Thinking Economically about Stewardship
Various news services are reporting today that over 113 scientists worldwide have concluded it to be "very likely" that global warming exists and is manmade.
If you've been in the environmental camp for long, this post probably isn't for you.
There are many who will read this article and laugh. "We can't prove the existence of global warming, or that it will have a negative effect." There is a bit of truth there, as many researchers are politically motivated, we have incomplete data, and we can't control for all relevant variables.
That's still irrelevant, though. In Economics, there's a certain statistical model for making decisions without knowing for certain the consequences of each choice. You take the likelihood of an outcome happening, and you multiply it by the cost (or benefit) of that outcome.
For instance...should I sell drugs? Well, if I have a 25% chance of getting caught (the likelihood), and the consequence of getting caught is a 2-year sentence (the cost); basically by deciding to sell drugs, I'm embracing 6 months in prison, irregardless of whether or not I get caught.
Let's apply that to environmental stewardship for a second...should we care about global warming? And, for kicks, let's be really conservative with our numbers.
Assume there's a .1% chance that the scientific community is right (the likelihood).
If they're right, we lose all land and civilization within 12 sea feet of the oceans; New York, DC, Miami, London, Rome...(the cost).
Economic Cost of ignoring the issue = .001 * A whole lot = A whole lot
Forget being convinced for a second. Do you, the global warming skeptic, still think we don't at least owe this issue more thought than proving why we can't prove why you're wrong?
posted by Lyons at
12:48 PM
2 Comments:
As a liberal, I'm confounded by a lot of things the right says and does, but the issue of global warming may actually be the very most frustrating.
Reasonable, good-faith people from both parties can disagree on a whole host of issues, from abortion to gay marriage to tax policy. But global warming isn't one of them. It's not open to debate. It's happening, and the ramifications are severe.
There's no room for debate on global warming anymore. Oh, sure, we can still debate the best course of action to combat it -- but the debate over its actual existence really should have been over about 15 years ago.
4:31 PM
George Will wrote an excellent piece in Newsweek. Read it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/
Kirb, I think you're going about the debate incorrectly. While global warming is happening, the left cannot definitively say that it's manmade. On the other hand, the right can't prove that it's all natural.
George Will is a bit less concerned about the ramifications of global warming (although it's still a good read), but again, severe ramifications aren't a risk worth taking.
11:14 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home