Climate Science vs. Climate Economics

Maybe you are getting tired of the climate ranting I'm doing. If so, here's David Roberts:

Or contemplate this: To reach even the more modest target of 450ppm, reports David Biello, the IEA says humanity would have to build the following every year between now and 2050:

... 35 coal-fired and 20 gas-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage; 30 nuclear power plants; 12,000 onshore wind turbines paired with 3,600 offshore ones; 45 geothermal power plants; 325 million square meters-worth of photovoltaics; and 55 solar-thermal power plants. That doesn't even include the need to build electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in order to shift transportation away from burning gasoline.

He goes on, discussing the economic implications of that project:

From what economists tell us, it looks like the worst thing policymakers risk on climate change is somewhat slower economic growth. One way or another, we're getting wealthier.
This represents what is perhaps the foundational faith of modern economics: a faith in human adaptability and ingenuity. Especially via the distributed decisionmaking represented by open markets, humans can master almost any circumstances given time. (For a recent example of this optimism on Grist, see economist Matthew Kahn.)
Nowhere in these models will you find any hint of Diamond- or Lovelock-style apocalypse. Instead, future people will be much wealthier and, because of that, better able to cope with the problem.

Give the whole article a read. Basically, he writes a less depressing version of my thoughts here. The climate is finished, at least...the current climate. The climate will change, he argues, but humanity will adapt and change too. Our increased wealth will offset the increased costs of a less-hospitable world. Here's hoping, I guess.

One final thought. Roberts writes:

We are stumbling around in the dark, in an area where scientists tell us some very, very nasty beasties dwell. In that situation, it seems to me the overwhelming bias should be toward action -- getting lean, mean, and nimble enough to handle ourselves no matter what slouches our way.

 So if the politicians tell us there are very, very nasty beasties in the dark, we attack immediately, without hesitation and without proof of the beasties actually being there. But if scientists tell us of beasties in the dark...politicians demand more proof.


_