That's the title of a post at Environmental Economics. It's lower than the results I was about to post, but hey these guys are Econ. professors.
Also, they seem to assume that the 3% reduction will be allocated per capita worldwide. Ain't gonna happen. Already the Chinese are arguing that the West should bear a larger part of the burden since "You are responsible for 95% of all the greenhouse gases to date."
Most importantly, I am looking at cash costs. Subsidies and tax breaks for biofuels, carbon taxes or limits priced at steadily increasing levels, the costs of mandates (if it were cheaper to do it the IPCC way, we'd be doing it now, low cost is my favorite competitive advantage). the inflationary effects on foodstocks, additional layers of bureaucracy for compliance and enforcement and a half-dozen other costs I'm not seeing anyone quantifying.
This focus on the reduction of total world revenue seems misguided (misdirected) right now. To reverse the arguments about the Stern review on social discount rates, what will implementation of the IPCC's recommendations cost the current generation.
It seems downright silly to have the discussion without being honest enough to face up to the numbers.
