I would be curious to know more about the cruxes you have in mind, but I guess I would not have much interest. I suppose your cruxes within climate are about prioritising across interventios with the intention of decreasing emissions, whereas I mainly wonder about whether decreasing CO2eq emissions is good/bad at the margin. My best guess is that it is good, but it is not that resilient.
I have argued that more global warming might be good, but I no longer endorse the premises of my analysis. It relied on minimising the existential risk from climate change and the food shocks caused by abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (e.g. nuclear winter), but I would now say these pose astronomically low extinction risk. As a result, I think it makes more sense to analyse my question about emissions in terms of figuring out the optimum emissions trajectory to improve nearterm welfare or boost nearterm economic growth, as proxied by e.g. global disease burden until and real GDP in 2050. However, I assume I would not add much value here. Those types of questions are much less neglected than the ones I was trying to answer in my original post, and my sense is that there is already scepticism about current climate policies being optimal from these perspective. For example:
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre (CCC) estimated interventions to mitigate climate change are not that effective to boost economic growth. The prints below have the benefit-to-cost ratios for trade, health and climate change interventions[1].
I do not know whether the differences across areas would be smaller if one compared just top interventions, but a priori I would expect the CCC to provide similarly representative intervention across the various areas they considered.
That’s why I specified “inside-climate”, yes those considerations you mention are out of scope for stuff I can fund.
I see; sorry for the misunderstanding. I was thinking that figuring out whether marginal emissions are good/bad would still be “within climate”, whereas comparing climate interventions with ones in other areas would be “outside climate”.
This is an aside, but I would not trust CCC on climate.
I would be curious to know why. I know there are concerns around the founder, but would be keen to know about specific criticism of CCC’s cost-benefit analyses of climate interventions.
Are you interested in within-climate cruxes?
Thanks for asking, Johannes!
I would be curious to know more about the cruxes you have in mind, but I guess I would not have much interest. I suppose your cruxes within climate are about prioritising across interventios with the intention of decreasing emissions, whereas I mainly wonder about whether decreasing CO2eq emissions is good/bad at the margin. My best guess is that it is good, but it is not that resilient.
I have argued that more global warming might be good, but I no longer endorse the premises of my analysis. It relied on minimising the existential risk from climate change and the food shocks caused by abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (e.g. nuclear winter), but I would now say these pose astronomically low extinction risk. As a result, I think it makes more sense to analyse my question about emissions in terms of figuring out the optimum emissions trajectory to improve nearterm welfare or boost nearterm economic growth, as proxied by e.g. global disease burden until and real GDP in 2050. However, I assume I would not add much value here. Those types of questions are much less neglected than the ones I was trying to answer in my original post, and my sense is that there is already scepticism about current climate policies being optimal from these perspective. For example:
David D. Friedman argues against a much higher social cost of CO2eq.
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre (CCC) estimated interventions to mitigate climate change are not that effective to boost economic growth. The prints below have the benefit-to-cost ratios for trade, health and climate change interventions[1].
I do not know whether the differences across areas would be smaller if one compared just top interventions, but a priori I would expect the CCC to provide similarly representative intervention across the various areas they considered.
That’s why I specified “inside-climate”, yes those considerations you mention are out of scope for stuff I can fund.
This is an aside, but I would not trust CCC on climate.
I see; sorry for the misunderstanding. I was thinking that figuring out whether marginal emissions are good/bad would still be “within climate”, whereas comparing climate interventions with ones in other areas would be “outside climate”.
I would be curious to know why. I know there are concerns around the founder, but would be keen to know about specific criticism of CCC’s cost-benefit analyses of climate interventions.