February 2008
Dr. Goklany accepts the Stern Review’s grim numbers and looks at the I.P.C.C.’s various scenarios, which project different levels of warming and sea-level rise depending on the the rate of economic growth, energy use and other factors. “The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review’s own estimates,” Dr. Goklany writes, “is that future generations will be better off in the richest but warmest” of the I.P.C.C.’s scenarios. He concludes that cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging sustainable development in poor countries and policies of “focused adaptation” to deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal flooding.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Here in Minnesota, where I’ve been the last two days talking about the state’s Climate Change Advisory Group and explaining what can be expected in their recommendations, the Center for Climate Strategies has not been able to push all their greenhouse gas-reduction ideas as robustly as they have been able to in most other states. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the one who created the commission and brought CCS on board, and politically has to be sensitive to the elements of his support who actually care about the state’s people and their economy.
That’s not to say the MCCAG’s report itself won’t be filled with the usual CCS pap, like cap-and-trade, smart growth-based land use regulations, and “climate-friendly transportation pricing.” It’s just that Pawlenty already is showing he is not willing to go as far as CCS and the commission would like. For example, the MCCAG approved a plan to reduce speed limits on highways in the state back down to 55 mph. That was too much for the governor, and he left it out of his preliminary recommendations – which were supposed to largely reflect the will of the MCCAG – that he released on Friday. That report is already being criticized by lefty environmentalists for not being strong enough, which they are right about if they hoped Pawlenty would just rubberstamp and release the findings of the MCCAG.
Also worthy of note, demonstrating that CCS and environmentalists aren't getting everything they want: one of the MCCAG's recommendations is to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power facilities. That is a first (at least as far as I've seen) for any of these state commissions. And you can tell in the language (written by CCS) explaining the recommendations for the MCCAG that they are less than enthusiastic about the idea. Nevertheless, it got through.
So, there are two separate tracks to follow in Minnesota as they prepare to formally release their proposals in the coming weeks or months. First is Pawlenty: how much of the energy cost-raising and property rights-limiting ideas from MCCAG will he embrace as his own, and implement (to the degree he is able) through executive orders? Second is MCCAG: How much will the Democrat-dominated legislature take their recommendations and try to make them law?
The Cato Institute today released a new Indur Goklany report, “What To Do about Climate Change.”
The study demonstrates that for the foreseeable future, human and environmental well-being will be highest under the "richest-but-warmest" scenario and lower for the poorer (lower-carbon) scenarios. The developing world's future wellbeing should exceed present levels by several-fold under each scenario, even exceeding present wellbeing in today's developed world under all but the poorest scenario. Accordingly, equity-based arguments, which hold that present generations should divert scarce resources from today's urgent problems to solve potential problems of tomorrow's wealthier generations, are unpersuasive.
Read “What To Do about Climate Change” by clicking here
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org