Surprise—Economists Agree! A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change.

[depakid]

So why is no one writing that?

Ask a random sample of journalists whether our top scientists agree on the basics of climate science, and they'll surely say yes: Greenhouse gasses are warming the Earth, man is the cause, and we have to reduce emissions, or else. But ask the same journalists whether our top economists agree on the basics of climate economics—the costs and benefits of addressing the problem—and they'll almost certainly say no: There's no comparable consensus among economists.

But that simply isn't true, and it's time for the press and public to recognize it. There is an emerging economic consensus about the cost of climate action, but most journalists have failed to notice it, so the public doesn't know it exists. That's a problem, since the opponents of climate action use the cost issue—and doomsday analyses based on skewed assumptions—to block cap-and-trade legislation. Gullible press reports treat these junk forecasts as if they are credible and give them equal weight alongside respected academic and governmental studies.

I spent the fall at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government studying how this "he said, she said" reporting style muddies the waters of the climate debate, and I recently published a discussion paper about it. Since the paper came out, I've been hearing from economists—some of whom argue that they, too, deserve a share of the blame for this sorry state of affairs. Before we look at what reporters and economists are doing wrong, let's summarize the economic consensus.

If you look closely at what climate economists are saying, you can discern two areas of basic agreement. First, there is a broad consensus that the cost of climate inaction would greatly exceed the cost of climate action—it's cheaper to act than not to act. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving to alternative energy sources and capturing carbon from coal-fired power plants will cost less in the long run than dealing with the effect of rising sea levels, drought, famine, wildfire, pestilence, and millions of climate refugees.

<snip>

The second area of consensus concerns the short-term cost of climate action—the question of how expensive it will be to preserve a climate that is hospitable to humans. The Environmental Defense Fund pointed to this consensus last year when it published a study of five nonpartisan academic and governmental economic forecasts and concluded that "the median projected impact of climate policy on U.S. GDP is less than one-half of one percent for the period 2010-2030, and under three-quarters of one percent through the middle of the century."

More: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/hey-wait-minute/2009/02/11/surprise-economists-agree#comment-563

[Optical.Catalyst]

1. The oil companies and energy companies no longer have a Republicans majority to cover for them

Without their Republicans protectors, businesses in the energy sector can expect President Obama to support legislation to compel them to address the damage to the environment. The free ride the Republicans have given to companies that produce and use fossil fuels is over.

The time has come for Congress to step up to the plate and stop allowing business to obtain profit by trashing our planet.

[excess_3]

2. cap and trade (CO2), has always failed

the price of carbon always goes to zero


see this link for recent numbers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=185183&mesg_id=185183