Here's the url for the paper I had in mind.
brookings.edu
Well, it's actually for the opening page, advertising the piece. That page includes a url to the pdf file.
And here's the abstract.
Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.
This briefing will address the three points above and, in an appendix, offer non-jargon explanations of the most important recent findings of greenhouse science. But the pressing point of this briefing is not so much scientific as it is practical—that action against artificial global warming may not prove nearly as expensive or daunting as commonly believed. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected. This gives cause to hope that artificial greenhouse gases can be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. And if there is a chance of an economical approach to greenhouse-gas reduction, then what are we waiting for? Let's start now.
My apologies. I should have posted it when I offered the observation but I was uncertain you were interested and a bit too busy at the moment.
As for the Gore point, I haven't read the book (I have it on reserve at the library) nor seen the movie but I saw the point about easier to mitigate than previously thought either in one of the reviews or in an interview done with Gore.
However, I just did some google searching and came up with a blank. Perhaps Cobalt Blue will take a shot.
I'm reading Elizabeth Kolbert's small book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, which is a very fine book. It's a series of snap shot moments, each of which could serve as an introduction to a longer work on the subtopic.
It's elegant (Kolbert writes for, among other places, The New Yorker) and well told. Very clear. But to argue with it, one would have to check the science behind it. She leaves the requisite trail of footnotes.
Kolbert, interestingly enough, will take the opposite position from Easterbrook, most likely. Her sources tell her we are much further down the line to the tipping point and stopping it is extremely wrenching.
I recommend it. |
