Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

*Upon further reflection regardless of who is right we come to the same
conclusion. We must do moderate mitigation NOW.*
**
Agreed! At let me say again, for the record, that I don't think we even
disagree about the merits of the climate science. I don't consider myself a
global warming skeptic, in the way that some critics want to argue that the
anthropogenic concern is complete hogwash. I'm skeptical only of
suggestions, usually made in popular media (like Al Gore's film to some
extent), that the most catastrophic scenarios are the most likely. I'm also
skeptical, deeply, of the precautionary principle as a principal guide for
regulation. And, I am skeptical as a more general matter of anyone who says
"just trust the scientists." But, I'm skeptical as a general matter of
anyone who says "just trust _____ (fill in the blank with a favorite
authoritative community)."

The more I learn about the policy implications, the more I lean towards a
carbon tax rather than a global cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax would
not require a multinational enforcement apparatus. It would be less
susceptible to regulatory capture than a complex cap and trade system, and
polluters would not have the opportunity to dump pollution credits on poorer
regions. It would harness market forces by reducing consumption of
greenhouse gas producing products (particularly gas-powered automobiles).
And it would provide incentives for innovators to create lower-polluting
alternatives to meet the excess demand caused by the tax.

On 1/26/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> On 1/25/07, David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's assume that the present consensus is right: global warming is a
> real
> > problem that is substantially caused by human activity; and the possible
> > scenarios concerning future consequences of the problem range from
> > relatively moderate -- mostly regional disruption -- all the way to
> > catastrophic economic and social breakdown. What is the appropriate
> ethical
> > stance for formulating public policy to address the problem?
>
> Upon further reflection regardless of who is right we come to the same
> conclusion. We must do moderate mitigation NOW. The worst case cannot
> be solved by mitigation and must be done by adaption. A useful legal
> fiction is to treat the difference between the two cases above as
> natural variability because even if the problem is caused by humans it
> cannot be fixed by them. There is a much greater difference between no
> mitigation and moderate mitigation and the likely and worst cases (cf.
> Jim Hansen's slides Randy posted of the differences between 1 degree C
> and 3 degree C warming). By being paralyzed by the uncertainty we
> turn the likely case into the worst case and THAT is immoral. What
> Katrina taught us is not that climate change is true but rather the
> effects of climate change fall disproportionally on the poor. If rich
> Christians do not want to be inconvenienced by even the most moderate
> of mitigations then they need to re-read the parable of the sheep and
> the goats.
>
> To sum up:
>
> 1. Plan mitigation based on the likely case because we simply cannot
> afford to solve the worst case.
>
> 2. Plan adaption based on the worst case. Since global warming is
> relatively slow errors in planning can be corrected as we see the real
> effects of climate change.
>

-- 
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.