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

*My thinking concerning the consequences of global warming is that there is
about a 99.99% chance that it will be an unmitigated disaster if the
temperature of the earth goes up a few degrees Centigrade in the next
several decades*.

Al, what's the basis for that statement? What studies support this kind of
claim?

On 1/18/07, Al Koop <koopa@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> My thinking concerning the consequences of global warming is that there is
> about a 99.99% chance that it will be an unmitigated disaster if the
> temperature of the earth goes up a few degrees Centigrade in the next
> several decades. Vitually all ecosystems will suffer enormously--there is no
> way that organisms will be able to adapt to such rapid temperature changes.
> If a substantial amount of ice on land masses melts, numerous coastal
> regions will be inundated. I don't think there is much of chance that
> global warming could be beneficial in any meaningful way. For any desert
> that blooms there will be ten or more larger regions that will become
> wastelands. The best hope is that the climate models that predict much
> higher temperatures as greenhouse gases increase in concentration are wrong.
>
> I agree with Ted Davis that there are many useful steps we could take that
> would be beneficial even if global warming happens not to occur. We could
> have done (amd maybe still can do) research that would at least have
> partially determined what approaches might be better to mitigate global
> warming if it does happen.
>
> The most emailed story today in the New York Times is about the enormous
> cost of the war in Iraq and how much we could have done with that money if
> we spent it in other areas.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?em&ex=1169182800&en=823fac5b990e2729&ei=5087%0A
>
> If we can afford to spend 1.2 billion a week in direct costs there we
> should be able to find several hundred million a year to develop approaches
> to global warming.
>
> As the article says: "Whatever number you use for the war's total cost, it
> will tower over costs that normally seem prohibitive. Right now, including
> everything, the war is costing about $200 billion a year.
>
> "Treating heart disease and diabetes, by contrast, would probably cost
> about $50 billion a year. The remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations —
> held up in Congress partly because of their cost — might cost somewhat less.
> Universal preschool would be $35 billion. In Afghanistan, $10 billion could
> make a real difference. At the National Cancer Institute, annual budget is
> about $6 billion.
>
> "This war has skewed our thinking about resources," said Mr. Wallsten, a
> senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning
> research group. "In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing."
>
> We certainly could have spent reasonable sums on climate change studies,
> but the political will just isn't there. There is little doubt in my mind
> that we, as members of the Earth, are going to do the global warming
> experiment. Our chidren, grandchildren, and further generations will bear
> whatever the consequences happen to be.
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/17/07 5:26 PM >>>
> 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 recentallenges 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
>
>

-- 
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.