Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

You raise a valid question and my focus so far has been on
establishing the causal link between global warming and human
activities.
The cost of global warming can come in many forms and are not simple
to express in dollars. I am sure that scenarios have been explored and
I will report back to you some additional details,

Cost involves global amplification leading to ice melt, destruction of
habitats, impacts on crops, deserts, impacts on weather patterns,
spread of diseases, droughts and fires. It should not be too hard to
get some hard and soft data on these issues

Pim

On 1/17/07, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One point that keeps coming up that bothers me is "The consensus view is ..."
> or "99% of climatologists say ..." I have tried without success to get Pim Van
> Muers to state what would be the consequences of doing nothing. If the problem
> is real, policymakers need to undersatand what would be the likely consequences
> of various actions. Basing actions on the precautionary principle is not wise.
>
>
> --- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 17 19:14:07 2007