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

Wayne wrote: "There are clearly enormous costs to ignoring the problem, but
there are also enormous costs in doing something about it. I
suspect that ignoring the problem will be more costly, but
the load paid now will also be a burdensome cost."

How many here believe that God has let Earth get out of control, and it's our responsibility to get it back in line? Maybe this problem is too big for humans to handle. In order to deal with it we're talking about making massive changes to massive human populations, populations that in many cases are having a tough time just eking out a living. Such massive changes are possible if at all only with totalitarian governments, of which there are probably no significant ones left that can control their people to the necessary degree.

Yes, we can conserve, but given the way the world's economies are organized, the amount of conservation that seems likely is not likely to have much effect on global warming. I support conservation, and I might even support some carefully thought-out program to curb emission of greenhouse gases, but ultimately I'm not optimistic that any human activity will avert the predicted problems, assuming those predictions have any validity. I think the proper posture is to avoid getting agitated, trust that God knows what is going on and that things are not out of his control. We should act if and when it's appropriate, but we should also evaluate whether this thing may lie outside our ability to influence.

Down deep I would not be at all surprised within ten years to see the concern about global warming evaporate in a global cooling trend. Remember Y2K; and last I heard people don't really understand what caused the ice ages.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com<mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
  To: dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

  David wrote:

    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?

  The "ethical/policy" response is also what I have been trying to get
  some thinking about.

  More than just "it will hurt the economy", the issue with Kyoto
  is that it was thought out with a picture that was maybe reasonable
  at the time, but it is not clear that the policy was well thought
  out with an eye to future developments.

  For one thing, it was thought out when the economies in much of
  Asia were only beginning to heat up. In particular, China's rapid
  economic growth and massive demands for energy was probably
  never even considered realistically. However, the demand
  in all of Asia has surged dramatically, even with the over
  investment and crash that happened. So rules excluding these
  economies are arguably unfair in the current context. What
  context the future brings is also hard to estimate. At minimum,
  the burden should be shared in a fair an equitable way.

  But there is another thing too. It is "what to do". A system
  as massive and complex as the environment is something akin
  to an aircraft carrier as far as its response goes. Aircraft
  carriers do not turn on a dime. Likewise, any drastic policy
  change you chose will take a good part of a life time before
  the results are even known. You are probably best not to
  make wild gyrations on a ship this big and certainly, once
  you gently turn that wheel, you have be prepared to wait for
  the response. At best, a "response" might become observable
  within a decade.

  So a wise policy is the first issue.

  It does sound like the CO2 problem is of our own making, but
  you cannot just pull the plug. We would probably have to
  shift to nuclear power for example which takes decades to
  put in place and plan. Some people have issue with nuclear
  power. How to overcome that resistance in a policy shift
  that will take decades to implement.

  Hence, finding a good plan is the first and most difficult
  matter at hand, when it comes to the issue of "what to do",
  as opposed to the majority of the discussions that have
  been "what is happening", the economics of this is not
  trivial.

  There are clearly enormous costs to ignoring the problem, but
  there are also enormous costs in doing something about it. I
  suspect that ignoring the problem will be more costly, but
  the load paid now will also be a burdensome cost. I don't
  think it is wrong to say that some may find the burden at
  least unfair, and possibly unbearable. We have to consider
  that seriously in the "what to do" equations.

  by Grace we proceed,
  Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 18 04:25:52 2007