Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The problem with the cost benefit analysis is that we are WOEFULLY bad at defining the benefit...

If the benefit is avoiding a scenario where the world's climate destabilizes to the point where we can only produce enough food to support ~1B people by 2100, which would lead to mass starvation, likely wars over access to natural resources, and the deaths of billions? Well, then any cost is worth bearing.

If the benefit is avoiding a scenario where the weather gets hotter but we can still grow food, where some people in marginal areas are displaced due to changes but it happens over decades and those people can be managed and absorbed into new environs, and the effects of dealing with climate changed are something we manage and live with vs something catastrophic? Well, then there isn't much reason to completely remake our energy supply at massive cost for that benefit.

So... Which is it?

And please, show your work.

Well, right - the costs and benefits are almost impossible to ascertain with any degree of confidence. "Epic collapse to not that big a deal, or maybe somewhere in between." The costs could be "not that much or maybe shut down the economy." It's not a great place to due much analysis.

To keep it simpler - we are certain that we are raising the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere (and the oceans). It seems very likely that this proportion will continue to rise given current policies. Now, I suppose reasonable minds can differ, but in my opinion larges changes to the composition of the atmosphere are bad and should be minimized to what extent we can, given how reliant we are on the atmosphere and the uncertainty of outcomes in changing it. 

Congress will propose to spend $X on climate change, so that figure is KNOWN here in the US, aside from private spending.

Then the BENEFIT would be as I say, CO2 reductions, and one can then use the models to calculate how much BENEFIT that would have on global warming.

This isn't something unclear or even difficult.  It's calculable.  

It is precisely on point.  There is no other benefit to be had.  Temperature rise is THE problem here, the genesis of every other issue, and one can calculate how much  your spending will ameliorate it.

And obviously the nuclear issue is far from easy to solve. 

Well, it's one part of the problem, certainly one that gets lots of attention. The pH of the ocean is another. What are the effects of that? I dunno. Doesn't sound great. 

Well, right - the costs and benefits are almost impossible to ascertain with any degree of confidence. "Epic collapse to not that big a deal, or maybe somewhere in between." The costs could be "not that much or maybe shut down the economy." It's not a great place to due much analysis.

To keep it simpler - we are certain that we are raising the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere (and the oceans). It seems very likely that this proportion will continue to rise given current policies. Now, I suppose reasonable minds can differ, but in my opinion larges changes to the composition of the atmosphere are bad and should be minimized to what extent we can, given how reliant we are on the atmosphere and the uncertainty of outcomes in changing it.

So in your opinion, large changes to the composition of the atmosphere is a de facto bad thing. 

So you didn't show your work. You pulled it out of your opinion hole. 

What if rising temperatures actually improve agriculture, and that we can easily mitigate them for humans with, ya know, air conditioning? 

You'll need China/India/Russia for starters to show theirs also for an accurate account.Is that even possible? Screw Bernie build the bad boys and check for faults first

Wrong and distracting. The worldwide effects of climate change occur regardless of where the CO2 is generated. As such, if we're talking about the actual PROBLEM (and if it is, in fact, a problem), that can be defined without addressing the solution. 

If climate change isn't actually a PROBLEM, then no country needs to spend money to try to solve it. If it *IS* a problem, then, well, we get to your point. 

I'm saying if you're looking at a cost benefit analysis, and you actually don't know / can't quantify what the benefit is, you can't even get to dealing with China/India/Russia. 

The assumption is that climate change is bad, and that we should stop it. I'm saying that's unproven. What's proven is that man is increasing temperature. Whether that's a problem, or neutral, or even potentially beneficial, is very much an unknown. 

It is precisely on point.  There is no other benefit to be had.  Temperature rise is THE problem here, the genesis of every other issue, and one can calculate how much  your spending will ameliorate it.

And obviously the nuclear issue is far from easy to solve. 

Also wrong. Temperature rise is the EFFECT of increasing CO2 emissions. 

It relies on incredibly complex modeling, of the environmental effects, the economic effects, and the geopolitical effects of that warming to determine if it's a PROBLEM. 

So if you want cost/benefit, you can't just say that it'll reduce temperatures. You have to model those things to know how much it's actually WORTH IT to spend money to reduce temperatures. 

Yes, I'm saying use the models, as the MIT climate group has done.  That calculates your benefit (most of it, presuming the models are correct).

And what it would show is that a HUGE expenditure by the US or the West would have at best a very very small benefit in terms of T rise.  You can put error bars around that, it's still very very small.

Instead we just throw money out there and pretend it's useful.

Maybe I'm unfamiliar with these models. Do they show the potential economic and geopolitical effects of warming? Do they have detailed models that show changes to the agricultural carrying capacity of the earth at various temperature levels? 

Or do the models just say "reduce atmospheric CO2 by X ppm and it will result in a temperature drop of Y deg C"?