By Jonathan Lesser
In a recently published article published in Nature, the fact that climate jam, such as the various US states and municipalities are still anti-floating, are based on the new research results of the authors who “prove” that the world would be 28 trillion US dollars today, but for CO2 emissions from fossils over a period of 30 years, 1991 to 20.2020. The authors ignore the emissions from developing countries, especially China, which today make up a third of all energy-related greenhouse gas (THG) missions, and instead concentrate on oil companies that they describe as “carbon majors” initiative in particular Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Exxonmobr, BP and Gasprom.
For example, according to the authors, Chevron caused an estimated 2 trillion dollar compensation and possibly caused up to 3.6 trillion dollars. Exxon Mobil is directly behind at 1.9 trillion dollars. Similarly, Saudi -Aramco and Gazprom are responsible for damage of 2 trillion US dollars. BP is the successor with almost 1.5 trillion US dollars. The collection of fines of these amounts that significantly exceed the market values of these companies would lead to their immediate bankruptcy. While the authors consider such a result as a “profit”, the bankruptcy of these companies would not change the physical and economic realities that the world depends on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. (In addition, it is not clear who will collect the fines and who would receive the received funds – except for legal proceedings.)
In order to derive their damage estimates, the authors combine bad science with bad economy. First, use simplified climate models to predict which average world temperatures have not given greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Next, use other models to determine how many less extreme heat events that you define as the hottest five days of each year would not have been given to THG emissions of fossil fuels. Finally, they calculate the damage in relation to the lost GDP based on a simple regression model, in which the lost GDP is increased in relation to the temperature increase and ignores the countless other economic factors that influence economic growth. You justify this absurd specification, which has no economic basis, to “research examined by experts” an earlier article that you have published.
The approach used by these authors is a form of “attribution science” that tries to link certain weather -related events with greenhouse gas emissions. This approach, which was developed for the first time about two decades ago, to attribute a European heat wave from 2003 to climate change, is statistical casual demonstration that depends on contradictory models, as the authors use here.
Ironically, the authors recognize the advantages of fossil fuels and explained that “fossil fuels have also caused immense prosperity”. However, they deliberately ignore these advantages because “these companies have already been paid well”. This latter statement shows another economic ignorance. Without fossil fuels, modern life would be impossible. The advantages of fossil fuels for modern society are probably incalculable, but exceed the profits that these companies have achieved, and exceed the damage estimates that the authors calculate.
The authors claim that compensation for fossil fuels are what economists call “externality”, and that “courts may have to consider how the advantages of energy consumption against their external effects and the potential duty of care that these companies have towards the public are compensated for.” (They also increase the discredited claim that the oil companies “knew” about climate change and hid the evidence of the public.)
Effects are a real phenomenon of energy development and use. In this case, however, the external effects cannot be observed and instead are estimated with little accuracy based on theoretical models. In addition, the collection of punishments is to “internalize” an externality that would cause much greater economic losses.
Ultimately, this article is simply a piece of interest for consistent lawsuits against oil companies with deep financial bags. Nature should be ashamed of it to publish it.
Jonathan Lesser is Senior Fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics. His report “The social costs of carbon: an incorrect measure for energy policy” was published on April 23.
This article was originally published by Realclearergy and provided via Realclearwire.
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
