4 ms·

If I read this correctly he thinks that reducing emissions is too expensive but everything else like increased cost through extreme weather or building dams to

If I read this correctly he thinks that reducing emissions is too expensive but everything else like increased cost through extreme weather or building dams to protect areas below sea level is totally affordable. I am not sure I agree with that. But this is how things will probably work out. I don’t believe we will make any meaningful reduction in emissions over the next decades so we will deal with the consequences.

rich_sasha 7y ago
My reading is different: * Paper says, sea level will rise, with many areas vulnerable * Newspaper exaggerates to say, "OMG people will be at the bottom of the sea" * Article says, well this one bit of global warming we can deal with, as we always did. Dikes will be built, drainage added, and it's all kinda cheap I don't think they argue against combating climate change. Another way to put it: let's worry first about the climate change issues we cannot mitigate.
- tgb 7y ago
  Which would have been a good article, but that's definitely not all the article was saying, since the author was clearly arguing against CO2-emission reduction strategies (see the very opening paragraph).
  - rich_sasha 7y ago
    Are you referring to this bit: "[...] push policymakers toward excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure. [...]"? I think there is a point to be made. I'm no climate change denier. But with mitigating the effects of climate change, we are trading an up-front cost today against a benefit in the future. Both the up-front cost and the future benefit must be fairly estimated, as much as we can. Claims like "We must cut carbon emissions to 0 or South Vietnam will be eradicated" justify a very different level, or at least destination of spending than saying "South Vietnam will need [international help] to build extensive anti-flood infrastructure". Potentially at least, I don't know the numbers.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Anti-flood infrastructure, and water supply infrastructure including desalination plus cleaning, and rework their farming practices completely, likely reduce no longer available seafood intake, and expand power grid to supply additional power to air conditioning... And more. Mind you, poor will be hit first and hardest. It's the tip of the (soon no longer extant) iceberg. Flooding is the relatively easy part. Water, food and power are hard.
- holstvoogd 7y ago
  > Dikes will be built * Venice entered the chat * For reference: Dikes are not cheap to build and maintain, securing the dutch coasts cost ran up to $13 billion in 2013. That cover about 700km of coast lines & river sides. Not sure how many kilometers of dikes will be needed, but based on http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html even covering 10% of the coast lines will cost more about $1 trillion.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    It’s even worse than that. The land he’s proposing to secure with dikes includes the land area of all of the island nations in the world. None of those nations can afford that. There’s a very subtle racism at play in saying “look the dutch did it so it must be easy.“ The reality is that a lot of poor island nations are going to be destroyed by the actions of a few wealthy nations, and that isn’t the story you hear often. We will lose a ton of arable land. And much of the biodiversity we cherish today will be extinct. There are a lot of children yet to be born to whom we will owe an apology for so thoroughly wrecking the planet.
krcz 7y ago
Game Theory can bring some understanding here: the situation is similar to the Prisoner's dilemma [1]. If no one reduces emissions, everyone will suffer high costs. If everyone reduces emissions, no additional costs appear. But if everyone but you reduces emissions, your single decision doesn't change the outcome that much - so the optimal strategy is not to reduce emissions and hope others still do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
- jmull 7y ago
  The prisoner’s dilemma isn’t a good fit here. The problem is, it assumes the prisoners can’t talk to each other and don’t have an ongoing relationship beyond the one transaction. In fact, in general, social issues — from the personal level in up to global level - rarely, if ever, restrict he flow of information like that.”
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Yes, the correct game theory analogy would be the classic "tragedy of the commons" where each player's behavior places a small cost on everyone but produces a larger benefit for themselves. When every player chooses to over utilize the commons, overall rewards decrease significantly.
- dleslie 7y ago
  Another option is to continue producing fossil fuels for the world markets, and using the revenue to protect yourself from the disaster you helped create. This model is fairly popular with Tories in Canada.

rich_sasha 7y ago

My reading is different: * Paper says, sea level will rise, with many areas vulnerable * Newspaper exaggerates to say, "OMG people will be at the bottom of the sea" * Article says, well this one bit of global warming we can deal with, as we always did. Dikes will be built, drainage added, and it's all kinda cheap I don't think they argue against combating climate change. Another way to put it: let's worry first about the climate change issues we cannot mitigate.

tgb 7y ago
Which would have been a good article, but that's definitely not all the article was saying, since the author was clearly arguing against CO2-emission reduction strategies (see the very opening paragraph).
- rich_sasha 7y ago
  Are you referring to this bit: "[...] push policymakers toward excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure. [...]"? I think there is a point to be made. I'm no climate change denier. But with mitigating the effects of climate change, we are trading an up-front cost today against a benefit in the future. Both the up-front cost and the future benefit must be fairly estimated, as much as we can. Claims like "We must cut carbon emissions to 0 or South Vietnam will be eradicated" justify a very different level, or at least destination of spending than saying "South Vietnam will need [international help] to build extensive anti-flood infrastructure". Potentially at least, I don't know the numbers.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Anti-flood infrastructure, and water supply infrastructure including desalination plus cleaning, and rework their farming practices completely, likely reduce no longer available seafood intake, and expand power grid to supply additional power to air conditioning... And more. Mind you, poor will be hit first and hardest. It's the tip of the (soon no longer extant) iceberg. Flooding is the relatively easy part. Water, food and power are hard.
holstvoogd 7y ago
> Dikes will be built * Venice entered the chat * For reference: Dikes are not cheap to build and maintain, securing the dutch coasts cost ran up to $13 billion in 2013. That cover about 700km of coast lines & river sides. Not sure how many kilometers of dikes will be needed, but based on http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html even covering 10% of the coast lines will cost more about $1 trillion.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  It’s even worse than that. The land he’s proposing to secure with dikes includes the land area of all of the island nations in the world. None of those nations can afford that. There’s a very subtle racism at play in saying “look the dutch did it so it must be easy.“ The reality is that a lot of poor island nations are going to be destroyed by the actions of a few wealthy nations, and that isn’t the story you hear often. We will lose a ton of arable land. And much of the biodiversity we cherish today will be extinct. There are a lot of children yet to be born to whom we will owe an apology for so thoroughly wrecking the planet.

krcz 7y ago

Game Theory can bring some understanding here: the situation is similar to the Prisoner's dilemma [1]. If no one reduces emissions, everyone will suffer high costs. If everyone reduces emissions, no additional costs appear. But if everyone but you reduces emissions, your single decision doesn't change the outcome that much - so the optimal strategy is not to reduce emissions and hope others still do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

jmull 7y ago
The prisoner’s dilemma isn’t a good fit here. The problem is, it assumes the prisoners can’t talk to each other and don’t have an ongoing relationship beyond the one transaction. In fact, in general, social issues — from the personal level in up to global level - rarely, if ever, restrict he flow of information like that.”
- shkkmo 7y ago
  Yes, the correct game theory analogy would be the classic "tragedy of the commons" where each player's behavior places a small cost on everyone but produces a larger benefit for themselves. When every player chooses to over utilize the commons, overall rewards decrease significantly.
dleslie 7y ago
Another option is to continue producing fossil fuels for the world markets, and using the revenue to protect yourself from the disaster you helped create. This model is fairly popular with Tories in Canada.