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

Even if none of this is human-caused there are mitigation activities such as
helping move people away from the coasts, disease control, water management,
and technology transfer of lower carbon emitting devices to developing
countries. Invariably, all I've ever seen is a one-dimensional either pro-
or anti- Kyoto as a response. What I have outlined is non-controversial. The
effects of climate change will invariably fall most heavily on the weakest
members of the World community. As Christians we have duty to do what we can
to help those people out. Environmental activism or buying a hybrid car does
not acquit our duty in my opinion. Even if our country does not do its duty
there are things we can do individually and collectively as Christians to
make the World a better place. THAT is what I mean by stewardship.

On 1/17/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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 20:28:42 2007