Inside each doll are several others, smaller but identically shaped characters, until you get to the smallest one inside. The communications not well reported, but, in any event, more embarrassing tittle tattle had been on unsecured accounts, poorly guarded and easily accessed because of carelessness on the part of the Hillary team. Assange, who published them, denied the source of this information was Russian hackers. This now has been confirmed by the heads of our intelligence community, but the Clinton camp claim that the Russians did it set the stage for the notion that her opponent was the favored candidate of the Russians.
Trump and the Election Search for: First, Trump has called for a review of how the social cost of carbon is calculated in used in analyses of regulatory rule making and, second, Trump has announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
I argue that while some of these criticisms are justified, the criticisms end up strengthening arguments for the importance of the second plank: In its final years, the Obama administration pursued two principal strategies toward climate policy.
First, by signing the Paris Accord it committed the U. The Paris agreement in effect commits its signatories to reduce carbon emissions to levels close to zero by mid century. Second, the Obama administration attempted to put a price on carbon emissions by charging an Interagency Working Group IWG to calculate the social cost of carbon which is the cost associated with emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent, into the atmosphere.
The two strategies presuppose two starkly different conceptual frameworks for arriving at a climate policy. The Paris temperature goals are motivated by broadly precautionary thinking. The cost of carbon is calculated by running so-called optimization Integrated Assessment Models IAMs that balance the costs of mitigation measures against their future benefits to determine the optimal climate policy.
The Trump administration is dismantling both strategies. During the Trump administration the SCC will likely be reviewed and the latest science brought to bear.
If the SCC were subjected to the latest science, it would certainly be much lower than what the Obama administration has been using. Others share the view of the importance of the SCC.
I want to argue here that the conservative criticisms are to some extent correct: The models used by the IWG downplay uncertainties by making unjustifiably optimistic assumptions about the values of certain key parameters.
Instead of trying to correct for this error by broadening the class of assumptions under investigation, the conservative critics reinforce the error further by cherry-picking predictions that lie at the optimistic end of the spectrum found in the peer-reviewed literature.
In addition, some of the normatively loaded assumptions have the consequence that potential harms to the populations most vulnerable to and least responsible for climate change are effectively ignored. Thus, a proper accounting of the uncertainties in our knowledge of how climate and economic systems interact and of the moral challenges of climate change puts us exactly in the epistemic and moral situation to which the Paris temperature targets are a response: What is more, when many of these potential harms fall in the first instance upon the poorest populations and will do so as a result of our own activities, we have a moral duty to cease these activities and adopt policies that protect the most vulnerable populations from catastrophic harms.
Trump himself has famously called climate change a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Calculating the expected utility associated with a climate policy requires as inputs, first, the costs and benefits of different policy choices, including the economic costs of mitigation measures as well as future benefits of reductions in temperature increases, and, second, a probability distribution over costs and benefits.
These models couple an economic general equilibrium model to an extremely simplified climate model with the aim of representing the impacts of climate change on human welfare, the impact of changes in economic activity on GHG emissions, and the effect of mitigation measures on economic growth.
The two core components of optimization IAMs—the climate model and the economy model—are coupled through two different channels: Any such cross-temporal aggregation faces the problem as to what relative weight to assign to utilities at different times.
It is common practice to discount future utilities with respect to the present. Climate Sensitivity The climate model of an IAM consists of a small number of equations with parameters, whose values need to be calibrated with the help of more complex climate models.
In order to calculate the optimal emissions policy we would need to know the probabilities with which different consequences would occur. But in order to derive a single probability distribution for ECS we would have to know what the probabilistic dependencies between the different models are from which the IPCC distributions for ECS are derived.
And these dependencies are unknown. Thus, despite the fact that we know quite a bit about the value of ECS, we are in a situation of deep uncertainty with respect to its value—that is, not only is the exact value of ECS unknown but we do not even have grounds for associating a specific probability distribution with ECS.
Moreover, the probability distributions posited by different IAMs are symmetric and do not have fat upper tails and hence ignore the possibility of extreme runaway climate change, which according to some models has a low but non-negligible probability of occurring.
There is a fourth point to note. The different probabilities for ECS summarized by the IPCC are derived within the frameworks of various climate models and are not adjusted for any idealizations or factors left out in the models.
Sophisticated climate models offer an increasingly fine-grained representation of the climate system and include more and more factors that are believed to be relevant to the overall state of the system. Even so, many potentially important factors are omitted.
These include melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; melting of the permafrost and large-scale release of methane from Siberian methane clathrates; and release of seabed methane.
Indeed, Previdi et al.
Decision-relevant probabilities would have to take into account the probabilities of futures in which we might not be so lucky, but these probabilities are unknown. Future Discounting The second core component of an IAM is an economy model with a welfare function representing overall global welfare at a time.
In principle, the concept of welfare equivalent consumption is meant to be broad and include not only consumption but also environmental goods and other goods that are not marketable.With Saturn: Open and affable but miserly, seeks popularity, pretends to be religious for business ends, favors from clergy and lawyers, likelihood of wealth, domestic harmony, liable to diseases in the head and tumors that finally cause death.
There was chain link fence that had been trampled and laying on the ground. It had been put there to mark what was in and what was out. Now it was on the ground. Dec 08, · One of these includes a major part in the construction of the Trans-Rogado Railway Project, which is planned to exponentially increase the amount of railway present in the densely forested region and adding two new Class I (national) railroads to the current 3.
James Downton at The Federalist wrote, We Are Watching A Slow-Motion Coup D’etat It’s nearly incontrovertible that a slow-motion coup d’etat is now taking place.
Since November 9, , forces within the U.S. government, media, and partisan opposition have aligned to overthrow the Electoral College winner, Donald Trump. Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. hi. my name is rod.
i host aibradio on talkshoe,com. jack sent me this email to make contact with you with we are doing on our show. we bring forth issue of corruption of the government with a twist.