1. Climate is a chaotic system. In simplest terms, that means it is unstable and non-linear; small changes can have outsized effects and sudden reversals prevail.
2. We must consider costs against the present value of highly uncertain future benefits, discounting the latter at appropriate (risky) rates.
• Is there global warming?
o Well, coming off an ice age, some.
• Is it man-made?
o Some, not all.
• What are our alternatives?
o In part, slow or stop it.
o In part, adapt to it.
o In all cases, admit we don’t know nearly enough.
o Understand with chaotic systems, we are just as likely to exacerbate as to ameliorate. E.g. Are we trapping heat or raising the albedo?!
• What are the costs and benefits? This kills the statists. No price is too high for them, nothing must stop their power.
o Full accounting of current costs, not just direct, but indirect and knock-on effects.
o PLUS deleterious social and psychological effects of ever-growing government intrusion. This is destructive but regrettably diffuse and unrecognized.
o Appropriately high discount rates for highly uncertain future benefits.
o As the math soon makes it clear, it’s far better to increase our wealth, and then fix any adverse results in future, rather than impoverish ourselves AND THE FUTURE, today.
o Recognize the current poor in the world deserve to live better, and not be kept in squalor for the mere chance at improving the future
As usual, Brands is on the mark, but I wish he had said something about overpopulation. My wife and I are doing our part re ZPG. We don't have kids (except for our darling cats and they've been fixed). Maybe having large broods made sense back when land was cheap and there was lots of it. But not today. One reason for overpopulation in developing countries is that people there hope that at least one of their kids will immigrate to the US, Canada, Australia, or Western Europe and then send money back. That may make sense in the short run, but not in the long run.
Two key issues:
1. Climate is a chaotic system. In simplest terms, that means it is unstable and non-linear; small changes can have outsized effects and sudden reversals prevail.
2. We must consider costs against the present value of highly uncertain future benefits, discounting the latter at appropriate (risky) rates.
• Is there global warming?
o Well, coming off an ice age, some.
• Is it man-made?
o Some, not all.
• What are our alternatives?
o In part, slow or stop it.
o In part, adapt to it.
o In all cases, admit we don’t know nearly enough.
o Understand with chaotic systems, we are just as likely to exacerbate as to ameliorate. E.g. Are we trapping heat or raising the albedo?!
• What are the costs and benefits? This kills the statists. No price is too high for them, nothing must stop their power.
o Full accounting of current costs, not just direct, but indirect and knock-on effects.
o PLUS deleterious social and psychological effects of ever-growing government intrusion. This is destructive but regrettably diffuse and unrecognized.
o Appropriately high discount rates for highly uncertain future benefits.
o As the math soon makes it clear, it’s far better to increase our wealth, and then fix any adverse results in future, rather than impoverish ourselves AND THE FUTURE, today.
o Recognize the current poor in the world deserve to live better, and not be kept in squalor for the mere chance at improving the future
On that last point — if you’d read this far, invest another ten minutes in a terrific video by Hans Rosling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w&feature=player_embedded.
As usual, Brands is on the mark, but I wish he had said something about overpopulation. My wife and I are doing our part re ZPG. We don't have kids (except for our darling cats and they've been fixed). Maybe having large broods made sense back when land was cheap and there was lots of it. But not today. One reason for overpopulation in developing countries is that people there hope that at least one of their kids will immigrate to the US, Canada, Australia, or Western Europe and then send money back. That may make sense in the short run, but not in the long run.