6 ms·

On global warming Schelling has an interesting take. He claims that GW has potentially disastrous consequences to developing nations but the danger to developed

On global warming Schelling has an interesting take. He claims that GW has potentially disastrous consequences to developing nations but the danger to developed nations has been exaggerated. That developed nations, in reducing emissions, will bear most of the cost while the developing world will get most of the benefits. That seems very short sighted in a couple of ways. First the notion that people suffering from the effects of ecology destruction and the aftermath that ensues just hang around and suffer and keep the suffering contained. Secondly the notion that there's nothing to be gained by combating global warming for the entire world. More people die from the effects of pollution than the combined deaths from homicide, war, car accidents and suicide per year.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
The fact that "developed nations, in reducing emissions, will bear most of the cost while the developing world will get most of the benefits" does not mean it's not a good idea to reduce emissions, it means that an agreement between the two is unlikely to happen. It is an empirical claim, not a normative claim.
pdonis 10y ago
> More people die from the effects of pollution than the combined deaths from homicide, war, car accidents and suicide per year. Pollution is not the same thing as climate change.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Imagine a Venn diagram with Pollution one circle and Climate Change in another and the intersection is Reducing Emissions. The title being "Intersection affects both".
  - pdonis 10y ago
    Yes, I understand that reducing pollution by, for example, reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants will also affect climate change (assuming you believe reducing CO2 emissions will do that). That doesn't change the fact that pollution causing people to get sick or die is not the same as climate change causing people to get sick or die. If we want to fight pollution because it kills people, and help with climate change as a side effect, that's one thing; but the post I responded to was basically arguing that we should fight climate change and hope that it reduces pollution as a side effect, based on the fact that pollution kills people. That argument makes no sense.
    - nickbauman 10y ago
      Orly? No sense? The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better.
      - pdonis 10y ago
        > The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better. I would have thought that "pollution kills people" was already reason enough. Or, to look at it from the other side, if a country like China isn't going to reduce its emissions in order to stop killing people right now, why would they bother to do it to reduce some hypothetical effect on climate change over the next century? And if the answer is "well, they say they will", why would we believe them?
Tempest1981 10y ago
Along those lines, this video has a good interview at 33-36 minutes in: https://youtu.be/8v1kU7Rc9c4?t=33m35s https://youtu.be/8v1kU7Rc9c4?t=33m35s ("Before the Flood") India has 300 million people without electricity, and they're doing exactly what the US and other nations did years ago: focus on improving their quality of life, using inexpensive coal and fuels.
__jal 10y ago
Remember that economics is rather bad at pricing things like huge population migrations. "Bearing the cost" does not include an a huge array of expected outcomes that humans will find negative but are difficult to plug into a toy economic model.

h4nkoslo 10y ago

The fact that "developed nations, in reducing emissions, will bear most of the cost while the developing world will get most of the benefits" does not mean it's not a good idea to reduce emissions, it means that an agreement between the two is unlikely to happen. It is an empirical claim, not a normative claim.

pdonis 10y ago

> More people die from the effects of pollution than the combined deaths from homicide, war, car accidents and suicide per year. Pollution is not the same thing as climate change.

nickbauman 10y ago
Imagine a Venn diagram with Pollution one circle and Climate Change in another and the intersection is Reducing Emissions. The title being "Intersection affects both".
- pdonis 10y ago
  Yes, I understand that reducing pollution by, for example, reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants will also affect climate change (assuming you believe reducing CO2 emissions will do that). That doesn't change the fact that pollution causing people to get sick or die is not the same as climate change causing people to get sick or die. If we want to fight pollution because it kills people, and help with climate change as a side effect, that's one thing; but the post I responded to was basically arguing that we should fight climate change and hope that it reduces pollution as a side effect, based on the fact that pollution kills people. That argument makes no sense.
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    Orly? No sense? The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better.
    - pdonis 10y ago
      > The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better. I would have thought that "pollution kills people" was already reason enough. Or, to look at it from the other side, if a country like China isn't going to reduce its emissions in order to stop killing people right now, why would they bother to do it to reduce some hypothetical effect on climate change over the next century? And if the answer is "well, they say they will", why would we believe them?

Tempest1981 10y ago

Along those lines, this video has a good interview at 33-36 minutes in: https://youtu.be/8v1kU7Rc9c4?t=33m35s https://youtu.be/8v1kU7Rc9c4?t=33m35s ("Before the Flood") India has 300 million people without electricity, and they're doing exactly what the US and other nations did years ago: focus on improving their quality of life, using inexpensive coal and fuels.

__jal 10y ago

Remember that economics is rather bad at pricing things like huge population migrations. "Bearing the cost" does not include an a huge array of expected outcomes that humans will find negative but are difficult to plug into a toy economic model.