Also, I was involved in budgeting for Y2K projects. We diverted huge amounts of investment dollars to this project — and although I did not do the programming, I did understand the code where Y2K were issues. Not only during 1999 and early 2000 did we divert investments dollars, but later in 2000, we cut back on investments in general because we had “spent too much” on Y2K. Both anecdotally through personal acquaintances and from economic analysis by researchers, apparently this pattern was repeated on a widespread basis. The economic problems of the 2001 came from lack of Investments, not from Consumer expenditures!

As I said, don’t make assumptions about Africa. Actually don’t make assumptions about IT either for that matter. Unless, of course, you happen to know something about either.

- For the first question, yes, I think so. For now, at least. Give it another five years to a decade and this will cease to be the case, as other nations are starting to step up their own consumption rates, but we’re still numero uno.

For the second – because hydroelectric power destroys habitats on rivers, and we unlike Europe haven’t driven 95% of our species extinct and are trying not to make this the case in the future. Because tidal harnesses similarly destroy habit. Because wind is not reliable and we don’t yet have an efficient energy storage mechanism. Geothermal, indeed, is the only viable option which isn’t horrifically damaging to our environment in a thousand other ways – and it won’t nearly cover our energy requirements. I’ve been through this with you before and you raised not a flag on a single one of these.

And for the statement that our search for a stable supply has pushed costs of fourfold – take a look at the following two graphs, and, if you care, the commentary associated with them (the commentary isn’t related to your statements, but is amusing nonetheless):
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/in-europe-gas-is-only-208-gallon.html
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-nail-on-coffin.html

This is also, not coincidentally, a way of answering your other question, as to who the economist was. And yes, the economic benefits of tax would have been figured in – since the calculations were based on the relationship of GDP growth to tax rate. The limitations of his calculations were exactly as I specified them, and, as such, quite considerable.

Funnily enough I was there working on IT systems for all that time. The only companies who worried about Y2K were western or South African companies.

Used to withdraw money for expenses from ATM machines, which I now know didn’t exist!

Here’s CNN predicting civil unrest in the third world, naming Africa http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/y2k/stories/overview/

Here’s an article quoting Gartner to stockpile food and saying that Africa “is as far behind as it is possible to be”
http://www.afsd.com.au/article/dsbm/dsbm13a.htm

The CIA regard Africa as ill prepared but predict unrest will be restricted to urban areas. “Government institutions, small businesses, the health sector, and some public utilities lag because of funding shortfalls”
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1999/gershwin_testimony_102199.html

All these reports come prior to doomsday. They all identify shortcomings in African preparedness. There are dozens more all confirming the same picture. Conversely there are remarkably few after doomsday.

I do not agree that actions to reduce or eliminate CO2 will cause economic meltdown in the west. We will certainly be poorer as a result but after a century of increasing government spending we have grown used to that. But it won’t be a one off hit. Y2K was a single short term event; actions to prevent AGW must be perpetual or there is no point. For example less flights is not something for just 2008. We expect to reduce flights (except for philosopher kings of course) permanently. Since ease of travel is a factor in generating trade and hence wealth, restricting travel logically ought to reduce wealth. Some of those missed flights might be resolved in alternate ways but not all of them. And every missed flight increases the lost wealth forever. That wealth is unavailable to generate more wealth. We thus have a cumulative situation – compound interest if you like.

But all this lost wealth is like the money spent on repairing broken windows. The alternate lost wealth is unseen. That’s why you’ll get away with it.

Adirian – they have to do whatever we tell them – you really think so? And so clearly you are from the United States – why on earth do you think that your vast country with its countless rivers, thousands of kilometres of coastline, plentiful wind, and even in places vast geothermal energy reserves, is forever going to have to rely on foreign oil deposits? When your attempts to secure a stable supply have pushed the price up four fold since 2003, don’t you think it would be wise to seek alternative?

As for your economist, who was it? Did they consider inflationary effects? Did they really assume that taxation has no financial benefit?

“morganobitch” – see, I can make up pathetically immature insults as well. And on top of that, I can spell them correctly!

On the contrary.

The claimants predicted that older software and hardware would be the worst affected. Now Africa might have little IT infrastructure but where it does it has a disproportionate amount of old. Therefore it should have exhibited all the worst predictions. Are you claiming that Africa has no banks, no air traffic control? Your argument makes no sense. If the catastrophists claims had come true then it would still have been severe in urban areas. Planes would have fallen from the sky; Bank accounts would have been wiped out; We would have heard that Tusker beer’s distribution was paralysed for days. We would have heard that Nigeria’s public servants rioted when the payroll failed.

Should you prefer, you can pick Italy or eastern Europe instead.