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

*I agree that no one really knows, but the question is whether a prudent
leader would err on the side of doing nothing.*

I agree with you that doing nothing is not an option. It is a problem,
human activity is a cause, and it needs to be addressed.

*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.*

The problem is, the ecologists can only tell us so much, and we need insight
from economists and other social scientists if we want to make wise policy
choices. I think this is my biggest concern about the public debate right
now. Anyone who questions the sort of radical action that Gore & co.
propose is labeled as anti-science. It is not anti-science, however, to
insist on sound economic and social models before signing on to a radical
policy agenda. It's pro-science, or better, simple prudence.

On 1/19/07, Al Koop <koopa@gvsu.edu> wrote:
> >>> "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 on 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
>
>
>

-- 
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.