitigation something like 100+ times more costly than adaptation per this posting from WUWT.
The other thought is that there is no way that the people on this globe are going to cut back on the use of fossil fuels for some time to come. There are currently no alternative sources available to replace fossil fuels without shutting down the world’s economy. Thus, even if it was effective and beneficial cost wise, such a strategy would not be practical for many years to come.
Go to the 50 to 1 Project site and get the full interviews of the various scientists and reporters that appeared in the YouTube video by clicking here.
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 