Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

The real question is why the fossil fuel costs are so low. As has been discussed endlessly in this sprawling thread, it is because the full costs of fossil fuel use is not being recovered, that is, the costs associated with the climate change it creates.

For example, the standard model implausibly suggests that a loss of global GDP of 50 percent would only result after a rise in global average temperature of 18 centigrade degrees, even though such warming would likely "render the Earth uninhabitable for most species, including humans."

The new model, according to the report, accounts for "the possibility that such damage could occur at much lower levels of global warming. Standard economic models rule out the possibility that global warming of 5 or 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels could cause catastrophic damages, even though such temperatures have not occurred on Earth for tens of millions of years."

Driving home the study's potential and desired impact, Professor Stern said: “It is extremely important to understand the severe limitations of standard economic models, such as those cited in the IPCC report, which have made assumptions that simply do not reflect current knowledge about climate change and its potential impacts on the economy. I hope our paper will prompt other economists to strive for much better models which will help policy-makers and the public to recognize the immensity the potential risks of unmanaged climate change. Models that assume that catastrophic damages are not possible fail to take account of the magnitude of the issues and the implications of the science.”