4 ms·

i dont think anyone can deny that are a great many 'gigantic' uncertainties related to the science behind climate change. some simple logic, however, is more t

i dont think anyone can deny that are a great many 'gigantic' uncertainties related to the science behind climate change. some simple logic, however, is more than enough to convince me that doing something is the vastly superior alternative to doing nothing. if we choose to spend vast resources curbing emissions and such and we are wrong, those resources go to waste. given the current deployment of resources by our western civilization, such waste would need to go a long way to amount to more than a drop in the bucket. if we listen to the most passionate of skeptics and choose to do nothing and we are wrong, by worst case estimates we're going to lose in a very big, spectacular fashion. we wont be counting beans to see how much money was squandered 'going green', we'll be trying to find a patch of green to grow some food.

davidw 19y ago
I don't think it's "simple" at all, because you have to look down into the details: doing what costs what, what are the worst case projections, how much it costs (theoretically) to avoid them, what are the best case projections... all that kind of stuff, as well as look skeptically at margins of errors on various projections. Not as exciting as yelling "doom! gloom!" or saying "problem, what problem?", but ultimately more productive, in my opinion. From what I've seen, some sort of middle course is likely the best approach for the time being. Start doing something, but maybe not going all out, just yet. On an interesting, and related note, an economist points out that property prices aren't falling (or at least relatively more where all prices are falling) in coastal areas that would be hit by rising sea levels.
sethjohn 19y ago
Some of the most interesting writing on this subject was the Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com), and the critical responses to the Copenhagen Consensus. The CC was a group of economists who got together and tried to figure out which world-problems were most economical to solve. I.e., if you had a fixed amount of money where would you spend it to do the most good. The list was something like: 1. AIDS prevention in Africa. 2. AIDS treatment in Africa. 3. Generalized healthcare in the 3rd world. etc etc. Last. Climate change There are a lot of problems with the approach they took (considering only at the monetary value of lives not the "spiritual" value, assuming that charitable giving is a finite resource), but their approach of trying to do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis yields some very interesting results. If I really thought the cost was equivalent to "counting beans" and the benefit was avoiding a situation where we could no longer find arable land, I would agree that we should act quickly and strongly to halt CO2 emissions. In fact, I suspect that allowing the third-world access to cheap (fossil fuel) energy will benefit them more than avoiding small changes in climate. Of course, when it comes to American's perceived god-given right to drive around in monsterous SUVs...I come down firmly on the side of the environmentalists!
- Elfan 19y ago
  The Copenhagen Consensus looked only at a 5 year window. Since most of the likely costs of climate change take place farther in the future it is unsurprising that they found so little benefit for mitigation. While economic analysis is very important in this case it is also very difficult. You can get any result you want be fiddling with the discount rate.
  - sethjohn 19y ago
    There was no '5 year window', but the discount rate was a subject of much debate. Actually, to get climate change out of last place, they had to apply a much smaller discount rate than for any other subject. I would argue that the consequences in breakdown of African civil society due to a continuing AIDS epidemic will have a similarly long-term consequences as climate change...and thus a similar discount rate should apply to both.
- marcus 19y ago
  The reason fighting climate change scored so low in the CC was not that the problem is not real, its that the damages are still pretty far down the road and that we don't have any really cost-effective ways to do it. We need to keep spending on research in the area until we can find a solution that will make financial sense. PS: look up the TED talk on the Copenhagen Consensus for a quick review of the issue
- joeguilmette 19y ago
  If you take a look at how access to cheap fossil fuels has molded the post-WWII American landscape, I don't think there is a very strong argument to support the claim that such access to inexpensive oil is going to benefit anyone, especially countries just beginning get into urban development. In the context of newly developing countries (i.e. third world countries that won't be third world countries in a few decades) the development of greentech is of paramount importance. The technologies and research behind preventing climate change (as theoretical as it all is) is very, very related to smart growth and green technology. By researching and implementing such tech, helping the reversal of our earth's possible climate change will (hopefully) be a useful side-effect. What I'm trying to say, I think, is that by arguing that we should sit around and do nothing, we are setting ourselves up for disaster, and not just in the context of global warming. Sure, there is plenty of room to debate not only our contribution to the earth's warming, but even if we are warming at all. There is not room to debate, however, whether or not we should pursue green fuels, smart growth, and to begin visualizing how our society is going to react to the end of the era of cheap oil. These are some great Ted talks on the subject. The tragedy of suburbia. Hilarious, profane, and spot on. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121 http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121 John Doerr talks about the importance and profitability of green tech, the $6 trillion 'mother of all markets'. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/128 http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/128

davidw 19y ago

I don't think it's "simple" at all, because you have to look down into the details: doing what costs what, what are the worst case projections, how much it costs (theoretically) to avoid them, what are the best case projections... all that kind of stuff, as well as look skeptically at margins of errors on various projections. Not as exciting as yelling "doom! gloom!" or saying "problem, what problem?", but ultimately more productive, in my opinion. From what I've seen, some sort of middle course is likely the best approach for the time being. Start doing something, but maybe not going all out, just yet. On an interesting, and related note, an economist points out that property prices aren't falling (or at least relatively more where all prices are falling) in coastal areas that would be hit by rising sea levels.

sethjohn 19y ago

Some of the most interesting writing on this subject was the Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com), and the critical responses to the Copenhagen Consensus. The CC was a group of economists who got together and tried to figure out which world-problems were most economical to solve. I.e., if you had a fixed amount of money where would you spend it to do the most good. The list was something like: 1. AIDS prevention in Africa. 2. AIDS treatment in Africa. 3. Generalized healthcare in the 3rd world. etc etc. Last. Climate change There are a lot of problems with the approach they took (considering only at the monetary value of lives not the "spiritual" value, assuming that charitable giving is a finite resource), but their approach of trying to do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis yields some very interesting results. If I really thought the cost was equivalent to "counting beans" and the benefit was avoiding a situation where we could no longer find arable land, I would agree that we should act quickly and strongly to halt CO2 emissions. In fact, I suspect that allowing the third-world access to cheap (fossil fuel) energy will benefit them more than avoiding small changes in climate. Of course, when it comes to American's perceived god-given right to drive around in monsterous SUVs...I come down firmly on the side of the environmentalists!

Elfan 19y ago
The Copenhagen Consensus looked only at a 5 year window. Since most of the likely costs of climate change take place farther in the future it is unsurprising that they found so little benefit for mitigation. While economic analysis is very important in this case it is also very difficult. You can get any result you want be fiddling with the discount rate.
- sethjohn 19y ago
  There was no '5 year window', but the discount rate was a subject of much debate. Actually, to get climate change out of last place, they had to apply a much smaller discount rate than for any other subject. I would argue that the consequences in breakdown of African civil society due to a continuing AIDS epidemic will have a similarly long-term consequences as climate change...and thus a similar discount rate should apply to both.
marcus 19y ago
The reason fighting climate change scored so low in the CC was not that the problem is not real, its that the damages are still pretty far down the road and that we don't have any really cost-effective ways to do it. We need to keep spending on research in the area until we can find a solution that will make financial sense. PS: look up the TED talk on the Copenhagen Consensus for a quick review of the issue
joeguilmette 19y ago
If you take a look at how access to cheap fossil fuels has molded the post-WWII American landscape, I don't think there is a very strong argument to support the claim that such access to inexpensive oil is going to benefit anyone, especially countries just beginning get into urban development. In the context of newly developing countries (i.e. third world countries that won't be third world countries in a few decades) the development of greentech is of paramount importance. The technologies and research behind preventing climate change (as theoretical as it all is) is very, very related to smart growth and green technology. By researching and implementing such tech, helping the reversal of our earth's possible climate change will (hopefully) be a useful side-effect. What I'm trying to say, I think, is that by arguing that we should sit around and do nothing, we are setting ourselves up for disaster, and not just in the context of global warming. Sure, there is plenty of room to debate not only our contribution to the earth's warming, but even if we are warming at all. There is not room to debate, however, whether or not we should pursue green fuels, smart growth, and to begin visualizing how our society is going to react to the end of the era of cheap oil. These are some great Ted talks on the subject. The tragedy of suburbia. Hilarious, profane, and spot on. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121 http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121 John Doerr talks about the importance and profitability of green tech, the $6 trillion 'mother of all markets'. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/128 http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/128