"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Friday, April 4, 2008

Just the Gold

Speaking of being in it for the money and the perks, there's this.


David B. Benson said...

Here is my preliminary number:

315 ppmv

CO2 in the atmosphere. This is about the concentration in the 1950s when Dr. Keeling first began his Mauna Loa measurements. That was the first time that the Swiss glaciologists began to notice definite mass wasting in the Alps. Not much. Just some. But basically no countervaling advances.

It has to be made a still smaller value to offset the higher concentrations of methane and whatnot today (and in the future) as compared to the 1950s. I don't know how much less, it is enough that the point is made.

And yes, I do know that the CO2 concentration is currently about 385 ppmv...

Michael Tobis said...

Oops wrong thread.