6 ms·

The Chinese are acting pragmatically/rationally and in their own short term self interest. If all nations do the same catastrophic climate change is unavoidable

by awi 17y ago

The Chinese are acting pragmatically/rationally and in their own short term self interest. If all nations do the same catastrophic climate change is unavoidable, this is the Tragedy of the commons [1]. The negotiations are about setting aside individual nations self interests in order to avoid disaster. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I'm curious why you believe catastrophic climate change is unavoidable. Even accepting the "consensus" position, the amount of warming the world will face is not exactly life threatening. Go read an actual IPCC report rather than breathless press releases by greenpeace.
- masomenos 17y ago
  Catastrophic for many, not for all. In particular island nations, and nations already susceptible to drought.
  - hugh_ 17y ago
    Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places?
    - arebop 17y ago
      > Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? "Theoretical and climate model studies suggest that, in a climate that is warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, a greater increase is expected in extreme precipitation, as compared to the mean. Hence, anthropogenic influence may be easier to detect in extreme precipitation than in the mean. This is because extreme precipitation is controlled by the availability of water vapour, while mean precipitation is controlled by the ability of the atmosphere to radiate long-wave energy (released as latent heat by condensation) to space, and the latter is restricted by increasing greenhouse gases." --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf > Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places? Yes, in fact some IPCC analysis suggests that North America will see e.g., increased crop variety and yields by 2080, and also e.g., a 40% decrease in Texan farmers' net income and more agricultural disease. But although climate change isn't uniformly and strictly bad news, it is likely that some places will see catastrophic effects and that in aggregate the changes will be more problematic than beneficial for humans.
      - huherto 17y ago
        I live in Chihuahua Mexico. Definitely the amount of rain has increased in the last 2 or 3 years here. This is great news of the local economy. I figure it is like a lottery. If you already have a bad weather, it is more like for it to become better. On the global scale we may loose, but in the local scale some regions will be better of and some will be worse.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Didn't you mention being a physicist? I'm surprised you would assume that increasing the energy in a largely-closed complex system would tend towards greater equilibrium rather than exacerbating nonlinearities.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    That's not a tragedy of the commons, it's a simple externality. It might be readily solvable simply by moving those people who are affected. For example, consider the Maldives, with 300,000 people making about $5k/year. Relocating every person in the Maldives to the US would probably be cheaper than most climate change solutions. This would also quadruple the standard of living of the average Maldivian, provided their income increases to the US poverty line.
    - encoderer 17y ago
      Have you been to the maldives? I live in a particularly beautiful part of the US (Sarasota, FL) and I can say without question that moving to the Maldives would increase my standard of living. You're right that it would increase their incomes. But standard of living is much more than income...
      - gwern 17y ago
        If that is true, why not move there? Or are you a masochist?
        ori_b 17y ago
        Activation barriers. Cutting ties to where you currently are may be sufficiently painful that moving isn't worth it, even if the end result is an increased standard of living.
        gwern 17y ago
        If one has offspring, and they have offspring and so on, the gain from moving is indefinitely large and overwhelms any activation barrier. This suggests a new alternative: the poster is either barren or doesn't care about the standard of living of his offspring.
        philwelch 17y ago
        You left out a few possibilities: -The poster hadn't considered that argument -The poster doesn't want to have kids -The poster will have a finite number of descendants -The poster's concern for the standard of living of his distant descendants diminish according to distance (for instance, he probably cares a great deal for his children and a similar amount for his grandchildren, but by the time you're talking great-great-grandchildren his empathy has diminished significantly) -The poster's descendants will not want share his fondness for the Maldives -The poster's descendants will move away from the Maldives for other reasons I'm sure you can think of a half dozen other alternatives if you think for a minute.
- arebop 17y ago
  awi didn't claim that catastrophe is unavoidable. In fact, the implication is that catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic climate change can be mitigated by international cooperation. Some actual IPCC reports are available from [1] and [2]. They describe observations of "The atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years," "wide-spread melting of ice margins [...] with implications for sea level rise," and increased frequency of extreme precipitation events. They predict "irreversible changes in climate and ocean chemistry" and "rapid and large changes of the statistics of extreme events." Droughts, floods, cyclones, and ecological disruptions all threaten human life. The IPCC data and reports suggest that these and other adverse events have increased in frequency and severity, that human activity had a causal role, that things will probably get worse, and that our future behavior matters. Not that someone's death is the only possible justification for international cooperation in limiting pollution. [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_da... [2] http://www.ipcc.ch/presentations_and_speeches/presentations_and_speeches_presentations.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/presentations_and_speeches/presentations_...
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    I know, and even if we don't cooperate, most of the consequences of climate change are not catastrophic. I'm aware of much of what the IPCC claims. Note that by "catastrophic", I mean "causing major harm to human civilization". I don't consider requiring a few million people to relocate 100 meters inland over 100 years (or stay put and build landfill) to be catastrophic. Nor do I consider a few more hurricanes to be catastrophic -- we handle hurricanes adequately, and as our economy grows, handling them will become even cheaper (relative to our wealth). Caribbean nations will handle them adequately as well once they become richer. Al Gore's and Greenpeace's dire predictions of the death of humanity are simply way outside the scientific consensus. Incidentally, the response of climate to CO2 is logarithmic -- i.e., if doubling CO2 increases climate by 1 degree, then an eight-fold increase in CO2 will increase climate by 3 degrees (not 8). (This is all to leading order, of course.) Big increases are only marginally worse than small ones.
    - 17y ago
danbmil99 17y ago
Newsflash: nations are not going to set aside their interests for each other. End of story. All the carbon will be burnt -- count on it. Plan accordingly.

by awi 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I'm curious why you believe catastrophic climate change is unavoidable. Even accepting the "consensus" position, the amount of warming the world will face is not exactly life threatening. Go read an actual IPCC report rather than breathless press releases by greenpeace.

masomenos 17y ago
Catastrophic for many, not for all. In particular island nations, and nations already susceptible to drought.
- hugh_ 17y ago
  Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places?
  - arebop 17y ago
    > Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? "Theoretical and climate model studies suggest that, in a climate that is warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, a greater increase is expected in extreme precipitation, as compared to the mean. Hence, anthropogenic influence may be easier to detect in extreme precipitation than in the mean. This is because extreme precipitation is controlled by the availability of water vapour, while mean precipitation is controlled by the ability of the atmosphere to radiate long-wave energy (released as latent heat by condensation) to space, and the latter is restricted by increasing greenhouse gases." --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf > Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places? Yes, in fact some IPCC analysis suggests that North America will see e.g., increased crop variety and yields by 2080, and also e.g., a 40% decrease in Texan farmers' net income and more agricultural disease. But although climate change isn't uniformly and strictly bad news, it is likely that some places will see catastrophic effects and that in aggregate the changes will be more problematic than beneficial for humans.
    - huherto 17y ago
      I live in Chihuahua Mexico. Definitely the amount of rain has increased in the last 2 or 3 years here. This is great news of the local economy. I figure it is like a lottery. If you already have a bad weather, it is more like for it to become better. On the global scale we may loose, but in the local scale some regions will be better of and some will be worse.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Didn't you mention being a physicist? I'm surprised you would assume that increasing the energy in a largely-closed complex system would tend towards greater equilibrium rather than exacerbating nonlinearities.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  That's not a tragedy of the commons, it's a simple externality. It might be readily solvable simply by moving those people who are affected. For example, consider the Maldives, with 300,000 people making about $5k/year. Relocating every person in the Maldives to the US would probably be cheaper than most climate change solutions. This would also quadruple the standard of living of the average Maldivian, provided their income increases to the US poverty line.
  - encoderer 17y ago
    Have you been to the maldives? I live in a particularly beautiful part of the US (Sarasota, FL) and I can say without question that moving to the Maldives would increase my standard of living. You're right that it would increase their incomes. But standard of living is much more than income...
    - gwern 17y ago
      If that is true, why not move there? Or are you a masochist?
      - ori_b 17y ago
        Activation barriers. Cutting ties to where you currently are may be sufficiently painful that moving isn't worth it, even if the end result is an increased standard of living.
        gwern 17y ago
        If one has offspring, and they have offspring and so on, the gain from moving is indefinitely large and overwhelms any activation barrier. This suggests a new alternative: the poster is either barren or doesn't care about the standard of living of his offspring.
        philwelch 17y ago
        You left out a few possibilities: -The poster hadn't considered that argument -The poster doesn't want to have kids -The poster will have a finite number of descendants -The poster's concern for the standard of living of his distant descendants diminish according to distance (for instance, he probably cares a great deal for his children and a similar amount for his grandchildren, but by the time you're talking great-great-grandchildren his empathy has diminished significantly) -The poster's descendants will not want share his fondness for the Maldives -The poster's descendants will move away from the Maldives for other reasons I'm sure you can think of a half dozen other alternatives if you think for a minute.
arebop 17y ago
awi didn't claim that catastrophe is unavoidable. In fact, the implication is that catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic climate change can be mitigated by international cooperation. Some actual IPCC reports are available from [1] and [2]. They describe observations of "The atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years," "wide-spread melting of ice margins [...] with implications for sea level rise," and increased frequency of extreme precipitation events. They predict "irreversible changes in climate and ocean chemistry" and "rapid and large changes of the statistics of extreme events." Droughts, floods, cyclones, and ecological disruptions all threaten human life. The IPCC data and reports suggest that these and other adverse events have increased in frequency and severity, that human activity had a causal role, that things will probably get worse, and that our future behavior matters. Not that someone's death is the only possible justification for international cooperation in limiting pollution. [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_da... [2] http://www.ipcc.ch/presentations_and_speeches/presentations_and_speeches_presentations.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/presentations_and_speeches/presentations_...
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  I know, and even if we don't cooperate, most of the consequences of climate change are not catastrophic. I'm aware of much of what the IPCC claims. Note that by "catastrophic", I mean "causing major harm to human civilization". I don't consider requiring a few million people to relocate 100 meters inland over 100 years (or stay put and build landfill) to be catastrophic. Nor do I consider a few more hurricanes to be catastrophic -- we handle hurricanes adequately, and as our economy grows, handling them will become even cheaper (relative to our wealth). Caribbean nations will handle them adequately as well once they become richer. Al Gore's and Greenpeace's dire predictions of the death of humanity are simply way outside the scientific consensus. Incidentally, the response of climate to CO2 is logarithmic -- i.e., if doubling CO2 increases climate by 1 degree, then an eight-fold increase in CO2 will increase climate by 3 degrees (not 8). (This is all to leading order, of course.) Big increases are only marginally worse than small ones.
  - 17y ago

danbmil99 17y ago

Newsflash: nations are not going to set aside their interests for each other. End of story. All the carbon will be burnt -- count on it. Plan accordingly.