A recent news article reports that the US and UK governments are urging the IPCC to frame the final version of its latest report to emphasize the “co-benefits” of government action, and the vulnerability of richer countries to “extreme” weather events. This change in emphasis (away from global temperature increases) shows the weakness in the standard argument for strong “government action” to limit carbon dioxide emissions, as we’ve been documenting here at IER. The change in the argument underscores that the critics all along have had legitimate points with the cost/benefit merits of aggressive intervention by the US government.
