[asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

The arguments here about the science of global warming have been
interesting. So far, however, I haven't seen any real discussion of what
would constitute a sound / ethical policy response. This makes the other
arguments seem a bit academic.

I understand the state of the art concerning the science of climate change
as follows:

1. The consenus view is that global warming is a real, recent phenomenon.
2. The consensus view is that human activity, particularly carbon
emissions, is a substantial cause of warming.
3. The consensus view is that the warming trend will continue without
intervention to reduce carbon emissions.
3. The consensus views as to 1, 2 and 3 are subject to some challenges.
     3.a. The challenges to 1 are not particularly strong. Although the
data may show some recent fluctations, there is a recent warming trend.
     3.b. Some of the challenges concerning whether human activity is a
"substantial" cause of warming may have some merit, but are very much
minority views. There have been significant warming trends in geologic
history that have not been caused by human activity. However, our
understanding of greenhouse gasses strongly suggests that carbon emissions
are a major factor in the recent trend.
     3.c. Some of the challenges concerning the rapidity and continuity of
the warming trend absent intervention to reduce carbon emissions also may
some merit. Any consensus about the trajectory, rapidity and duration of
climate change is very fragile. Climate modelling technology is not yet
very reliable.
I understand the state of the art concerning the social consequences of
warming as follows:

1. Warming may be catastrophic. Masses of people may be displaced and
economies might be ruined. Al Gore may be right.
2. Warming may, on balance, be beneficial. Currently barren regions such
as the Mongolian steppes might blossom. People may be spurred to develop
technological and social solutions to warming that greatly benefit
humanity.
3. Warming may, on balance, be neither catastrophic nor highly beneficial.
It may cause some local displacement but also some benefits in other areas.

I understand the state of the art concerning large-scale policy proposals
concerning warming, such as the Kyoto treaty, as follows:

1. The near-term social costs of Kyoto could be enormous for developed
economies. Many jobs could be lost, the overall costs of doing business
could increase, and sectors of the economy from manufacturing to housing to
health care could ultimately be negatively affected.
2. Kyoto establishes a global administrative system for enforcement that
raises serious questions about delegation of national sovereignty to an
unelected international body.
3. It may be very difficult to force developing countries to comply with
treaty obligations. The exclusion of some developing countries that are
major polluters from emission obligations, including India and China, means
that the polluting activities of these countries in effect would be
subsidized by the developed countries.
4. The long-term benefits of Kyoto are uncertain, even if warming is a
real, human-caused phenomenon and even if the warming trend is likely to
continue. It is unclear that the net reduction in greenhouse gasses under
Kyoto would have any meaningful impact on warming. Further, estimates of
the costs and benefits of Kyoto vary widely depending on factors such as
which discount rate is used. In some estimates, even assuming the worst
about warming and the best about compliance with Kyoto, the treaty results
in a long-term net social loss. However, other estimates, which assume
significant long-term costs from global warming to human health and
agriculture, suggest substantial net benefits from compliance with Kyoto.

Given all this, what say ye about the appropriate ethical / policy
response? The strongest argument I've heard in favor of Kyoto is based on
the "precautionary principle." I don't find that argument convincing at
all, given that the long term social consequences of Kyoto are so uncertain
and may be quite negative, and given that I don't think consequentialism
works on its own generally. In Christian circles, we of course bandy about
the word "stewardship," but it's not clear to me how that concept applies in
this instance. Does "stewardship" imply a spiritualization of
consequentialist cost/benefit analysis? Does it suggest an absolutist
stance against carbon emissions? Does it incorporate issues such as the
appropriate boundaries of national sovereignty and economic growth?

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.