By Benny Peiser

(English summary by P Gosselin)

Helmut Schmidt gave a speech at the former Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, whose text also appeared in the newspaper Die Zeit. But when the part about the IPCC appears here (in German), an important comment made by Schmidt suddenly disappears. Here's the part - as it appears in DIE ZEIT (translated in English):

by Jim Manzi

In the two prior posts in this series, I argued that Paul Krugman has presented a flawed cost-benefit analysis for his proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that his linked proposal to use carbon tariffs to push recalcitrant developing economies to go along is misguided.  In this final post of the series, I will argue that his consideration of the role of uncertainty in determining our course of action is also incorrect, because he fails to provide any principle by which we could establish any limit to much we should spend to reduce a risk which can never be eliminated entirely.

by Jim Manzi

In a prior post, I argued that the cost-benefit analysis for aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions presented by Paul Krugman is flawed, even if we assume a globally-coordinated program. But if we can not get broad participation from the major developing countries, the costs that any country that prices carbon will impose upon itself will dwarf the benefits that it will create for itself. In the case of the U.S., the costs of a cap-and-trade regime like that envisioned under Waxman-Markey would be at least ten times its benefits if it were done without international cooperation. It would be very difficult to imagine an effective global emissions mitigation program that does not include the major economies of the developing world.

read the rest of the article here

by Jim Manzi

Paul Krugman had a long article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine on climate change. Refreshingly, it attempts to compare the costs and benefits of proposed climate policies rationally. But it also, in my view, loads the dice in certain key passages.