Lehmann talks extreme weather on NPR’s On Point

537249241

With record snowstorms crippling New England, R Street Institute Senior Fellow and Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann was a guest this week on the nationally syndicated public radio program On Point with Tom Ashbrook (a co-production of National Public Radio and Boston’s WBUR) for a discussion of extreme weather, climate change and the impact of both on business and the economy. Also joining were Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, and Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the climate center of the National Resources Defense Council. Among the topics covered were the National Flood Insurance Program, federal agriculture supports, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, the disaster-planning framework put forward by the SmarterSafer coalition and the inadvisability of a national catastrophe fund.

You can hear the whole segment below.

FacebookTwitterEmailPrint
  • jfreed27

    Even aside from the additional $billions from additional extreme weather and $billions already needed for adaptation, this study:

    A cost-benefit analysis has demonstrated that the cost of sea level rise alone is
    so great that no expense to prevent it is unwarranted

    (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/10/104008/article).

    Yet supposedly shrewd investors continue to support the deniers in Congress. Go figure.

    • zlop

      “0.065 °C in 45 years” raised ocean levels much ”

      “the man responsible for putting the mark there, explorer Sir James Clark Ross stated explicitly and several times in his 1846 book [3] that the mark was placed at MSL (as he estimated it to be), not at a point 44.5cm above, near the high tide point, as claimed by the study” — little change, since 1846

      Investors opportunities are in false flags; “Abel Danger 9-11-2014
      $92 Trillion Dollar Carbon Disclosure Project Gambling on Contrived Disaster”

      • jfreed27

        Sorry, but I will go with the experts. None of us is qualified to know if your Sir James Clark Ross reference is bogus or not.

        NASA, NOAA is, despite your paranoid imaginings.

        • zlop

          Suspicions abandoned — “Sorry, but I will go with the experts.” ?

          Which experts? Some experts even vandalize evidence trees.
          “Dr. Nils-Axel Morner on Alex Jones Tv 1/3:IPCC’s Global Sea Level Rising Statement is Wrong!!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vQRe7hNwN-c#t=344

          • jfreed27

            NOAA and NASA

          • zlop

            “NOAA and NASA” — “NOAA caught committing fraud in Congressional testimony about ocean acidification” — “NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000”

          • jfreed27

            A lie

    • Vey well said. While Apple is talking a big talk on NPR, they are profitably because they rush new products to the market and consumers trash the old for the new. Until economists start looking at degrowth as a viable option, carbon emissions will continue to skyrocket.

  • zlop

    Climate warming is a psychological operation,
    Record lows are harbingering Ice Age Doom.

    • 123spencer

      Record lows? Where? There are record snows, but that weather behavior might itself be a consequence of CC (more moisture in atmosphere, as air’s moisture carrying capacity is proportional to air temp.) I know we set some record highs in AK this winter. Have we even tied record lows anywhere in the US this year? What we haven’t done since 1977 is have a year of global temperature records place us below the average temperature for the 20th century. That is a remarkable and troubling streak no matter how you slice it.

      Arguably if only the natural forcings were acting we should be headed into a new Ice Age, but over a long long time scale. But the existence of the opposite trend again says something is up. The only viable explanation on the table at the moment is that human produced GHGs are now a key factor driving climate.

      Doing something about it is only in our own interest. Many economists and economic modeling studies think it would be good for job and GDP growth too. Price carbon. Send revenue to all consumers as a dividend. If there are no cost effective alternatives, there will be no change in consumer behavior and nothing will change. No harm, no foul.

      If consumer behavior does change, it will be because lower carbon energy sources and products cost less than the marginal cost of carbon imposed, and so represent a net benefit to the consumer and economy as a whole.

      So don’t do anything for the environment – do it for the economic growth.

      What is gained or preserved by opposing action (beyond those with a direct benefit in socializing the cost and risk of pollution emissions)? $0 has always seemed the only wrong price to charge for an emission into a reservoir that you and I own.

      (An oldie but a goodie:
      http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/)

      • zlop

        “Record lows? Where? ” — Where it really matters — White House has become colder
        http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Weather+White+House+2012+to+2015

        “human produced GHGs are now a key factor driving climate.”
        Greenhouse gases, human or not, Cool, only a little.
        Chemtrail warming also causes global dimming.

        “Price carbon. Send revenue to all consumers as a dividend.”?
        Rothschild, Gore and Blood carbon tax racketeers, are skimming off the top.

        “So don’t do anything for the environment – do it for the economic growth”?
        The top 1% will grow less, than that stolen from the 99%

        • 123spencer

          A link indicating that a day this year is colder than than from the previous 3 years is called a data “cherry pick”. More interesting might be if the coldest day this year in Maryland actually set any records. Much more telling still are the average annual temperature comparisons since 1895:

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/

          Look at MD. Trends have consequences.

    • 123spencer

      Record lows? Where? There are record snows, but that weather behavior might itself be a consequence of CC (more moisture in atmosphere, as air’s moisture carrying capacity is proportional to air temp.) I know we set some record highs in AK this winter. Have we even tied record lows anywhere in the US this year? What we haven’t done since 1977 is have a year of global temperature records place us below the average temperature for the 20th century. That is a remarkable and troubling streak no matter how you slice it.

      Arguably if only the natural forcings were acting we should be headed into a new Ice Age, but over a long long time scale. But the existence of the opposite trend again says something is up. The only viable explanation on the table at the moment is that human produced GHGs are now a key factor driving climate.

      Doing something about it is only in our own interest. Many economists and economic modeling studies think it would be good for job and GDP growth too. Price carbon. Send revenue to all consumers as a dividend. If there are no cost effective alternatives, there will be no change in consumer behavior and nothing will change. No harm, no foul.

      If consumer behavior does change, it will be because lower carbon energy sources and products cost less than the marginal cost of carbon imposed, and so represent a net benefit to the consumer and economy as a whole.

      So don’t do anything for the environment – do it for the economic growth.

      What is gained or preserved by opposing action (beyond those with a direct benefit in socializing the cost and risk of pollution emissions)? $0 has always seemed the only wrong price to charge for an emission into a reservoir that you and I own.

      An oldie but a goodie: http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/

Top



Email this page.
Print Friendly and PDF