Reader MarkG asks
How much can we afford to allow the Global Warming Hypothesis (aka, the
"scientific consensus") to cost us as a nation and society by applying
the so-called Precautionary Principle?
I don't think he'll like my answer, but, quite a lot, really. Cutting GDP by 5% would take us back to the dark days of 2004, which I personally don't remember as a squalid dystopian hell. Running the air conditioner at a higher temperature, living in a smaller house, moving closer to work, and eating more frozen vegetables instead of fresh would be inconvenient, but none of these things would reduce us to misery. People managed to live happy, fulfilling lives 50 years ago with a lot less stuff. And the things that have produced the most dramatic improvements, like health care, wouldn't be much impacted.
How much economic growth to sacrifice to avert global warming is a thorny question for which I have no neat answer. How do we weigh the interests of future generations against our own? How should we deal with small but catastrophic risks? Difficult. All I can say is more than we're doing, and less than radical environmntalists would like us to.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
We, the US, cannot afford to spend one plug nickel to avert global warming. Nothing we could do could avert global warming. Therefore, no expenditure makes any technical or economic sense.
Even assuming that returning to pre-1750 CO2 emission levels globally would "avert global warming", the US could not reduce global CO2 emissions to pre-1750 levels even if we reduced our emissions to zero.
There is no local, regional, national or even multi-national solution to a global problem. Either there is a global solution or there is no solution.
Guess I agree with the asceticism more than anything else. But that's a matter of personal choice. I disagree with arbitrarily restricting others from their personal economic choices based on what has been declared the "collective consensus", when such consensus actually flies in the face of what would traditionally have been empirical science.
I see the whole Global Warming show as a faddish herd mentality that will direct us towards a bubble of costly, restrictive policies. But, ooh, they look so cool on us!
As happens with any fashion, those who eschew the Anthropogenic Global Warming trend are rebuked as uncouth, boorish and pedestrian. And there's absolutely no room for debate on matters of taste: either you got it or you ain't! ;-)
Can we please apply the precautionary principle to Iran, and just bomb the snot out of them now just in case they do get the A-Bomb and decide to use it? The threat is much more immediate than AGW, and the cost, though high, will be much lower than what the greenies want to spend to fight the phantom AGW menace.
As a libertarian I'm sure Megan means voluntary preacautions made by individuals, rather than collective precautions imposed by government?
Can we please apply the precautionary principle to Iran, and just bomb the snot out of them now just in case they do get the A-Bomb and decide to use it? The threat is much more immediate than AGW, and the cost, though high, will be much lower than what the greenies want to spend to fight the phantom AGW menace.
We can add identify of the "successes" of the precautionary principle to the banning of DDT. Millions have died and millions will continue to die based upon this worldwide ban. The precautionary principle is a replacement for thinking and scientific analysis.
I think you hit it just right with the emphasis on the costs to growth and rather than the level of GDP. Going back to 2004 GDP wouldn't be too bad, but that's not how CO2 emissions reductions are paid for. What would happen is we would see a long term reduction in GDP growth as resources were devoted to emission reduction and not consumption and capital investment. And since growth drives things like the employment level and the value of financial assets, that would have a huge impact on happiness.
@ John Wright:As a libertarian I'm sure Megan means voluntary preacautions made by individuals, rather than collective precautions imposed by government?
Not all libertarians are opposed to government actions when the benefit is a public good. The line where a "public good" is drawn is the source of disagreement. At least, that is what I have observed.
@Megan: Running the air conditioner at a higher temperature, living in a smaller house, moving closer to work, and eating more frozen vegetables instead of fresh would be inconvenient, but none of these things would reduce us to misery.
The A/C change and the veggie issue are easily dealt with at low social cost. However, the capital cost in tearing down the existing housing and commercial building stocks and rebuilding them in the image of NYC is huge.
Peronally, I take the Lutzian (GM VP Bob Lutz) view that Global Warming is an enormous crock of shit. But I'm willing to dicker at least a bit with the Warmists.
For example, I endorse Holdfast's notion of glazing over Persia - with the exception of Kurdistan and Khuzestan, which we can award to Iraq as 19th and 20th provinces - as a win-win-win-win "Four Horsemen" parlay for the U.S.
1) We remove the most virulent remaining nexus of Islamic nutbaggery, root and branch, while providing at least a useful bit of pedagogy, and more than a little collateral damage, to the lesser pestholes of nutbaggery that remain. Hamas and Hezbollah, for example, would quickly wither and die absent their allowances from Teheran.
2) While incinerating 40 million or so Persians and their stuff will unavoidably produce a regrettable upward spike in global atmospheric carbon dioxide tonnage, it's a one-time thing and should easily be made up over time by all the day-to-day carbon emmissions the late Persians will no longer be making and the still larger prospective amounts one could expect from their now-cancelled posterity. All of those charcoal braziers roasting chestnuts and falafel balls add up, n'est pas? And don't get me started about those wretched pita ovens.
3) The smoke, dust and sundry effluvia of the Persian Holocaust, meanwhile, will linger - possibly for years - in the upper atmosphere, increasing the Earth's albedo and reflecting back incident solar energy before it can bcome trapped, greenhouse style, and cause trouble. It won't be enough to rate a "Nuclear Winter" moniker; probably not even "Nuclear Autumn." "Nuclear Indian Summer" maybe. A nice extension of the global cooling trend we've apparently been in these last 10 years.
4) Point made, we can disband the Coalition in Iraq, thank everyone for coming, promise to hold regular reunions with free food and beer and bring most of our troops back Stateside.
Or redeploy them to new bases ouside the new NATO headquarters city of Kiev, perhaps? But that is a modest proposal for another day.
Dick,
At the moment, the "crock" appears to be cooling, though it still stinks. If we don't dry and subsequently burn it, it will hold its carbon for a long time.
Megan--
Cutting GDP by 5% would take us back to the dark days of 2004, which I personally don't remember as a squalid dystopian hell.
It's not a one-time cut. It's 5% out of GDP every year for 50 or 100 years. You're an economist, so tell us, please, how long can the US economy sustain annual 5% cuts in GDDP before we actually do wind up in a "squalid dystopian hell"?
And you do understand that it won't work unless every nation in the world takes a similar hit to its economy, right?
So if you're going to apply the Precautionary Principle, how many deaths by starvation are too many, and how many are just enough?
I sometimes wonder if I'm wrong and man made global warming is occurring. If so, what are the chances that we like a warmer earth?
Actually Holdfast, Straussian philosophy is renowned for its use of the precautionary principle in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, the principle requires that one weigh each possible outcome and act according to which has the lowest negative .. something no neoconservative has ever understood.
Until we actually exceed one standard deviation of temperature variability, I think we are safely in Type I Error territory. Without better evidence, the Precautionary Principle is just a version of Pascal's Wager. It can be safely ignored for now.
"but none of these things would reduce us to misery"
No, but the coercion needed to enforce them might.
This is a ridiculous argument. First of all, "global" warming implies CO2 emissions from all over the world. The US, Europe and Japan outsource many of their dirtiest industries to China and India and such; so a reduction in CO2 output in the US is a less than credible barometer of success in that regard.
Additionally, the argument that resources would be diverted to CO2 emission reduction and not capitol investment is asinine. Money spent on emissions reduction IS capitol investment. Just because you're not making Hummers and Big Macs doesn't mean that investment in green technologies isn't building capitol.
Lastly, the very resources you're talking about diverting to "green" stuff are dwindling at an ever increasing rate. Oil is running out. Fresh water is in declining availability. Everything that's pulled from the Earth to make all our crap is running out. By 2050, with projected demographics, it won't be a question of how much growth we're willing to sacrifice. It will be a question of who gets what's left. We'll all be elderly people by then - do you really think we'll be anywhere but the back of the line when that happens?
I'm so sick of this whole debate about AGW, arguing about it is just a distraction that keeps us from discussing the real issue of how we will secure & use energy now and in the future.
I fail to understand how coming up with a cohesive and rational long term strategy for energy acquisition and use (which is what AGW is ultimately about) is such a divisive issue in the US. Finding better/more efficient/renewable sources of energy can only benefit all sides of our society. On the left side of the argument, renewable energy sources are the key to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and increased investment in this area goes hand in hand with an improved environment and reduced risk of the negative consequences of AGW. On the right side of the argument, the less we depend on imported energy from unstable/unsavory countries the more secure we are as a nation both now and into an increasingly resource constrained future.
Imagine the leverage we'd be able to bring down on Iran if we simply didn't have to care if they mined the strait of Hormuz.
Diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources has no downside in an era where even if you disregard AGW simple economics dictate that competition for these commodities will increase as world population grows and societies around the world become more wealthy and technologically advanced.
Technological advancement and investment in infrastructure brought us to the quality of life we have now. Those who argue so vehemently in favor of the status quo seem to ignore the transience of all technologies. Why wouldn't we embrace a shift in how we invest our resources (5% of GDP to serve both future energy security and AGW mitigation) It is so obviously is in our long term interest to look beyond foreign fossil fuels whether you believe in AGW or not that I cant believe that were still debating AGW.
Haven't we already taken a 5% hit on economic growth under George W Bush as compared to growth under Bill Clinton? If our nation can afford to elect a Republican president, we can afford to take a 5% GDP hit.
As for global warming, I think it's a red herring, or perhaps a green herring. What we have to do to fight global warming is stuff we should be doing anyway. We need a renewed push towards renewable energy. We need to improve energy efficiency. We should improve our air and water quality. These have their own rewards: political, military, economic, personal and social.