[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

But directly you can estimate the cost. Via "addressing" CC, nope.

You can play out any scenario based on the emissions profile (over time), where you end up and how you get there, use time value discounting and get various answers. The most recent (2007, so far) IPCC reports use some simplified and specific examples; Stern, likewise; Garnault, likewise.

When none of the scenarios that avoid the effects of climate change cost more (where extra cost exists - it often has no cost) than the extra cost of not avoiding them, it's obvious what course to take.

You have it in your head that a comfortable standard of living cannot be provided without burning fossil fuels, or in any other way than it is currently achieved. Not so. The technology exists and the direct economic cost of doing so is reasonable and affordable. The problem is the political will to do it.

If you are invested in businesses that will not exist if climate change is addressed, then maybe you will see addressing climate change as "high cost".

But not using them reduces yield, oh hang on...

The point is, long term, so does using them. You can add all the fertilizer or use all the pesticides you like but it's no benefit if you've moved the rainfall elsewhere in so doing.

I am saying take the long term view. If you like, the total yield over time will be greater by using fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides more cleverly (less).

Well developing GM means CO2,

Why? GM is a tool, nothing more. It's not inherently linked to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be used in ways that rely on methods that do cause emissions now, but it doesn't have to be used in those ways.

and also quite a few people here don't like GM in any way shape or form - Personally I'm neutral. Whilst we have a choice to go organic or not in the rich first world if you offer a farmer in Africa a crop than can withstand drought better, needs fewer fertilizers, yields more, and extracts less nutrients from the soil I doubt he or she would say no.

True, organic, as it is commonly held to be done (no GM, no fertilizer or pesticide/herbicide inputs) is a luxury the world can't afford. I've written it before; every tool - GM included - is going to be needed.

And Lord Stern was wrong in so many areas. The guy he quoted the most in his report says his report is pish.

Stern is a few years ago now and Stern's is not the only analysis around. The problem with economics is you cannot (accurately) predict the future. You can get somewhere close making some "what if" assumptions. In the particular case of climate change "somewhere close" shows very clearly which direction to take.

I'm talking incremental growth, without Greenpeace imposing only renewable power and WWF taking land (sometimes by force) for Palm Oil, if we could do it in one go that would be superb but we can't.

The rate at which it is done is irrelevant if it doesn't solve any problems when you get there.

Without this how do you propose to solve population growth ? People getting richer have fewer kids because they all survive. Did you notice world population growth is slowing as the world is getting richer ? If not using this way then how - bottom line, who dies and who decides who dies ? If it is based on emissions and consumption then surely our kids should die first - so is going to go with that idea ? Not me.

Population alone isn't the only factor. It is impact times population. True, birth rates are lower in the developed world and true, population cannot increase without limit.

Reducing the environmental impact of a person in the developed world has far greater effect than preventing an increase in the population of the undeveloped parts of the world. From a base of ~20 to 30 times greater (the current relative difference) there is much more scope to reduce the developed world person's environmental impact than the person living at a subsistence level.

It also - assuming that that the same measures are eventually taken by everyone - reduces the environmental impact of those new people when they do reach the same stage of development.

]How do you propose to solve environmental pollution ? Wealthier countries impose emissions standards (clean air act, anti smog, restrictions on fertilizer use and run off as good examples, there are more) and can afford the costs required to abide by them. They can also provide clean water.

It's not either/or. But they can't begin to fix those things if they are going to be pushed backwards again due to the extra costs imposed by the effects of climate change.

Poor people use more and more land or hunt more and more wildlife to survive, wealthier people living in cities don't. Wealthier countries also protect wildlife areas, wildernesses and impose standards on anyone doing anything in them.

People with wealth (us, by definition if we can type and read this) do have environmental impacts that extend beyond their immediate surroundings. You just don't see it because it gets outsourced.

Unless you have a magic herd of unicorns we will be digging up the ancient carbon and turning it into CO2. Personally I would rather we did that in the most efficient way possible, not by burning it in a field full of Diesel generators acting as backup for useless and bl00dy expensive renewables.

We won't use all the fossil fuels because it is uneconomic to do so. The entire economy is going to be reconfigured. It is that which is required to avoid using Diesel generators as back up to renewables.