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

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/18/07 3:14 PM >>>
> Here is a story that reports on scenarios in which warming of that
> magnitude will provide net socio-economic benefits: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,66981-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
> The possible benefits include fewer deaths from cold (which on balance
> might outweight the possibility of more deaths from heat), growth in the
> agriculture and forestry sectors, new global trade routes, and, oddly, more
> calamari.
>
> A recent book published by Yale (http://tinyurl.com/39mhl8*)* presents
> scenarios based on a 2.5 degree C increase over the next hundred years
> (which the book indicates is more severe than the assumptions of the IPCC
> report) and concludes that "the U.S. economy is not likely to be
> devastated by modest climate change."
>
> No one really knows.

I agree that no one really knows, but the question is whether a prudent leader would err on the side of doing nothing. If global warming turns out to be a significant problem (and I think that is a reasonable possibility, actually quite likely) then if we do nothing now, there will be no way to mitigate the effects if we let things go long enough while doing nothing. I think that decreasing the use of fossil fuels is a plus even without the threat of global warming. Reducing dirty coal burning seems like another wise move. At least doing pilot studies and building pilot plants to determine the best ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions also seems wise. There are numerous approaches that would mitigate global warming that we could do now. Doing nothing seems irresponsible.

I have no doubt that there will be some species that thrive if the world warms up 10 degrees C (or more), but the real question is whether the important species to the well-being of creation thrive. [Even if the bird flu comes along and wipes out 30% of the world's human population, there will be numerous economic benefits to some of the survivors!] Maybe the squid will do great on a 6 degree C warmer planet, but that will not offset substantial decreases in yields of crops like wheat, soybeans, rice, and corn, if that is what happens. If fruit trees show lower production or pollinators disappear we will be in real trouble. The central question is what will happen to the key members of each ecosystem, not whether some weed grows to new heights.

I also don't trust articles by economists (we can disagree about that, and end the discussion there), but I need to see some agreement among some well-trained ecologists that many complex ecosystems are likely to thrive with a 6 degree C increase in temperature. I spent two years of alternate Saturdays learning about financial planning with economist types, and also have read numerous books by economists. Most are trained to base their ideas on an ever-growing system with no end of growth in sight. All good biologists on the other hand become concerned about the carrying capacity of an ecosystem, or in the end, the Earth. Our economy cannot grow forever; when that growth ends is the big question. It all depends on whether you agree with the cornucopians that the Earth can support trillions of humans far into the future because there will be all of these new advances in technology, or whether you agree with many biologists that we are near or over our carrying capacity o!
 n this planet right now, with some effects showing this likely to become evident in the coming century. Earlier on this ASA site, the book, Limits to Growth, was discussed. A lot of approaches to today's problems will depend on how credible you find that book to be. I think global warming will only accelerate these limits to growth.

Al

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 00:36:45 2007