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

Especially given that the economic concept of an externality post-dates The Wealth of Nations by almost a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

From the linked piece.  Good explanation, but I made the one change in bold.

In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a third party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] Externalities often occur when the production or consumption of a product or service's private price equilibrium cannot reflect the true costs or benefits of that product or service for society as a whole.[2][3] This causes the externality competitive equilibrium to not be a Pareto optimality.

Externalities can be either positive or negative. Governments and institutions often take actions to internalize externalities, thus market-priced transactions can incorporate all the benefits and costs associated with transactions between economic agents.[4][5] The most common way this is done is by imposing taxes on the producers of this externality. This is usually done similar to a quote where there is no tax imposed and then once the externality reaches a certain point there is a very high tax imposed. However, since regulators do not always never have all the information on the externality it can be difficult to impose the right tax. Once the externality is internalized through imposing a tax the competitive equilibrium is now Pareto optimal.

For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of individuals who choose to fire-proof their homes may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such as pollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. Because responsibility or consequence for self-directed action lies partly outside the self, an element of externalization is involved. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.[6][7]

Trees are probably the most efficient practicable means of storing carbon IF you cut them after their initial growth spurt and bury them somewhere.  It is of course feasible to extract CO2 from air artificially, but you're working against a heavy entropic load, which requires enthalpy to offset.

The Paris targets are insufficient, and they won't be met anyway globally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/paris-climate-deal-2c-warming-study

There is only a 5% chance that the Earth will avoid warming by at least 2C come the end of the century, according to new research that paints a sobering picture of the international effort to stem dangerous climate change.


Global trends in the economy, emissions and population growth make it extremely unlikely that the planet will remain below the 2C threshold set out in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, the study states.
The Paris accord, signed by 195 countries, commits to holding the average global temperature to “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels and sets a more aspirational goal to limit warming to 1.5C. This latter target is barely plausible, the new research finds, with just a 1% chance that temperatures will rise by less than 1.5C.

I'll make the point again that I tried to make upthread.  1840--which according to BBTS is where the baseline is set--is not "pre-indstrial."  We had already come out of the Little Ice Age, partly because of the industrialization that began in Britain about 1760.

I'll make the point again that I tried to make upthread.  1840--which according to BBTS is where the baseline is set--is not "pre-indstrial."  We had already come out of the Little Ice Age, partly because of the industrialization that began in Britain about 1760.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the "little ice age" was probably regional phenomena, not global.

It is interesting, but has little bearing on the impacts of climate change. 

The increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere wasn't of consequence until perhaps 1940, depending on what metric you use.

Folks who are so convinced about the models and what should be done (which you'll notice seems to be yell wind and solar at every op) should read Judith Curry's thoughts on this.  It's hard to discount her as a nutcase when her actions are those of a scientist who is resisting the "rush to judgement" on certain aspects of this.  (One thing she and I accept as likely true is that human activity is changing our climate.)

https://judithcurry.com/about/

A good scientist is always challenging assumptions, if there is decent reason for the challenge.  At times, you have to make assumptions based on a best guess and act accordingly of course, but they remain assumptions based on perhaps incomplete understanding.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the "little ice age" was probably regional phenomena, not global.

It is interesting, but has little bearing on the impacts of climate change. 

Yes, you mentioned that about the Little Ice Age upthread.  Do you know what presumably caused the regional phenomenon (or phenomena) without affecting the rest of the world?

I've seen lots of criticism of the "hockey stick" by people who at least seem to know what they are talking about and have lots of academic initials after their names.  Perhaps coincidentally, I seldom see the hockey stick brought out as evidence any more.  Is it still considered valid by mainstream climatologists?

Who knows, maybe not that far away

You have a pessimistic view of the world.  There's a lot of positive information out there. 

The world is not doomed.  We are very close to finding real solutions to climate change. 

Agreed.

I work in this space. Most people are frustrated but optimistic. That's how I and others keep our sanity.

Fusion is probably still a ways off, but I have more hope for it becoming economical than any type of nuclear plant.

The increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere wasn't of consequence until perhaps 1940, depending on what metric you use.

Folks who are so convinced about the models and what should be done (which you'll notice seems to be yell wind and solar at every op) should read Judith Curry's thoughts on this.  It's hard to discount her as a nutcase when her actions are those of a scientist who is resisting the "rush to judgement" on certain aspects of this.  (One thing she and I accept as likely true is that human activity is changing our climate.)

https://judithcurry.com/about/

A good scientist is always challenging assumptions, if there is decent reason for the challenge.  At times, you have to make assumptions based on a best guess and act accordingly of course, but they remain assumptions based on perhaps incomplete understanding.

Judith Curry absolutely believes climate change is real.  She absolutely believes it could be catastrophic.  She questions (on her blog) about the accuracy of climate change projections because there could be SOMETHING out there that will happen that we haven't accounted for.  She basically thinks there is a chance we have gotten it all wrong.

Honestly, it's super weak sauce, but it is valid.

Interestingly enough, IPCC projections actually agree with her.  We aren't 100% sure what can happen, which is why they give their projections a fairly large margin for error, and also only around a 95% degree of confidence.

However, let's look at how climate models have performed so far - most of them underestimated global warming

And, for the record, I did read your links.