Talk:Economics of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Impacts section[edit]

I'm thinking of revising economics of global warming#Impacts. In my opinion, the main problem with this section is that it does not discuss non-monetized impacts. A risk-based approach would account for the full range of climate change impacts. This is relevant to the article, since a broad understanding of climate change impacts is necessary when making policy decisions. There's already an article on the effects of global warming, so it's probably only necessary to present a brief summary of the most important risks and benefits of climate change.

The section's coverage of monetized impacts should be revised in view of more recent studies.

References:

Enescot (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Enescot: did you do that? EllenCT (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure I understand your question. What am I supposed to have done? Thanks. Enescot (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Enescot: revising the Impacts section, as you said you were thinking of at the beginning of this section? EllenCT (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a draft revision of economics of global warming#Impacts. Enescot (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New Climate Economy Report[edit]

I noticed an IP user tried to add [1] and [2] but was reverted for "probable block evasion". I would like to know what editors think of those sources. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The first is essentially self-published, and I doubt they are considered "experts" in all the relevant fields, which is what would be required for it to be a WP:RS. The second source from the NYT notes the first one, so the first may be significant, but not reliable. Unless The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate can be considered a reliable source in itself, which seems unlikely, its publication can only be used for proof of its (the publication's) existence. not for any proof of accuracy. I do believe that the NYT source alone could be used to source the statement that "A report has asserted that the costs of mitigation may be less than the costs caused by the effects." in the body; it's not definitive enough to support the statement in the lead. The IPCC reports have been considered reliable, even though there are few, if any, economic experts involved in writing the reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the costs of mitigation are greater than the costs caused by the effects? There are plenty of high-quality sources on the question. E.g. [3] described at [4]. EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an error on my part; that wasn't what the added unreliable source said. The statement actually added was unsourced and tangential, to a lead which is already too long, per WP:LEAD. If a reliable source could be found, it could be added to the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The best-cited MEDRS-class sources on the subject, [5], [6], [7], and [8], are all in agreement that the strictly financial benefits of transition to sustainable energy outweigh the costs, without regard to years of productive life lost, which is currently somewhere around 11 million per year primarily due to drought- and flood-related communicable tropical disease transmission rates. EllenCT (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction not too long[edit]

I tried to find discussion about too long introduction here, but failed. I am removing the "too long" tag then, given the size of the article.Zezen (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Appalling[edit]

This article is appallingly bad William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not least because it is doing a poor job of distinguishing Pol and Econ. This is the Econ article; Politics of global warming is the Pol one William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Lange's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Lange has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


"If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is necessary to assign weights to particular individuals"

I would suggest: "If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is possible to remedy this by assigning weights to particular individual's loss or gain and re-calculate net present value"


"Policies National Both climate and non-climate policies can affect emissions growth. Non-climate policies that can affect emissions are listed below (Bashmakov et al., 2001:409-410):[107]

Market-orientated reforms can have important impacts on energy use, energy efficiency, and therefore GHG emissions. Price and subsidy policies: Many countries provide subsidies for activities that impact emissions, e.g., subsidies in the agriculture and energy sectors, and indirect subsidies for transport. Market liberalization: Restructuring of energy markets has occurred in several countries and regions. These policies have mainly been designed to increase competition in the market, but they can have a significant impact on emissions."

This sub-section is heavily referenced to an article from 2001 that seems to be concerned about market-based reforms to regulation that had been centered around the state. My concern is that it ignores that any reforms to human systems will impact energy use and efficiency, regardless of whether they are market-based or not. Both market and non-market reforms can increase or decrease energy use and efficiency. For example, many studies (such as Fischer-Vanden et al, Resource and Energy Economics 26(1), 2004) have found the the move to market-based systems in the Chinese economy was a factor in the decline in energy intensity per GDP during the late 1990s and early 2000. In short, this part seems biased against market reforms because of the manner in which the word "market" is used.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Lange has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference 1: Lange, Ian & Polborn, Sarah, 2012. "Can lobbying encourage abatement? Designing a new policy instrument," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-03, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  • Reference 2: Lange, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2006. "On the Importance of Equity in International Climate Policy: An Empirical Analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-42, ZEW - Zentrum fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)