Just what we need — in order to solve a problem greatly exaggerated by computer models that likely will prove to have little predictive ability — we are asked to adopt a “solution” whose costs are just forty cents a day per person. That’s right — global warming averted for 40 cents a day. And how do we know the costs will be low? A computer model of course, from the EPA, which says the economic impact of substantially raising energy prices will be low.
Update: I found the trick. Apparently the model gets a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses in the US with a trivial (e.g. 25-cent per gallon of gas, 3-cent per kwh of electricity) affect on prices. See updates to this post. Wow, that must be a really high sensitivity of output to prices. Where have we heard issues about overly high sensitivity assumptions in computer models before?