In a nutshell, here's why supporting action on climate change is sensible.
Suppose, having looked at the data, you believe climate change is unlikely to be caused by carbon emissions. That's no more excuse for inaction, than believing that because a fire in your home is quite unlikely, it's not worth buying fire insurance. Hardly anybody thinks a fire is likely, but most rational people will buy insurance.
The cost of drastically reducing CO2 emissions by 2050 -- estimated at one percent of GDP -- is sufficiently low that mitigating the risk of climate change is no different than factoring in the cost any other kind of insurance.
9 comments:
That's lame. You want to convince a skeptic to support action on climate change, prove that C02 controls our climate. Simple as that. Do that and we're on board.
If you want a skeptic to support action on reducing pollution there is no problem there. Cap&Trade for pollution would already be in place, there would be no debate. But calling C02 a pollutant was a big mistake, it made the public wake up and start to question the real motives of Gore and the UN IPCC. Now the public does not trust the Green movement. They are trying to force this new "insurance" on us no matter what the reasons. It smells fishy. And Al Gore is the last guy you would want selling this insurance. the public does not trust him at all.
I understand your point about CO2 as pollution, but don't see why its lame to frame discussion as one about insurance.
Ok lets frame it like fire insurance. We’re talking about forcing us to pay into a national house fire insurance program. Since we’re talking about human caused climate change we’d need the analogous insurance to protect against human caused house fire which is called arson. But see AGW skeptics don't believe climate change is caused by humans, so it's like forcing us all to buy home insurance not to protect from fire caused by a natural occurrence like lightning strike, but rather for fire caused by arson only. If you want to buy house insurance against arson, knock yourself out. But don’t ram arson insurance down our throats by claiming it is a national or global threat. This is why AGW skeptics are speaking out, we don’t buy the excuse. We believe there is an ulterior motive at work here, we do not believe the sales pitch because it's irrational.
Skeptics do not believe that climate is changing due to our C02 output, so logically there is no need for a Cap&Trade system to reduce it. If you want a Cap&Trade system to reduce pollution, there would be no one who would argue against it, but C02 is not a pollutant (and you know it). I believe conning a judge into declaring C02 a pollutant was the biggest mistake the Green Movement has ever made. It reduced the credibility of the Green movement, even environmentalists scoffed at that strategy.
My understanding is 1% of GDP annually. That’s $150 Billion per year in the USA alone. And that will pay for what? How is it we can’t come up with the cash for schools and police but somehow we have all kinds for C02. In northern Alberta they are going to spend $5billion on a pipeline to sequester C02. How many anti-malarial nets could be purchased with that $5Billion? None! Instead it will help make a few environmental companies rich. It’s an outrage but this is what the Greens want.
What is pollution but too much of something in the wrong place?
Concerning the "national insurance" analogy, we already have a national insurance policy, of course. It's called the military. Taxpayers in the US, for example, pay around 5% of GDP to protect themselves against all kinds of things that probably won't happen. And all taxpayers are expected to contribute to this kind of insurance, whether or not they think the threats justify this expenditure.
But the line of thinking I want to address is this:
But see AGW skeptics don't believe climate change is caused by humans...
What's the difference between a skeptic and a believer? Not *certainty* surely. None of us is omniscient. A skeptic thinks climate change is "unlikely" to be caused by humans (49% and lower), a "believer" thinks it's likely (51% and greater). The difference between the position of the "skeptic" and the "believer" -- across the population -- works to a few percentage points, in terms of the strength of conviction on either side.
Few people are going to fall in the 99% "convinced" camp either way (or anything close), though this makes for more heated discussions on cable television!
Even if a skeptic believes there is only a 1 in 1,000 chance global warming is caused by humans, 0.01 is more than enough belief to render it rational for him to buy insurance against the possibility global warming is man-made.
After all, the same guy also thinks there is only 1:1,000 chance that China will attack his country, but he still agrees to pay a lot for the military -- even if this comes at the expense of mosquito nets for Africa or some other social project.
Insurance is for things we don't think will happen, but just might -- especially if we are wrong about our assumptions.
Even if you strongly suspect the skeptics are probably right, it's still rational to buy insurance against man-made climate change!
Yes I agree it is rational to buy climate change insurance, but not have it rammed down our throats as a national program.
I know of no skeptic who feels it is “unlikely" that climate change is caused by humans, it is more of a complete disbelief. They believe climate change is a natural occurrence, it is not a threat and that the AGW Believers are just mistaken. Pictures of melting glaciers are evidence of climate change, not evidence that C02 is the cause. Perhaps, if there is a 1/1000 chance that humans are at fault, skeptics should buy some personal climate change insurance, but it is not reasonable to make it a National tax scheme targeted at around 1% of GDP or about $500 per person. If America doesn’t even have Universal health care it makes no sense to have Cap&Trade. Health Care is a true insurance program and it is almost an inevitability that everyone gets sick sometime in their lives, it is a true threat, much higher than 1/1000 chance.
This brings up the subject of trust. The public distrusts the Green Movement now. Remember the Hockey stick graph, remember the “the debate is over the science is settled” quashing of debate, remember the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change, remember the intentional confusing of C02 with pollution, remember the UN IPCC saying that 600 scientists wrote their last report when it was really only 60, remember the polar bear pictures and the images of flooded NY city, the list goes on and on. All of this subterfuge has been to get skeptics to agree to a new tax to fight a nonexistent threat. The skeptics ask, why would the Greens want us to pay for C02 emissions when they haven’t the proof that C02 causes climate change? The skeptics feel deep inside that the Green’s have an ulterior motive, and this distrust is making it harder and harder to sell climate legislation.
Anonymous:
Perhaps, if there is a 1/1000 chance that humans are at fault, skeptics should buy some personal climate change insurance, but it is not reasonable to make it a National tax scheme targeted at around 1% of GDP or about $500 per person.
Some people just don't think the Taliban are a threat, some people don't think the Iraq war is worth it any longer. Maybe they should be allowed not to have their taxes go towards defense? (Come to think of it, this might not be such a bad idea...) But with the example of the military kind of insurance or climate change insurance, you have the "free rider" problem: Everyone benefits if it turns out you needed the insurance, but only a few paid for it. The whole country gets protected, not everyone foots the bill. There's no escaping the "free rider problem" which renders voluntary insurance contributions untenable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
The example you bring up, universal healthcare, is a bit different from military spending, but a rich country can afford insurance for both. You mention $500 as a burden, but many Westerners are already paying $2500 a year to protect themselves from cave-dwelling Taliban or some drunk Russians.
The skeptics ask, why would the Greens want us to pay for C02 emissions when they haven’t the proof that C02 causes climate change?
"... when they havent't the proof..." you write. Of course there is no proof! These things cannot be proved one way or another. They can only be estimated, and even the best estimates can be wrong. (Just ask a Wall Street banker).
Let's continue with the insurance analogy. Should the government make you pay an extra $3,000 a year for meteor damage coverage?
Consensus:
"Launch the Challenger"
Anonymous,
Obviously some investment against the likelihood of a catastrophic meteor strike is worthwhile.
But I see no reason to think it should be anywhere in the neighborhood of the figure you have provided, as tracking meteors can't be that expensive. I image that only a few cents per person would cover the costs, and be money well spent.
Richard A. Posner has written an excellent book on the topic, and makes a compelling case for such investment. And he suggests how to calculate the amount of insurance we should buy against the possibility of a meteor strike.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195178130/ref=nosim/completereview
Post a Comment