20 Burst results for "Nord House"
"nord house" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"You do the cost benefit analysis it basically reaches an equilibrium temperature of about three point five degrees celsius warming. Now there are criticisms of just doing the cost benefit analysis at all to begin with that you know when it comes to the environment even with diminishing returns it still worthwhile that you know when we talk about human life. We shouldn't be necessarily pricing it with an economic value but But yeah and even north house. I think himself would probably acknowledged that you know. That's not necessarily the way you would want to do things. This is just basically a starting point for developing a price on carbon developing other policies. Starting today but if you were to again start from the finish line start from about the two degrees of warming is start with that cap and work backwards. You would probably arrive at a much higher. Social cost of carbon probably up to an order of magnitude more like in the four hundred dollar range and so the question is then. How do you square these two And that's really going to be a big policy fight. Essentially you know. And that is the fight between the environmental groups and the economist essentially you know which is what reflects the more feasible thing to do and the more optimal thing that we can actually in the present so i mean models like this obviously like. We're looking at a revision. Know the two sixteen revision of the twenty thirteen model. You know there have been subsequent like estimate since then how you know when nord house and others talked about the idea of this is like a starting point in developing policy. How is that actually worked out so far like you know. They have a bunch of inputs for this model in a bunch of assumptions. They come up with this. You know synthetic estimate of the cost of the social cost of a ton of carbon. How does that then get turned into an input in either kind of technocratic lake think tankeea here is what the us should put as a tax on carbon or indie like actual honest to goodness policy making processes we know it in terms of you know cbo and modeling. Well the important thing you know. Here's also we haven't been doing this for very long. Like the first social cost of carbon calculate by the us government was around two thousand ten so and so the model has had some time to evaluate. But it's still improving. These are all still works in progress. That said i mean we do use the social cost of carbon to do things like calculating the corporate average fuel economy standards basically when we do the economy-wide calculation for how efficient cars and trucks should be we use the social cost of carbon evaluating the open attentional damages from this and essentially how much of a burden financially is worth putting on auto companies today. And so that's one way we can do that You know you can also do this as a basis for developing a price on carbon. Now you don't necessarily want to translate your social cost of carbon to carbon tax because the social cost of carbon is the cost borne by society writ large whereas the carbon taxes what you watch put on polluters right now. There could an argument for setting the carbon tax lower. There could be an argument for sending the carbon tax higher than the social cost of carbon depending on how punitive you want to be in. What other things you wanna capture with it but having that as sort of an anchor point that lets you establish what counts as reasonable level of policy. What level of investment is justified. Now when it comes to things like building seawalls coast retreating or what kinds of homes should be insured or whether we should be a rebuilding in certain areas. Once you understand that these costs are there. Then you can sort of you know. Basically look at a spreadsheet and see whether it's worthwhile or not so you know one of the things you know your your article delves into right is that the cost of differ from from place to place because you know geography varies but then the other thing that that as i understand it keeps boiling. The debate is that emissions are global in their impact in a way that differs from a lot of other sort of pollution. Type thing so that you know if one country reduces its its emissions tech the deca you bear all the costs of whatever regulation you impose but the benefits are like two fused globally. So it seems like if you do as sort of rational analysis like everyone is gonna underage tax under regulator under invest. Whatever it is you're gonna do too little baby. Put it all into seawalls or or something like that and you know how this like globally integrated like like. How should we think about that. I mean that. That's a really difficult. And i think we'll get into that a little bit with some of the other papers we discussed but essentially the us calculates social cost of carbon. It does factor in damages to other countries to an extent One of the changes that the trump administration also made in their social cost of carbon calculation was that they stopped including damages to other countries. In harm's to you know low-lying countries that will be swallowed up by sea level rise and that's part of how they arrived at a much lower number so this is odd so the integrated assessment model does capture that but But but you're right that you know these are very very Divergent depending on geography of countries aren't gonna actually benefit from warming to a limited extent and others are going to suffer a lot worse and a single number is not going to capture that disparity and it tends to easily be overlooked. The other thing that another criticism of this has also just that wall. This does use climate models. It tends to assume presume a sort of a steady increase or steady change in climate. And that's not necessarily going to be the case. This doesn't necessarily capture a potential tipping points. Accelerations step changes. Are things like you know. Extreme weather events that can force large scale Relocations so some of the major changes that could potentially occur due to climate change that could be hugely economically. Devastating are not necessarily factored into this partly because the resolution of the model can't capture that like the physical models are just not good enough to be able to predict what we don't know but it is something worth keeping in mind that there's a fair amount of uncertainty around what the actual value should be and over time. You know we do expect the social cost of carbon to continue to rise. I mean this just seems like a you know if you if you care about policy but in political view right by the you know if you had sort of cozy elite politics right. Everybody could look at this and be like well okay. Objectively like the global costs are surreal. We can't ignore that we. I bet if you asked most Scientists and most people with phd's economics. They would all agree that we should consider the global cost. And then you can have this technocratic right but when you bring it kick it out into the domain of like bare knuckle politics that the trump view that american policy should only consider the impact on americans. Seems like pretty pretty strong and it's I think fortunate of i feel like the biden administration will probably provide this Social cost of carbon calculus along these ways but like probably doesn't want to like have a huge public argument about it. They you know it's much more comfortable to be on the level of like we stand by the science and like they are ignorant jackasses when like part of what standing by the science means here is like standing by like objective cosmopolitanism and the view that lives are worthy insignificant. But i feel like we also keep seeing that like. I is a pretty a pretty good slogan. Yeah and i mean the other thing i would just add to that is just you know even in our own self interest. It makes sense to care about other countries. Because we're an export-driven economy like other countries have to buy or stuff and if there have run out of money building sea walls or evacuating people from the coasts. I mean like we're not. We're going to run out of markets for our stuff and that's going to ripple back to us so it does pay to invest for our own benefit to help protect other countries. I mean i think the kind of the nature of geographic variation something that we're gonna get into a little bit like kind of fundamentally. I think we're we've kind of been in this episode of operating on the assumption that like because everyone knows that climate change is bad. You know or harm future global civilization like you know the idea of carbon having a social cost is a little bit like you know. Okay you can. You can just stipulate that but but what you guys were saying earlier gets to the one of the specific ways in which you know it can be hard to predict not only what future climate change will look like vet human response in. That's the difference between extreme weather events and like longer term consequences like sea level rise gradual rise in average temperature as opposed.
"nord house" Discussed on a16z
"Phase I in their first phase of figuring out how to user resources like I guess my question is. Why couldn't they leapfrog this extractive phase phase and just go right to a more practical phase when it comes to acceleration of technology? Do you think that extractive phase as a happen. It's pretty clear to me that America and the UK and I think most other super rich countries are past peak stuff. If you weighed our economy year after year it would weigh less year after year. India and China and Bangladesh are not yet at peak stuff but they will get to that point much earlier on in their GDP per capita trajectory because Nigeria is not. I'm not GonNa lay an extensive copper telephone network across the country. They're not going to build as many coal plants per capita as we did because that's just economically inefficient to do. I'll be surprised as if the Chinese have as many private cars per capita as we did earlier in our history because it's really impractical to have that heavy expensive asset sit idle ninety five percent of the time time so I do think that this technologically very sophisticated economy is going to get countries through this resource transition much earlier than we went through it so one of the things that's so striking carbon emissions in the US or falling and you told me they're starting to fall in certain parts of Europe as well the EU in general has been on a shallow downward trend Yep. There's lots of advances made in energy efficient technologies all kinds of when this will continue. Let's take the strong advocates for dramatic action at their word that we're going to run into real trouble globally nobly. How do you not progress from there to believe in. We have to take a very different approach from a foreign policy standpoint in particular as China and India up potentially up to and including if chorus of actions because if you look at the graph of global emissions growth. It's very clearly to like gigantic examples so we're going to invade them to make them reduce their carbon emissions like that. I don't I don't see how that plays out. Let me give you a couple software waste because I think there are a couple important. Ones one is they gave the Nobel oh bell price to build Nord House last year for his work about how to deal with global warming and the notion of a carbon dividend when Nord House proposed carbon tax and I liked the phrase carbon dividend better because it's not a tax with government keeps the money you pass through the government directly to people and give them a carbon dividend hopefully skewed a little bit toward lower income people as part of that you also do what's called a border adjustment where you look at all the imports into the country and if they come from high carbon sources you you tax them just like you would if they were made in this country with high carbon sources. I think that's really strong incentive for our main trading partners in China's probably exhibit exhibit a here to start literally cleaning up their act in this regard the other thing. Is You know we have one source of power. We have one way to generate power that is scalable clean somewhat economical and not intermittent and it's called nuclear and there are a couple of countries like France and Sweden that have cheap electricity and the cleanest power in Europe and were running away from the rest of the world. I find this completely perverse why not put together a an international coalition and along with that and International Patent Bank so that it's cheaper to produce the new generation of nuclear reactor. I'm pretty sure that will get the cost down to the point where it becomes an economic no brainer even for low income countries to start transitioning into a a clean energy environment. I would do both of those things way before or I would try to coerce other countries into changing their energy profile or doing it in a way that would that would slow down their growth or impoverished their people so I'm glad you brought brought up. I'm glad you brought up nuclear housing. I was GonNa ask you that so many times just like flatly ruled out nuclear an option so what what's going on there and like what what what's the way through that Ah. I honestly don't know the answer. Why are they so stridently anti nuclear there's probably a bundle of things going on one is because of everything from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Godzilla two three Mile Island and Fukushima and Chernobyl I mean I just finished watching their noble miniseries on Hbo so I have this kind of visceral visceral reaction to the idea of super widespread nuclear power but I think our homework is always not to trust that initial hick and to go look at the evidence evidence and when you actually look at the evidence and look at the issues I don't know how you come away anything except a nuclear advocate and we worry about things like nuclear waist and we should worry about nuclear waste but we don't then say well how much harm is caused by the pollution from other kinds of power generation worldwide why there are clearly hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from people breathing coal dust and people breathing the emissions from coal plants so the death toll. It's not even even close and this is backed up by very good research published in the Lancet and elsewhere. There's a nice article in our world and data about relative safety levels in death rates from different kinds of power. You walk away from that nuclear's biggest cheerleader so I don't quite know why the reaction is is so strident and visceral and negative all I can say it is not not based on evidence and I'm I'm starting to see a coalition forming that pushes back against that to say we're getting this deeply wrong on an important issue so okay so you were talking about cap and trade what made that so successful compared to other temps. Obviously there's a market based mechanisms but give me more details cap and trade. The basic I dea is make pollution expensive attach a cost to it in other words. Put it inside the market. Pollution doesn't naturally have a price and when that's the case no matter what the press release says businesses have a strong incentive to go pollute. If it's free okay put a price on it and then here's the brilliance of cap and trade allow companies to buy and sell that pollution or more specifically that right to pollute with each other so if I'm super dirty and I can't clean clean up quickly. I gotta buy the right to pollute but I'm willing to buy that right. If it's cheaper than the cost of me cleaning myself up right some somebody will sell me that right and make some cash rush because they're already really clean and they don't need that right. So this was a line of economics research. They've got started with them. Legendary Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Ronald Coast and descendants of his ideas got put into practice early in the Reagan administration with the help of the Environmental Defense Fund so this beautiful Allianz Forum to say hey. Let's try this market based thing for dealing with pollution they overcame whatever reluctance was there from the from the incumbents again and they did it right and then the the research is pretty clear that we can just look at what happened to particular emission from these kinds of plants. America's skies are just ninety plus percent cleaner dinner than they were when when that when that legislation was passed and the cost of doing it is a fraction of the original estimate of that so there's a reason for these kind of crazy easy fans of markets for getting things done they work and when you can put things like pollution in a market and you do this with cap and trade and carbon dividends and things like that these are the these are the most efficient ways to deal with the problem. Don't China and India have to sign up for the same thing. One of the problems with carbon is at the harms from it are not local and they're not immediate so maybe the the fast growing high carbon countries right now will choose to ignore it for a while longer. We have a couple mechanisms to get them to not do that and like I said if you do a border adjustment for the high carbon products that we import that's a really strong incentive to do things better if we can make it cheaper for them to be green and I personally I think nuclear and a patent banker cheap technologies around nuclear is the path to do that. We clearly have to help the currently low income world get rich on lower carbon trajectory than there on right now. That's different than saying that they can't can't use more energy year after year. I'm not going to deny them that right to prosperity exactly but we really want them to get cleaner quicker. I think we have tools to do that and and I don't think that the Chinese and the Indians are indifferent to the longer term health of the planet. I really don't believe that I mean they're living with it. In a physical way everyone there is facing an experiencing erasing it in a very real way and we had this podcast a few years ago with Evan Osnos at the New Yorker. We were talking about China. One of my favorite things that he talked about is how because because of the growth of the middle class in China that there is now a huge cohort people demanding a better environment precisely because of the market deny met no not just that getting a better involvement so I found this great research that I put in more from less a very good economist looked at what happened when China finally got serious about urban air pollution and the reason they got serious about about it was people were leaving the city's even if they didn't have government permission to do it. People were leaving because their kids were just clearly getting sick. I'M GONNA GONNA have stunted lives so China took action and they brought down there countrywide particulate pollution by thirty percent in four years and they did it with these draconian Indian means but they did it and they took us in the United States twelve years to get that same thirty percent reduction so even one of the points I make in the book is democracies are are probably more receptive to the will of their people but there are interesting exceptions in both directions and China was clearly receptive to the will of its people not to choke off their children dron with pollution right right. I read a ton of Chinese sci-fi and it's literally the recurring theme is basically about the end of the world and like environment but Andy was route. That's cool yeah. It's a really big theme. Ah Yet to read a lot of different Chinese science fiction author see this but that's basically my genre this year one thing I wanna ask you I understand from the market dynamics point of view why cap and trade with successful swale idea an example and it's been proven out but why couldn't a government have simply mandated like we will simply put a limit on this draconian measures like China I did. Why would that not be as effective. Sometimes we did. That's how we actually brought down. CFC emissions so drastically we just mandated that they be reduced by x percent over time until they got down to close to zero the reason that works is that there's a relatively small number of industries a relatively small number of companies in a relatively small number of products that used chlorofluorocarbons and to be a little bit more cynical. The other reason that ban worked was somebody eventually whispered to the incumbent. I've been companies the CFC's. You're making right now. They're off patent the new generation of cooling propellants and whatnot those can be underpaid and that's going to be a big revenue source for you and so they finally got industry on their side. I feel hot can work for example. It is just flat illegal to dump waste at sea in America. We just did that via via. We didn't put a price on it. You cannot hunt animals in national parks. You cannot hunt deer or duck out there seasons so sometimes you want to do things by Fiat but I think if you can put it in a market mechanism and it's appropriate to do that. I think you'll get better better solutions quicker. Maybe that's not right but I've got this deep faith in markets once you put things in them in price them to deal with that price in a in a very fast way. If you change a businesses cost structure quickly man businesses will run from that increased cost like gazelle run when they smell a lion. It's just amazing how quickly it'll happen. I will tease tease tertia randy that little bit in that a as you're probably well aware support for market based systems like cap and trade of collapse. One of the points that I bring up in the book is that sometimes the the crazy side of the argument wins and I think the craziest winning on nuclear these days. I think the crazy is winning on GMO's..
"nord house" Discussed on EconTalk
"June joining essentially putting sunshine on the planet if you will, it's hard officially manipulating the temperature of the planet so that it cools down. We know you we can do that, because volcanoes do it back in nineteen Ninety-one Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, emitted so much selfish oxide from one volcano that reduced temperatures about one degree Fahrenheit for about three years so you can these global temperature. So you can definitely do this kind of thing that is your only real way of avoiding dramatic battle comes the other part of the conversation. And the other thing you need to remember, if you really worry about bad outcomes, surely, you don't just worry about bad outcomes from global warming. You worry about bad outcomes, from a wide range of other. Issues. And I would still argue if you worry about battle comes from club warming, you should worry about a lot of other bad outcomes like terrorism, like, bioterrorism, certainly, the issue of, of a, an asteroid killing off large parts of the planet, which we know can happen and many, many other things, and Richard Nord house, which will probably talk about later. Sorry. Bill Nord house, a professor at Yale University and got the Nobel prize in climate economics. The only economist to get that he's actually written on this, and one of his points was, we actually do have a reasonably good estimate of how much is worth for most people to secure the planet because back in the early two thousands Naza was looking at should we protect the planet from asteroids, shoot. We look for near earth objects might hit the planet. These. Are basically extinction events in these real extension of wins. We know that they've happened before probably have about a risk of one hundred million years, so not a high risk by any means, but certainly terrible outcome. They could track either ninety percent or ninety nine percent of these earth. Objects and the extra cost of tracking. The nine percent was not very high yet, congress decided not to spend that it was a couple of billion dollars safe enough of that very. Well, it very clearly tells you that we actually put a price on human survival. And when north house dosa calculation it shows that we care somewhat but not all that much about the planet. So in that sense if you worry about extinction events, which I think very, very unlikely in, in, in climate, you should certainly also worried about it.
Nobelist Says System of Science Offers Life Lessons
"This is Americans sixty seconds science. I'm Steve Mirsky the benefits from science as they show up in our daily lives are just enormous, but I want to transfer you that right now science can do something for us. Give us a kind of hope that goes beyond just those benefits Paul Romer. He showed the two thousand eighteen Nobil will Morial prize in economic sciences. Romer spoke April night that the National Academy of sciences in Washington DC at an event honoring tenuous Nobel and Calveley prize laureates. Now, there's nobody who's got benefits as direct and his immediate as Jim Jim Ellison who was also there and who shared the two thousand eighteen Nobel physiology or medicine for his work that led to new drugs against cancer when you can show there are people alive now because of the discovering you've made that just you know, that trumps everything most of us create benefits in an indirect way. And they come. All steps. So they're harder to perceive warmer than cited. William Nord house with whom he shared the two thousand eighteen economics prize Bill has this beautiful paper that measures a particular type of benefit which is asking how much light and luminaires can somebody get from an hour's worth of work. And roughly speaking from say, the beginning of the Neolithic revolution up to say, the time of the founding of the National Academy. That's about twelve thousand five hundred years ago to eighteen sixty three that went up by a factor of twenty people just bump into things they discover things so twenty times more light. But from the time of the founding of the kademi until now it's gone up by factor twenty thousand so one hour of work translates into twenty thousand more luminaires of light than it did. The time this this institution was founded, so those benefits are just huge. And we need the by the way, it's it's the system of science that made those very rapid ones possible. Not just curiosity not just random search. So they're huge benefits. But right now, I think there's more anxiety about how we're going to interact with each other as people than there is about just can we keep having more material of benefits, and here thing science is maybe even more important because it's very unusual community of people draws on people from all backgrounds from all over the world and unites kind of common purpose, and we get things done because we insist on things like truth and honesty, and we can trust each other because of that instead insistence, and we welcome people in to that community. If you're willing to live by those those norms, and we ask you to leave. We don't pay any attention to if you don't live by those norms. And the goal is really one of offering benefits that can be shared by everybody. So if you think about kind of like the hope for humanity scientists model of what we can accomplish. But who we can be and how we can be with each other for scientific Americans sixty seconds science. I'm Steve Mirsky.
"nord house" Discussed on Uncommon Knowledge
"Zero energy sources close quote within ten years. Good idea as first of all is not doable. And Secondly, even if could it be phenomenally expensive, and again, I think because this is clearly motivated by a lot of fear and so going out and say, oh, it's madness. I understand where this comes from by it's important to real people back and say, look if you actually want to do something about global warming. Let's two proposals. They'll actually work. Green deal first. And then we come to the proposals will actually work because that's urine Lombards job a promise to upgrade, quote, all existing buildings close, quote to meet energy efficiency requirements, again, I believe the promises to do that within a decade. And that's even more impossible. We're talking about one point three one point four trillion dollars per year. It's half of the US budget the stature budget. That's just not gonna happen. A promise to expand high speed rail service. So broadly that within a decade most airline travel will be rendered obsolete. I can't really see that happening. But but again, even if you did that that would actually reduce emissions a lot less because again air travel is a fairly small amount globally. It's about three and a half percent. It's probably more in the US. And I'm not sure what numbers, but still, you know, it's a fairly small, but it's the guilt amount. It feels wrong to fly in. So that's what we're focusing on again like. To focus in stuff, actually work. All right. So this brings us to what you believe should reasonably be done. You wrote recently of the work of economist. William Nord house you mentioned a moment ago that he has now received a Nobel prize the only climate economist every even though they'll prize quoting you Bjorn, quote, his careful work shows that globally coordinated moderate and rising carbon tax carbon tax could reduce temperatures modestly close quote. So that's something that to take place the imposition of globe modest global carbon tax and then ratcheted up gradually. Yes. So I'm going to complicate this a little further because he's absolutely right. And almost any comments you ask we'll say the right way. It's tackle a problem where basically you have market failure. Nobody's paying for emitting next analogy then put in a carbon tax if you can do that. And. And remember if you can make globally coordinated across the century with China, India, everybody else, then you can actually make this work, and you can cut carbon emissions a little bit in the however, the problem, of course, those that you you've seen this in the US, basically leads to gridlock for ten years in many other countries, you can't do it. If you start doing it as soon as it starts ramping up a little bit. You know, you got the yellow vests on on the street, and nobody can do anything in many developing countries have realistic carbon-tax would be so expensive that it would be more than the entire intake government intake. And of course, that won't be possible. So there's a lot of practical problems. So it's a neat theoretical point. And I think in principle, we should try and do it because probably is effective. Even if only some countries do it as soon as you don't do stupid stuff like then trying to impose carbon controls at the border, which a lot of people misuse to basically breakdown free trade, but the much. Much better approach to this is to focus on technology. And if you'll allow me sort of diversion, if you think back in the eighteen sixties the world was hunting Wales to extinction. Why because Wales has this wonderful aural that burns really brightly and really cleanly so lit up most of the US and and west European homes and our current approach to tackling global warming back then would have been a little bit. Like, could you please turn down that light? Could you have a little more dim? Could you have used the old annoying suiting oil instead? And of course, you would have had no success. What did happen was somebody drill for oil in Pennsylvania? And discover oh, wait there's a much cheaper even more effective that way that we don't have to go out and hunt whales, and we can burn on homes, it's cheaper. And it's even brighter. Let's do that that technological development basically, meant we save the whales and we've seen that number of times through human..
"nord house" Discussed on Talk Python To Me
"Talked about the scientific papers up, sleet, the move from just pedia for written paper over to mathematics to Jupiter, and that's sort of high level conversation of a trend, but this year the Nobel prize in. Economics was basically one with Jupiter python. Which is awesome. That is amazing and not surprising. I mean, if you're going to do some scientific research what other programming language would you choose especially if you're like an economists. So there's a bunch of folks who did a bunch of mathematics Mathematica and included in them or these two guys named Nord house and Romer I think they're both American University professors, and their let me see if I can mess up poorly, describe what their Nobel prize was genital work generally is about, but it was like, basically looking at how do you create long-term sustainable growth in a global economy that improves the world for everybody through things like capitalism and whatnot that mostly focused on very very narrow self interest. They think they cracked that nut which is pretty interesting, and they cracked it with Jupiter. I mean that sounds Nobel prize where to me and also. Be economic. This is probably useful. But. No, I I think interesting because we talked about this in one of the previous stories is that the team or Romer in particular, the python user, and he wanted to make research transparent and open that was like a key part of the research. So that people can understand how reaching conclusions. So like all of my, you know, joking about the, hey, Vural, economists aside like this is actually an important part of the work. So that you can understand his assumptions, and you know, at least understand the choices that he's making the data that he's using. And and that he tried to do with mathematics, which is another way that people use perform computation for the research. And apparently that just made it too difficult to share his work in a way that anybody who wants to understand his work would have to also use proprietary software which is a really really high bar like expensive. Not everybody knows how to use it. And it's not as simple intuitive open transparent as by Jupiter. So it was really core to the work that he did that ultimately won him the Nobel prize, which is pretty awesome. Yeah. Soup. Cool. And I do think that there's if your goals to share your work having in these super expensive proprietary systems is not amazing. Right. I mean, we're talking about mathematical here. My experience was I did a bunch stuff in Matlab at one point. And we worked with some extra tool kits. And these tool kits were like two thousand dollars a user just a run the code. And if you wanted to run the code and check it out you also pay two thousand bucks, that's really prohibitive. It really is. And I think that was my experience with proprietary software. I mean, not only those like programming languages or applications make it it's just difficult to collaborate. And I think this will be of no surprise. I would think that this is something that everybody accepts us fact augury listeners, but the open source community has made this current software revolution possible. The fact that we are able to collaborate at the scale and share ideas and share code and build on top of each other's work. I think is the reason that we've had this explosion. In entrepreneurship this explosion in the kind of energy and excitement that comes out of Silicon Valley. Even though we were just talking about, you know, maybe being a bad thing. But this level of sort of rapid innovation that we've been going through is because programming and it's just it's so much more accessible than it's ever been before. And I think that's largely because we transitioned away from these proprietaries offer model. Yeah. And you think about the people who that benefits obviously benefits everyone. But if you live in a country where the average monthly income is a tenth of what it is in the US, and you have to pay two thousand it doesn't mean it's expensive. It means that you can't have it..
"nord house" Discussed on Weather Geeks
"It could be a little worse. It could be a lot worse. And I don't think we've really done well at making it clear that. Building things is hard and lots of CO two is not going to build the garden of Eden. But breaking things as easier, and it really might break things that we care about very deeply. Yeah. I I actually agree completely. I I run into the challenge of uncertainty all of the time people say, well, there's uncertainty. So we can't trust the models where we can't trust the scientists. So don't act, but I remind people that there we use information with uncertainty all the time. If I said there was an eighty percent chance of rain. Most people would grab an umbrella. Even though there's very quite a bit of useful information there with that uncertainty. Yeah. And I think that your background in in weather forecasting. The work you've done and helping this advance the weather. Forecasters are are shining light in how to communicate this. And I know they're still are real challenges within weather forecasting to communicate better. But the all the rest of us can learn from you, but in in the same vein though, Richard there quite a few. Meteorologists that our climate contrarians. I'll use that word for the time being. How do you deal with the sort of control? I'm sure I'm certain of it because we've all been there. I'm certain that you've had to deal with either someone talk you've given or at perhaps even a congressional briefing someone that challenges you with what I call zombie theories. These things that we know a scientist long been refuted, but they just live on and blogs, and on Twitter, and on certain TV and radio shows, how do you approach and deal with people that come to you one with reasonable skepticism that I think is that we as also is agree must exist versus someone that comes at you with a vitriolic tone of hate and mean-spiritedness. Yeah. You know? And I'm sure you do it very well. It's it's situational. Is a you know, if you hate me, that's fine. We can sit down and talk later I'll buy a Cup of coffee. People who want real information. It's it. It's fun. You know, that's that's why we got into teaching as we we want to do that. But the people who are really angry, it's hard. The thing that I go back to with climate is that right now, so the Nobel prize in economics was just given to William Nord house for work using absolute normal growth friendly business friendly standard economics to show that we are hurting ourselves economically by not making use of the knowledge on climate change and energy to build better policies. If you're interested in improving the economy, we take our knowledge on climate, and we use it rather than saying, it's an evil lie from people if you're interested in national security, our military leaders have been very clear that this is a national security issue. If you want jobs. You do better. If you make the economy better, you get more jobs, and so right now, helping health helping the environment helping ethics are in the same direction as helping the economy, helping employment and helping national security, so if somebody is really upset about the economy, maybe start there you have. I am sure heard the I don't know about the science. But I know we can't afford to deal with climate..
"nord house" Discussed on Eyes on Conservation Podcast
"How we go. To work, whether you know, recycling or not composting or not where we buy our electricity from whether we plant trees, all of those behaviors send important market signals as well and signals to the world about what people want and the world they want and your point there have to be big changes in and I'll talk about two so one harness the power of nature to help solve the climate change challenge. The conservancy released a report some of our top scientists about a year ago, which says it essentially a third of the Paris climate accord can be the goal of keeping warming under two degree celsius can be achieved through nature, so improved forest management better agricultural lands management. So things like putting cover crops between harvesting cycles and things like that. There are companies. Is out there in the United States right now to voluntary market who are looking to offset their carbon emissions and saying, hey, you know, we admitted this amount of carbon we're making available this amount of resources to offset our carbon pollution, and so we found a willing seller of carbon in Albany to say, hey, we've got six thousand four hundred acres of forests that if we could receive resources we can manage those in a way, they're going to keep providing the city of all he with clean water, but also gonna keep the natural carbon locked up in that standing forest, so it was a way for these carbon credits to do something really good to combat climate change. But also have other benefits for clean water and wildlife in you can also structure these deals in ways that they be great for recreation and local aesthetics economy. So that's one way that this will happen. The other is changing markets and. The same day that the IPC sea or came up the Nobel prize economics was awarded and that was not coincidence. And there was a lot in that about other ways that climate change can be addressed. I am gonna give it up because the noble price comics was awarded to fill Nord house who has spent his whole life's work on carbon taxation saying that the old kind of cap and trade, which is the idea that each each organization is allowed to. The amount of carbon. So there's a general level, but what was your take on the Nobel prize for carbon tax Asian soak? The federal court houses, the father of the concept of putting a price on carbon and the point that when you omit carbon pollution, while you're generating certain benefits because you're producing energy you're producing a whole series of costs cost to human health costs to warming of the planet, etc. And his idea was we ought to be charging people for those negatives those costs that they're putting out in the world. And so his point is let's do that. Let's do it at a national level. Let's do it a global level, and it would do multiple things. I mean, one is it drives down demand for carbon because it costs more. And so people are gonna look for alternatives, but also generates resources that could be used to tackle climate change. And right now, the nature conservancy. And it's going to be interesting by the time this airs, we will know the answer on election day, but Washington state is running a ballot initiative right now in putting it to the people would they like to see a thirty five dollars per ton fee on carbon pollution on the big oil refineries that are in Washington state, and this would generate about a billion dollars a year. So you can argue that it will reduce the demand for carbon because it's going up, but the billion dollars will be invested in renewable energy sources the power of nature to capture carbon reduced climate change. And then Thirdly helped vulnerable communities in Washington state adapt in a climate changing world. So we need more of what Washington state is doing as an example. Professor Nord houses, you know, thinking some great coordination narrow the UN in the Novell committee. Yeah, I think I think what it recognizes is this is so real and this is the. Challenge of our time, and the IPC, you know, really the birth of that report was around the fact that there are a lot of very vulnerable countries in the world to climate change..
"nord house" Discussed on The Takeaway
"Of the ballot hoodoo who's supporting this and who's behind it. So far, it's really a product of the environmental movement and their allies. They spent a lot of effort this time around after a failure two years ago. They spent a lot of time building a big coalition to make sure that they weren't having any. Journal infighting. So it's basically big environmental groups groups representing communities of color, some of labor and some businesses as well. And who's on the flip side to that? Because we understand that. There are what twenty eight million dollars being funneled into advertising against the ballot measure. It's already just bumped up to thirty one million keeps coming up day by day and almost a more than ninety nine percent of that money opposing come from one source. It's the oil industry handful of big companies with names, you might recognize Phillips sixty six Chevron BP, their funding almost entirely this effort to block, what would be the first carbon tax or carbon fee in the United States. So John you interviewed Cecilia bits who's a climate scientists at the university of Washington in Seattle. And here's what she had to tell you the truth is we need to reduce dramatically. But the way we start is one step at a time. Right. We need to be not producing any human sources Kerman. Dioxide within few decades. And that's a very tough. What does she mean? I mean, what point do we start? What is her concern there? Well, I've also heard climate scientists say that now is the best time to start reducing emissions. But in better time would have been thirty years ago that it's really a very urgent problem. And when she says we need to get down to zero. That's what the the big UN panel internet intergovernmental panel climate change with her big fairly alarming report a few weeks ago saying the world has good down to zero emissions of carbon by the year. Twenty fifty and I would take unprecedented change to make happen and the point of Cecilia bits. There is that we we have to start somewhere. The opponents of this measure in Washington state say that well, yes, we agree that climate change is a problem. But we just think this is not the right way to go about tackling it. I mean is this really a big step? Or would this be a big step toward battling climate change? Or is it more like putting a band aid on a on a broken leg? I guess you could call a more of a band aid or. Maybe a baby step towards tackling a very big problem. It's noteworthy that that big you and report if you weeks ago highlighted carbon taxes as an effective way to tackle that problem and the Nobel prize for economics zero also went to William Nord house who's known for studying carbon taxes and their affect on the climate. So if the oil industry doesn't want this solution have they proposed alternative solutions given the urgency of that climate report and given the fact that this is the spell of measure is just a couple of days away from being voted in or out. In an interview I had with one of the main campaign no-campaign spokespeople. They refused upon repeated questioning to present a different proposal in another setting. The did say, well, we would like to see government provide incentives or what you might call subsidies to help big polluters reduce their pollution. So instead of making polluters pay the solution was to basically pay polluters to pollute less. Well, we'll be paying attention to see how this plays out on election day. John Ryan environmental reporter for K U O W in Seattle, John. Thanks so much. You're welcome..
"nord house" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"So I think you're right, like your right? Like the baseline case here is nothing happens. Right? Nobody does any of this, like I do not want to be the voice of optimism here, like, I think this is bad. I heard Matt, say early on, I think he's right, like you wanna think about like what might happen the one way in which I think this stuff is possible. And again, not likely, right. Like if I were the political adviser like not the policy adviser, but if I were like a hack political adviser to some president and like somebody in the room is like, let's do Medicare fraud somebody else's. Like, let's attach it to a carbon dioxide like, no, don't do that. Like among other things like another thing that makes us hard is that has very regionally disparate effects. And so both in the house and in the Senate, there are a lot of representatives or legislators who might vote for say Medicare for all, but not for a carbon tax. Right? Because they represent Indiana, like Joe Donnelly's. I can easier Medicare for all vote than us a carbon tax vote. I say that not specifically knowing Joe Donnelly's fuse on carbon taxes. But what I would also say is that we exist in a slightly Poch. Curator political time where I think the traditional rules under which we're talking about this are not as a playable don't appear to be as applicable as a previously happen. So one is we are suggesting here that there is like some level of tribalism that like Medicare for all will reach that. You like, can nevertheless go above and I'm not at all. So that's true. Like I think like we're just maxing out every single time now. And so the idea that like layering more things on it makes it. I mean, you could very unpopular things on it, which may be a carbon plan is, but like they're like, we're like, do you remember death panels, like you remember ObamaCare, like the effort to do a compromise. You You might might have heard have heard of. of like it's just like we're there. And the other thing that Republicans I think have really pioneered is just like go fast, pass unpopular bills, quickly do through reconciliation and like damn the consequences and see what happens and the, I'm not sure it's a great strategy like they're gonna lose in the midterms. But you know, they mount, it looks like they're going to lose in the midterms is not historically unknown and like the good economy. So like they're like been kept afloat a bit by that. But I think it's possible that we're moving into a period where the way we legislate is like you try to get your side is excited as possible about the thing you're building and you try to move as fast as possible and you accept that like things are going to be unpopular again, I don't think this is great. Like I don't think we're the American political system is going great, but I also don't think like unchecked global warming is great or like the current healthcare consensus is great. And so I don't know like I'm not. I'm not here to tell you this is a good solution or that makes a ton of sense to me. But I, I do wonder a bit whether or not you know, like they just passed cavenaugh and who's very unpopular their tax reform Bill is pulling in the thirties when they had in the thirties, like that's wild. They tried to pass their ObamaCare Bill and it was pulling in the twenties who sometimes pulling in the teens. So I don't know like if you could design something reasonably well that had like a not gigantic carbon tax, maybe it's not for Medicare for. All right. Maybe that one's a little bit too weird of a thing, but it's like a carbon tax that is funding infrastructure development and like kind of greenish jobs, green new deal. Exactly. Like, I don't think that's crazy. And I think a lot of people enough would be really excited about it. And I think like like if you put it in even at a modest level and this actually William Nord house won the Nobel prize in economics, not technically, you know the whole time, but for talking about how to do do carbon taxation if you started, and there's a fight about his ideas because he would put it lower because he rates the future. Economic growth higher, and if you put it into low rate, you could theoretically dial it up a little bit easier over time when you had.
"nord house" Discussed on 1A
"Dot org, lily Jamali wonder what your senses of how the administration's response to this report might affect the way we deal with storms like this in the in the future. Yeah, we'll, you know, as you mentioned, this is a from a credible source as the IPCC and they've been putting these reports out for years. Now, what strikes me about this one in particular is that people are actually talking about it. It seems to have penetrated that complacency barrier that we often run into when we talk about climate change. And I'm sorry, I should say the IPC is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. It's this international group. It's kind of under the ages of the UN. Right? Exactly. And the main message here is not one of pure despair, although it does outline. And you know some very scary scenarios. If you see global temperatures rise even incrementally from say one and a half degrees celsius to two degrees celsius. But there is the sense here that you can still do something that we can still do something about this and California Californians often joke where the head at the home of the resistance against Donald Trump and certainly on this issue. That's been the case to your cheer question governor. Jerry Brown has made the fight against climate change a signature issue. He'll joke about how he's going to be long gone by the time. Some of these worst case scenarios come to pass, but he's really trying to make California be seen as a leader at a time when the feds are pushing back against the science and you heard Donald Trump the tone that he's taken on that in that sound bite, you just played you in terms of being able to deal with the challenge speed. It's also worth noting that the Nobel prize in economics went out at the start of this week to Paul. Oh, Romer and William Nord house. The two of them had been studying the economics of climate change. Nord house has endorsed a universal carbon tax roamers research shows that humans are innovative enough to solve a challenge even as big as climate change. So perhaps that's some reason for some hope. We are here at speaking to Lilly Zhumaly co host and correspondent with the California report political journalist, Todd's willing and Shane Harris of the Washington Post. We welcome your questions and thoughts about this or any of the big stories across the country that made news this week. One a at w. a. m. u. dot org. Bill wrote on our Facebook page. I wrote out Camille at Kessler air force base in nineteen sixty nine. So this level of destruction looks familiar Kesslers Mississippi. By the way John commented on our Facebook page, can you please discuss the national flood insurance program and how.
"nord house" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"Okay. So as I say, a lot of folks, I'm very excited about William Nord house actually winning a Nobel prize in economics for his work on the economics of climate change. There's only. One problem with this Nord house actually argues that we should only intervene economically. We should only shift our economy when the cost of not intervening outweigh the cost of intervening, which makes a lot of sense, right. So if you're not going to intervene and the cost of climate change are really high, then you should intervene this how you make all your decisions in life. You make every decision life. The cost of me acting is better or worse than the cost of not acting. So what Nord house basically says is we have to determine whether the cost of action is more expensive than the cost of inaction. What point does that become a reality? At what point do we actually have to act according to Mr. Nord house? The actual number is the the optimal temperature increase where we have to act is when there is a climate change of four point, one degrees, which is about two point, three degrees celsius caso higher than anything. The IPC is talking about. In fact, his model is called dice and there is a twenty thirteen model version that he posted in an excel table. The key. Data here is that he estimated a cost in the year twenty one hundred four percents of global GDP which is the equivalent of reducing annual growth over the century from about two point, two, seven percent to two point two, two percents, or pro postponing the prosperity of twenty one hundred until twenty one zero three. So if the worst case scenarios heads, he is talking about a cost in the year twenty one hundred four percents of GDP which is not all that high. We can cope with it. It's something that we can deal with in August. He actually published in updated discussion of this model. I talked to the orange cast this morning who's an expert on this stuff over Manhattan institute is wonderful. Work like me. I think he's what you call lukewarm, meaning that he believes the global warming is happening, but he's skeptical of a lot of the answers that are being given for how to curb it according to Oren Nord house published a discussion of his latest model in the American economic journal in which he argued that holding warming below two point, five degrees celsius is implausible and not cost effective. In other words, you've already hit one point five. Three celsius probably already two degree celsius. There's nothing we can do there. He says, the optimal trajectory would be mitigation that reduces warming from four point, two degrees celsius to three point, five degrees celsius by twenty one hundred. Here's what he says. He says the international target for climate change with a limit of two degrees celsius appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies. So in other words, the person that the left is now celebrating for winning the Nobel prize in economics because it's a slap at Trump doesn't agree with them and doesn't agree with the IPC on sort of action that is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe sets pretty. It's pretty important thing to know you would think, but the media is not covering any of that stuff. Instead, they're just going with the fully alarmist idea that we are on the brink of disaster, and we're all going to die..
"nord house" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"In fact, there's a good case who made the global warming because it's greenhouse effect has acted kind of like a greenhouse where you've seen as an increased greening in certain parts of the globe specifically because of global warming. And that's sort of a repeated thing in this IPC report. The more specific they get the lower their confidence level. So for example, they say about approximately four percents of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at one degree celsius warming compared with thirteen percent at two point, two degrees celsius of global warming. So if it's degree celsius global warming, thirteen percent of the entire global terrestrial land area is going to be transformed in terms of ecosystem. But again, they say that with medium confidence. So they say with full confidence is that two degrees is worse than one point five degrees. What they say with medium, confident, confidence, meaning half half is that this change will be really, really dramatic. Right? That that's basically the case that they. Are making. Now, when I say all this folks, the left immediately say, well, you're a climate change denier again, I'm not denying climate changes taking place. I'm asking what the actual impact of climate change will be and to what measures will be necessary in order to curb said climate change. So I wanna take another story that's in the news today because it sort of stonning it's sort of astonishing. Yesterday, a guy won the Nobel prize in economics. His name is William Nord house. He works over at Yale and left champion. This guy, William Nord housewife because William north house has four years than modeling what sort of economic systems would be best in terms of curbing global warming. And this has been his actual life work so left had, oh, look at that. That's a slap against Trump. It's a slap against the right finally, we're rewarding. Someone in economics takes global warming seriously, but there is a serious problem with this particular take on William Nord house and Romer the guy who he won a Nobel prize economics with it, turns out the der arguments actually undercut some of the arguments being made by the same folks for promoting them and promoting this PCC report. I'll explain in just a second first. Let's.
"nord house" Discussed on PRI's The World
"Where's the hope in this report will I think people like Celine meal Huck, and Bangladesh who've been pushing for this one point, five degree target for a long time would say they're happy that it's still technically feasible to reach that. And also that this report that so thoroughly documents the differences in real human experience between one point five degrees and two degrees will help focus even more on that more emission. Target, which, although it would be very difficult to reach. I think that increased focus would be seen as a positive by a lot of people, the world's Caroline. Baylor, they're the winners of this year's Nobel prize, and economics are to American scholars who've made connections between climate change and economic growth. The Royal Swedish Academy of sciences said that William Nord house and Paul Romer were picked for their work on the most basic impressing economic issues of our age. Nord house is a pioneer in environmental economics. He started warning policymakers in the nineteen seventies that their economic models were failing to take the impact of climate change into account New York University professor. Paul Romer helped create the modern approach to understanding innovation and how it relates to economic growth. He joins us now from NYU stern school of business. First of all professor. Congratulations. Have you had a chance to speak it with your fellow winner, William nor douse? No, I haven't. I just wrote one of his nephew hoping that I could find out how to get in touch with Bill. It's really a terrific honor to be linked together with him is just a great scholar, exceptionally decent guy couldn't ask for a better sociation. So your work is linked to the work of Dr Nord house. How would you describe your work were both interested in not the kind of trade off that's common and economics like we can use this field to produce a little more corn or a little more wheat. What Bill and I were focused on is the huge gains that can come from discovering new things. The real source of progress for humans has been the discovery of new ideas that gives you more of both corn and we'd so that's a unifying element in what we do it. We have our own different specialisations Bill is really the one who's focusing explicitly on climate change, but very supportive that work. And I firmly persuaded that the real key to addressing the decarbonisation of the energy. System will be technological progress. And the key to policy right now should be to encourage this amazing machine for discovery. We have in the modern economy just encouraged that to go tackle this very important problem. So it sounds like your body of research looks at that discovery of new things. Part of technology. Can you talk about how that overlaps with the work of doc Nordhausen with climate change? There's a very simple model that would say something like, oh, the government supports basic scientific research by giving grants to university professors than the private economy puts that knowledge to work professors love that story because it involves the government giving money to professor. So you know they're keen on that. But the truth is that most discovery and most learning comes from the work on specific problems and the academics often come along later and clean up afterwards. Like when people started working up to us. Engines to do work. It was much later that physicists came along and invented thermodynamics to figure out what the heck are these guys doing? So it wasn't like thermodynamics led to the invention, steam engines, steam engines led to the thermodynamics. There's a real advantage to creating incentives for startups in firms to go out and try and make a business in this area. And so I think both Bill and I would recommend kind of tax on, say, carbon based energy sources. You need to use government policy to unleash this machine for discovering which is the modern economy professor. What's next for you? I went to the World Bank right after the vote on Brexit. I was the summer of twenty sixteen. Yep. Yep. That for me was up real red flag. There were many things going on there. We're still trying to understand it. Part of what was going on is there were a lot of people who basically said if the economists are for at were against it. So a whole lot of people say, it's kind of a cer- fort. We're against it, kind of us need to pay attention in fear. At what we did wrong to lose our thority is the people you could trust to.
"nord house" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"With what's news from the Wall Street Journal. I'm Anne Marie for totally in New York. Democrats and Republicans are hoping to use Brett Kavanagh's confirmation to the US supreme court to their advantage in the upcoming midterm elections, at least in the short term, looking at the impact of cavenaugh on the midterms. I think it's going to help Republicans to keep their majority in the Senate, but I think it's probably going to hurt their chances of holding onto their majority in the house Wall Street Journal reporter, Janet hook has the details. But first here are some top stories attends meeting between US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his Chinese counterpart. Foreign Minister Wong. Yee could threaten cooperation over denuclearization of North Korea. Wong accused the US of escalating trade tensions with Pompeo countering that the US and China had a quote, fundamental disagreement over the issues. He raised the two did not hold a joint news conference. After their meeting on Monday. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that some Chinese companies or dodging US tariffs by changing the codes, their products are shipped under each US import has attended Jit number called an h. t. s. code importers customs officials and others tell the journal that changing those codes to avoid US tariffs on imports is on the rise. Google decided not to disclose to its users that it had found a bug that exposed private data. Last spring, the journal reports that hundreds of thousands of users on the Google plus social network had their data exposed to outside developers, but Google decided not to alert users over concerns of damage to its reputation. Google said it found no evidence of misuse of the exposed data. Facebook has launched two new video chat devices featuring Amazon's virtual assistant. Alexa, the portal devices which feature cameras, microphones and touch screens will allow users to make video calls to Facebook connections the launch, which will allow the social media giant to expand its presence and users. Homes comes as Facebook is under scrutiny for it's handling of user data and recent security breach. Two US economist. Paul Romer of New York University and William Nord house of yell university have won the Nobel prize in economic sciences for their work on climate change and economic growth. The Swedish Academy that gives the award says their work has huge implications on global policy making the to have developed methods designed to achieve long-term sustainable, economic growth still to come how Brett Kavanagh's confirmation could impact the midterm elections millions of Americans, students lack access to the technology. They need to succeed in the digital world. Verizon, innovative learning has helped over a million kids get free tech education, and they'll help two million more by twenty twenty one learn more at Verizon, innovative learning dot com. Slash w..
"nord house" Discussed on As It Happens from CBC Radio
"Some incentives that gets people going in that direction, and then we don't know exactly what solution will come out of it, but we'll make big progress before before it went to the World Bank. I read the studies of what people intimidated when they were trying to address the ozone hole. And then what happened afterwards. There was a lot of angst that you know, this wouldn't work. It would be too disruptive to ban these chloroflourocarbons. And then you know, once the government acted and then we're trees and other governments acted, it was. It was just barely noticeable. We made real progress on that and it didn't. You know, wasn't didn't cause any big disruption in our lives. But this one will be harder, but it won't be as bad as people are thinking. And so we really need to keep our optimism and our heads about it about this and just say, it's, you know, we can solve this problem. We can still have growth. Everybody. Have a better life. We just need to get busy and and solve this problem. He says, all we need to do is to to get onto this. Is that why is it so difficult? Because it's not happening? Is it? I mean, we're in our own country in Canada. We're seeing three steps were two steps back on this. So what we're where's the evidence of that? I mean, the policy is very simple. If you just commit to attacks on the usage of fuels that they don't directly or indirectly release greenhouse gases. And then you make that tax increase steadily in the future. You announce that now, people will see that there's a big profit to me made and figuring out ways to supply energy where they, they can, you know, do it without incurring the tax. So the the problem is not knowing what to do. The problem is getting a consensus to act a friend of mine who was a general in the Singaporean army said he'd studied the US military and he's basically the US was always late to a battle. You know, they never, you know intervened as soon as they. I should have, but once they did, they, they did the right thing. And I think that's what we have to count on here is that we're all all the nations of the world are going to be slow in addressing this problem, but it's still possible that we will address it and the world will be much better place when we do. And share your optimism about this professor or. Thank you. Good. I hope I hope I dare people, but that because optimism sometimes what it takes to get people to act again. Congratulations and thank you. Thank you. Paul Romer is a professor in economics at New York University NYU. Today he received the Nobel prize and economics along with William Nord house. We reach professor Romer in New York. And..
"nord house" Discussed on As It Happens from CBC Radio
"The UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change sent an urgent warning today. It's scientists issued a report warning. We have just eleven years to transform the way we work live and play. And if we do not, we will unleash cataclysmic forces from floods and unstoppable sea level rises to heat waves that will take more and more lives that report comes on the same day that the Nobel committee awarded its prize and economics to to people who've made the relationship between growth technology and climate change of focus of their work. Their names are William Nord house and Paul Romer we reach Mr. Romer in New York. Preveza. Rumor. Congratulations. Thanks so much. Tells about how you found out. I heard the phone ring twice this morning just before six, and I thought it was a spam call. So I didn't even bothered a China answer, but I couldn't get back to sleep. I started thinking while it's unusual gets bam at that time of morning. So I thought maybe it was one of my kids, and then I looked and saw that was from Sweden, and I thought, oh, I better better. Give them a callback. How exciting was it to get that news? Well, the moment that was really, I really started to feel excited was I checked, they told me, you know, and won the prize. And I said, but is, is it shared with anybody? And they said, yes, it's with Bill Nord house. And then I was actually starting to to get happy because I think Bill is up terrific choice. And I've argued for a long time that he, you know, he deserves the price. So I that that made it very special. And the reason why the two of you, though you do different kinds of economics that do are combined together for your understanding of how echo. Connie's can grow sustainably, but from a different point of view. Right. So I, I always hate to ask this question, but in a nutshell, can you describe your life's work. A lot of economics is about stuff. You know, like more weed or more Gorn from, you know, the, you know the planes and in that world, you're always facing trade-offs. You know, it's that trade off thing Bill and I are both focused on something very different, which is if we make the right discoveries, we can get more corn and more wheat and more of everything else. And that the real, you know, win is the discovery of new better ways to do things. You know for both of us, there's this just conviction that if we create the right nudge in distraction and get this amazing economic system trying to solve an important social problem, it'll make it'll make huge progress, you know, much more than most people think. In particular today to have the two of you name the Nobel prize. It's it's that the IPC released its report today, this the intergovernmental panel and climate change a devastating report. Catastrophic climate change is on the way the clock is ticking, and we're in real trouble. What in the back as that is a backdrop to this, what is the message? Do think that they're sending about giving the two of you? This word point of the prices is to celebrate the very special function that science conserve by giving people, you know, reliable sense of the facts. And so I don't think you know the the goal here is to try and spend some, you know, policy action. It's really just to say that you know where people who, maybe if there's a spin to it, it's that we both are people who think that you don't pursue science just for its own sake that you know the best science comes out of tackling. Practical problems. And so I was looking at development and you know, ovation and science policy Bill was thinking about more recently about climate, but we both think that good science can inform decision making that find what kind. What does, what does your work tell us we could do must do in order to help avert this, this crisis that has been described the PCC? Well, I think one of the things that comes from studying technology is that people systematically underestimate the potential to discover better ways to do things. So I believe and I think Bill believes that if we start encouraging people to find ways to produce lower carbon energy, everybody's going to be surprised at the progress will make as we go down that path. And so all we need to do is create some..
2 Americans win Nobel for working climate, tech into economic analysis
"The Nobel economics prize has been awarded to to academics with ties to MIT Yale. Professor William Nord house and NYU's Paul Romer work knowledge for their respective work at integrating climate change and tech innovations into macroeconomic analysis. Both of them did their graduate work at MIT secretary. General Gordon Hanson of the Royal
"nord house" Discussed on Marketplace All-in-One
"I'm David Brancaccio in New York scientists with the intergovernmental panel on climate change or in South Korea, they released a report today. That details what would have to be done in order to keep global temperatures from rising by more than one and a half degrees celsius. In short, it'll take drastic action and soon. So what's the significance of one and a half degrees marketplace's jed Kim reports in two thousand fifteen. The Paris climate agreement saw the countries of the world commit to keeping temperature rise limited to two degrees celsius, but they also agree to try to keep it even cooler. That's especially important to small island nations. Typically farming might actually really compromise their existence. Kelly Levin is with the world Resources Institute. She says, sticking to one point, five degrees would be much safer bud, much harder. You essentially have to slash emissions to half of what they are on today by twenty. Thirty on and face are not completely before mid-century. Nigel Purvis's CEO of climate advisers. He hopes the new report will help convince governments in corporations. They need to increase their emissions reduction efforts. Temperature is rising faster than previously thought the impacts are worse than previously thought, and we need to get moving some estimates say where far off from hitting even the two degree Mark, I'm jed Kim for marketplace. Also this morning, the Nobel prize and economics was awarded to two people. One of them is Yale's William Nord house who developed a way to think about the benefits and costs of mitigating climate. Change the other winner. Today's also familiar to marketplace listeners. Paul Romer at NYU figured out a way to factor in technology and economic growth calculations. Yes, it is. Technically, these Swedish Reichsbank prize in you. Nommik sciences, let's do the numbers. The bond market is closed for indigenous peoples day. And Columbus Day the stock market will be open Dow and NASDAQ futures are down four tenths of a percent..
2 Americans win Nobel for working climate, tech into economic analysis
"Today to Americans have been awarded the Nobel economics prize. William Nord house of. Jail Paul Romer of NYU or acknowledged for their respective work in integrating climate change and tech innovations into macro economic analysis secretary general Goran Hanson of the Royal Swedish Academy of sciences making the announcement today. This year's price is about innovation climate at economic growth, both will share and a one million