United Nations IPCC Climate Agenda Ignores Cost

In a previous IER post, I explained the enormous disconnect between the work of newly-anointed Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, and the United Nations' new "special report" calling for drastic government measures to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Specifically, Nordhaus' "DICE" model--which was chosen by the Obama Administration as a state-of-the-art pioneer in the field--showed that doing nothing at all was a better policy than what the U.N. is currently demanding. In the present article, I'll use the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) own published reports--which ostensibly codify the peer-reviewed literature in several fields, in order to show policymakers and the public what the "settled science" is--in order to show that the latest calls for a 1.5°C target would be ludicrously expensive. And this is why the latest IPCC report does not present the actual cost of its proposals. It simply takes the 1.5°C ceiling as a given. There is literally no attempt to use the existing body of literature to show that the benefits of the proposals outweigh their costs.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---