Do We Owe Future Generations Anything?

Over at the environmenatist webzine Grist ("gloom and doom with a sense of humor"*) Bill Becker argues:

Intergenerational ethics argue against us leaving massive, intractable problems for future generations, forcing them to deal in perpetuity with nuclear wastes, carbon sequestration sites and geo-engineering systems — all subject to human error and to failures that would be deadly.

Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive. 

Should people making an average of $7000 per year be forced to lower their incomes in order to boost the incomes of future generations that some scenarios project will have incomes in 2100 over $107,000 per capita in developed countries and over $66,000 in developing countries? Also keep in mind that not only will future generations be much richer, they will have access to better technologies with which to address any problems caused by man-made climate change, nuclear waste and geo-engineering projects. 

As bioethicists are always fond of saying, I'm just asking questions here.  

*Humor? Not so much.

Comments

the innominate one | March 25, 2008, 10:59am | #

are the estimates for future income in today's dollars? do they account for inflation?

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:01am | #

It's sloppy reasoning to assume that the costs will be borne equally among people alive today, but that's what the observation about the median income does.

Americans who generate a great deal of carbon because of their wealth (in a relative global sense) will pay far more of a carbon tax that low-carbon-producing people in Africa.

At the same time, the costs associated with global warming (which don't seem to have entered into this calculation, hmmm) can be counted on to fall, as with all environmetnal harms, on the poorest people.

Median figures are good for a lot of things, but you have to be careful how they're applied.

Mike Laursen | March 25, 2008, 11:05am | #

Excuse me, that's my False Dichotomy Detector beeping.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:07am | #

"Americans who generate a great deal of carbon because of their wealth (in a relative global sense) will pay far more of a carbon tax that low-carbon-producing people in Africa."

Joe, that is sloppy reasoning. It assumes that money means the same to everyone. Paying a few hundred or a thousand dollars a year in carbon tax isn't much to an American whose average income is $30,000 a year. Paying $50 a year in carbon taxes is a hell of a lot to someone making $2 a day, a circumstance that describes most of Africa.

Basically the West can afford to indulge your superstitions about global warming. Africa really can't.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 11:09am | #

At the same time, the costs associated with global warming (which don't seem to have entered into this calculation, hmmm) can be counted on to fall, as with all environmetnal harms, on the poorest people.

Cost calculations plz.

Alan Vanneman | March 25, 2008, 11:10am | #

Where's your sense of humor, Ron? Surely we can solve all the world's problems, in perpetuity, exempt from human error. It doesn't sound so hard! And if you can't do it, Al Gore can!

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 11:10am | #

This post lacks a disclaimer, Ron. It can't be trusted.

Jonathan Hohensee | March 25, 2008, 11:13am | #

Where's your sense of humor, Ron? Surely we can solve all the world's problems, in perpetuity, exempt from human error. It doesn't sound so hard! And if you can't do it, Al Gore can!

We just have to work together to make the world a better place!
The power is ours!

Reinmoose | March 25, 2008, 11:15am | #

*sings*
Heal the world
Make it a better place
For you and for me
and the entire human race

There are.. people dying
if you care enough for the living
make a better place
for you and for me
*/sings*

John | March 25, 2008, 11:16am | #

"At the same time, the costs associated with global warming (which don't seem to have entered into this calculation, hmmm) can be counted on to fall, as with all environmetnal harms, on the poorest people."

There nothing obvious at all about that. In fact evironmental costs often fall less proportionately on the poor. For example, if you build a big polluting factory in place of a nice pristine forest, the poor benefit from the jobs and the cheap good created by the factory. It is the wealthy and middle class who bear the cost in the lost greenspace. Yes, everyone suffers from the pollution, but the poor benifit more from the growth. Given a choice between being a subsistance farmer or working in the factory and putting up with the pollution but doubling my wages, I will take the factory. If I am already well off, I vote for the greenspace.

Ron Bailey | March 25, 2008, 11:16am | #

For some cost calculations take a look at Yale economist William Nordhaus' deconstruction of the Stern Review. See also some of my calculations here.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 11:18am | #

I know, why don't we address the problems of global warming and make ourselves richer by transforming the economy and opening up new markets.

That way, we'll be richer, future generations will be even richer still, and the environment will benefit.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:19am | #

John,

1. People who describe science as superstition aren't going win a lot of converts among those who respect science. If you can't even discuss a scientific subject without lapsing into imitations of the creationists, please don't.

2. Those poor people in Africa (or, say, the South Pacific) are also less able to afford the effects of climate change, such as disappearing islands, more storm activity, and changing growing patterns.

3. The effect of a carbon tax (or other efforts) will be to spur the generation of technologies to replace carbon-intensive forms of energy, which (in a world with ever-greater demand for energy) would be a great boon to poor areas now depending on increases in the consuption of fossil fuels to spur their development.

Ron Bailey | March 25, 2008, 11:20am | #

Neu Meijican: Do you subscribe to the "broken windows theory" of prosperity? Run around an break of all of the windows in buildings and then we'll all get rich and have more jobs by replacing them.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:21am | #

You know what? I'm not going to bother to explain that environmental costs always fall harder on the poor.

If you consider this a controversial statement, you're not even trying to approach the question in a fair-minded mannder.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:22am | #

Ron,

You make the same point I do; if you are one of the world's really poor people and are given the choice of getting out of poverty but having to deal with a higher tempature or staying in poverty and keeping the climate where it is, you are going to take getting out of poverty every time. Further, you have to discount the benefits of a stable climate against the considerable risk that the science is wrong or that some other non man made cause like an asteroid or solar activity or volcanos won't change the climate anyway.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:23am | #

Developing new sources of energy = breaking windows?

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:24am | #

Windows are being broken right now. Climate change is breaking them..

The question is about paying a cost to stop or reduce that.

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:24am | #

joe,

No, developing new sources of energy = making new windows.

Its an easy analogy, dont be dense. Im going to do like you do and accuse you of being intentionally dense.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:25am | #

"You know what? I'm not going to bother to explain that environmental costs always fall harder on the poor."

Translation: I don't really have an answer to your point but I have always been told this is true and will believe regardless of reasoning presented to the contrary.

The costs of poverty and lack of economic growth really fall disproportionately on the poor. Basically you are telling the poor of the world to stay that way because trust us if they got wealthy it would be even worse for them because "the evnironmental costs always fall disproportionately on the poor". Has it ever occured to you that it may be that the beneifits of carbon based growth outweigh whatever the environmental costs associated with it are?

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:25am | #

joe,

Windows are being broken right now. Climate change is breaking them..

People claim this is happening. Whether it is true or not has yet to be seen.

P Brooks | March 25, 2008, 11:27am | #

See also some of my calculations *here*.

Come on, Bailey, I can't be fooled that easily. I know if I click on that link I will be hypnotized by a revolving, pulsating virtual pocket watch, and brainwashed into buying Hummer on a ten year loan.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:28am | #

robc,

I'm not being dense; Bailey is. I was noting his statement to N.M. amounted to the assertion that investing in new technologies to 1) solve an expensive problem by 2) developing new energy sources is "breaking windows."

Glad I could clear that up for you.

If it's any consolation, I don't think your density here is deliberate.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:29am | #

John,

The greater concentration of environmental harms in poor communities is widely understood and documented. I'm not interested in bringing your ass up to speed.

Lamar | March 25, 2008, 11:31am | #

What good is being rich in the future if everybody's dead? I don't really ascribe to the doom-and-gloom as much as other people, but let's at least characterize their argument properly (i.e., "intractable" and "deadly" problems).

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:31am | #

Has it ever occured to you that it may be that the beneifits of carbon based growth outweigh whatever the environmental costs associated with it are?

Has it occured to you that allowing the same growth to occur without the environmental demage of climate change would be even more beneficial?

You want poor people in Africa to pay the cost of global warming in exchange for their economic development, while I want richer people to pay the cost of avoiding climate change.

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:31am | #

joe,

No, you claimed that new tech = breaking windows when Bailey was clearing claiming that replacing current tech = breaking windows.

The question wasnt about whether the tech needs to be replaced, NM claimed that creating new tech would help the economy. Whether it needs to be replaced or not, the act of replacing the one with the other is a cost not a gain.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:32am | #

People claim this is happening.

Don't take advice on democracy, or on solving climate change, from people who don't believe in it.

Abdul | March 25, 2008, 11:33am | #

joe is right that environmental problems hurt the poor worse. But that's only because every problem is worse for the poor. Poverty is like the opposite of MSG--it makes everything taste worse.

The question presented by Ron Bailey is whether we should transfer problems to today's poor in order to spare a potential problem to tomorrow's unborn.

I say screw posterity, what's it ever done for me?

Cosmotarian Overlord | March 25, 2008, 11:33am | #

I own one-third of Zimbekania. My mines and farms already supply sufficient economic opportunity for these people. We need to protect the other two thirds of Zimbekania from further development.

1) We all know the poor will suffer the most from any further development in Zimbekania.

2)This planet really can't afford for the existing 80 million inhabitants of Zimbekania to become beef eaters, it would be a environmental disaster. It is that these continue the Gaia friendly eating habits of consuming wholesome legumes and bacteria enriched water.

3)Trust me, me and my family have been helping the good people of Zimbekania for decades, see the long history of philanthropy my good family has been involved in.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:33am | #

We have no idea what the future holds or how are actions will effect it. We have no real clue what the real problems facing future generations will be. If you went back 50 or 100 years and asked people living then what the biggest problems facing the world in 2007 would be, no one would have said, radical Islam and global warming. Yet, those two things would rightly or wrongly get a lot of votes today.

There is one thing we do know, however. Whatever the problems faced by future generations are, those generations will be better able to deal with those problems the wealthier they are. The best thing we could do for future generations is leave them as much wealth as possible.

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:33am | #

joe,

Dont take advice on democracy, or climate change, on people who believe in it.

Belief is bad way of doing things.

Fluffy | March 25, 2008, 11:35am | #

I'm not being dense; Bailey is. I was noting his statement to N.M. amounted to the assertion that investing in new technologies to 1) solve an expensive problem by 2) developing new energy sources is "breaking windows."

Actually, the breaking windows part is the part where you heavily tax the existing technologies.

If we crushed all cars that burn gasoline, it might spur the construction of cars that burn hydrogen. But it would definitely be "breaking windows".

I'm not saying I support this argument against a carbon tax - I'm merely pointing out grudgingly that the "broken windows" metaphor can in fact be employed against the claim that subsidizing or requiring the use of new technologies will contribute to economic growth.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:36am | #

No, robc, I didn't. I explained my statement, and I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of what I was saying than you.

BTW, do you know what one of these - ? - is?

There was one at the end of the sentence you misunderstood.

Whether it needs to be replaced or not, the act of replacing the one with the other is a cost not a gain.

The broken window fallacy, dear Robert, is about BREAKING WINDOWS - ie, introducing a cost where none previously existed, for the purpose of creating the economic activity necessary to replace them. There is no one suggesting that we "break windows" in this scenario, but respond to (as opposed to creating) a cost. The windows are already broken, and Bailey is incorrect to suggest that N.M. is proposing to break, rather than repair, them.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:38am | #

"Has it occured to you that allowing the same growth to occur without the environmental demage of climate change would be even more beneficial?"

No Joe it hasn't because that is not how it works. The third world cannot grow in isolation. The way that it grows is for it to get access to first world markets and capital. Tax those markets and capital away in the name of global warming and there is nothing to get access to. Growth is not a zero sum game. In an environment of free markets, first world growth lifts all boats and also sinks all boats after people like you destroy their economies.

Toxic | March 25, 2008, 11:38am | #

I tried to sue past generations for wiping out all the Wooly Mammoths.

Turns out they are judgment proof.

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:39am | #

joe,

The windows arent broke. They function just fine. They may not be the prettiest windows in the world and we might want to replace them at some time. But government goons sledge hammering them in the middle of the night isnt the way to do it.

Fluffy's post is dead on. We may need to replace the windows, but lets not pretend it will help the economy (like NM did).

Gabe Harris | March 25, 2008, 11:40am | #

I'm pretty sure that the global carbon tax pushers don't give a damn about burdening out future generations. If they did you'd hear these FDR worshipping schemers talking about the 74 trillion dollars in off-balance sheet debt that they are planning on making our kids pay through higher taxes.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:40am | #

Belief is bad way of doing things. Good advice, robc. Always best to stick with the science.

Fluffy,

I disagree. A carbon tax (for example) wouldn't be breaking windows. It would be the collection of window-repair money from those already breaking the windows.

That cost is already there. It's just a question of who's going to pay it.

By discouraging net-loss activity and redirecting it into areas that would generate fewer harms, such a cost-restructuring would be an economic boon.

some fed | March 25, 2008, 11:40am | #

Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done for me?
--Groucho Marx

Intergenerational ethics has already given me Medicare and Social Security. Is it necessary I subsidize generations unborn, too?

Reinmoose | March 25, 2008, 11:41am | #

"Investing" in new sources of energy will create jobs, don't you understand?! Jobs! "Good" jobs!

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 11:41am | #

Don't take advice on anything from people who think they know, absolutely, what will happen in 50 years.

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:43am | #

joe,

Good advice, robc.

I assume that means we will never see another of your stupid "Dont ask advice on democracry from people who dont believe in it" posts again.

sage | March 25, 2008, 11:43am | #

To answer the question, yes I do. At least to the children I decided to bring into this world.

Reinmoose | March 25, 2008, 11:43am | #

Don't take advice on anything from people who think they know, absolutely, what will happen in 50 years.

We'll have solar powered flying cars, which we will never use because everything will be virtual and we'll never need to leave our houses!

robc | March 25, 2008, 11:43am | #

Episiarch,

Don't take advice on anything from people who think they know, absolutely, what will happen in 50 years seconds.

Fixed.

some guy | March 25, 2008, 11:43am | #

Let me know when humanity has perfected the art of fortune-telling. As it stands, such an exercise is the province of flim-flam artists, their gullible victims, and people with too much time on their hands (or government grants).

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 11:44am | #

We'll have solar powered flying cars, which we will never use because everything will be virtual and we'll never need to leave our houses!

Listen, McFly...hey, is that an almanac you have there?

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:45am | #

Well, robc, if you juse assume away the costs of global warming like that, then spending any money to "fix" windows that aren't broken or discourage additional window-breaking is, of course, a bad investment.

John,

Seen oil prices lately? You're stuck in this static vision of the economy, where the introduction of new energy technologies doesn't help the global economy, and oil-based growth will realistically be available to developing countries.

You don't get how it helps Africa is Americans pay the cost of allowing Africans to avoid bidding wars with the Chines and Indians over a shrinking pool of oil?

ChicagoTom | March 25, 2008, 11:46am | #

Fluffy's post is dead on. We may need to replace the windows, but lets not pretend it will help the economy (like NM did).

It might. Who knows.

"Investing" in new sources of energy will create jobs, don't you understand?! Jobs! "Good" jobs!

Investing in new technologies is like R & D in any other industry. It DOES have the potential to make everyone involved in it a profit. And it can create jobs if it catches on.


I don't understand what the anti-warming crowd is implying...that somehow taxing polluters is bad or unfair?? And investing in/researching alternative energy/green technology and stupid and futile and will only harm the economy?

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:47am | #

robc,

I assume that means we will never see another of your stupid "Dont ask advice on democracry from people who dont believe in it" posts again.

Democracy is a value. You're supposed to believe in values.

Maybe that's your problem. Now, how about trying to accomplish something other than starting a pissing match with me? That would be novel.

Lamar | March 25, 2008, 11:48am | #

It seems a little weird to say that we oppose externalities because we shouldn't put the burden of our choices on our neighbor's, but we appear to be OK placing those burdens on the neighbor's great grandchildren.

ChicagoTom | March 25, 2008, 11:48am | #

To answer the question, yes I do. At least to the children I decided to bring into this world.

I'll second this.

I believe we do owe our future generations quite a bit when it comes to leaving the earth as an inhabitable and good place to live. I believe we do have an obligation to try not to trash the place in the relatively few years of life in a generation. Absolutely

D.A. Ridgely | March 25, 2008, 11:49am | #

Actually, insofar as Mr. Bailey may be read to have misunderstood N.M.'s comments and thus relied incorrectly on the broken window metaphor it may be more a case of suggesting that the 'solution' N.M. is advocating is to a possibly imaginary problem -- replacing unbroken windows, as it were, rather like I personally suspect much money was spent 'fixing' Y2K.

But this still doesn't go to the heart of the question Mr. Bailey posed (and, BTW, I hinted at yesterday), which is why any poor people anywhere should pay or even contribute toward paying now to fix global warming if, indeed, future generations will be richer and have better technology available to fix it. If we are averting the end of the world, well, that's one thing. But if all we are doing is figuring out which would be cheaper and who can more easily and affordably fix a non-doomsday event, then the question is quite real.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:52am | #

ChicagoTom,

And investing in/researching alternative energy/green technology and stupid and futile and will only harm the economy?'

If you assume that there are no costs to environmental harm or benefits to avoiding it, then yes, such investments are stupid and futile.

Hence, the uncharacteristic confidence in the unknowability of the effect of greenhouse gasses on the climate; such a thing is necessary in order to reach the proper conclusion.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 11:52am | #

Neu Meijican: Do you subscribe to the "broken windows theory" of prosperity? Run around an break of all of the windows in buildings and then we'll all get rich and have more jobs by replacing them.

No.

ChicagoTom | March 25, 2008, 11:52am | #

N.M. is advocating is to a possibly imaginary problem -- replacing unbroken windows, as it were, rather like I personally suspect much money was spent 'fixing' Y2K.

Or maybe he was implying that we should invest in "upgrading"...kind of like electronics.

Sure many of the electronics we have work just fine. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for the next great new feature. Many people don't upgrade out of necessity, but out of wanting more.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 11:53am | #

joe,

"I was noting his statement to N.M. amounted to the assertion that investing in new technologies to 1) solve an expensive problem..."

The world has yet to see a shred of "actual" evidence that global warming is a problem, let alone an expensive one.

I invite you to point out any costs that can be attributed to the last century's 0.6 degree Celsius increase in average global surface temperatures, which IPCC attributes to human's emissions of GHGs.

All of the economic costs you're refering to are predictions, derived from climate forecasts, which are are based on models, which scientists run on expensive computers, all of which requires a good amount of funding, which doesn't get renewed if said models don't deliver newsworthy forecasts and predictions, where "newsworthy" = "catastrophic".

I trust you can see the inherent problem with this system (because I know you would instantly see the problem if the research was funded by corporations and contradicted your views).

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:55am | #

This cut in getting infected. Future joe will have more money to afford to treat it, so Contemporary joe should do nothing. Smart?

This reasoning only makes sense about a problem that isn't getting worse and isn't doing harm now - for example, a hazardous waste site in which the materials are contained, and no more are being produced.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:56am | #

Joe,

Oil prices right now have as much to do with speculation and the slide of the dollar as anything. If oil gets too expensive people will invest in those new technologies. The technologies, if they are truly benificial will happen on their own.

ChicagoTom | March 25, 2008, 11:56am | #

If you assume that there are no costs to environmental harm or benefits to avoiding it, then yes, such investments are stupid and futile.

I dunno.

Even if you assume no environmental harm, and there is no benefit to avoiding environmental harm, there are still advantages to doing things like being more energy efficient, or potentially switching to a cheaper form of energy being able to do more with less.


Being environmentally conscious and being a capitalist are not mutually exclusive.

D.A. Ridgely | March 25, 2008, 11:56am | #

Or maybe he was implying that we should invest in "upgrading"...kind of like electronics.

Sure. And, in any case, he can and does speak for himself. I was merely trying to figure out Mr. Bailey's response which I, too, took to be a bit of a disconnect.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 11:57am | #

Carbon emissions are waste.

Waste is a cost.

All things being equal, reducing that cost would be good for the economy.

All things are never equal, of course, but current technologies are capable of reducing waste with minimal capital investment.

Making that capital investment will have an overall benefit to the economy.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:58am | #

Actually, Russ R., there are already Pacific Islands that have been abandoned to the rising seas.

Oh, right, those lying scientists again. Yawn.

John | March 25, 2008, 11:58am | #

"This cut in getting infected. Future joe will have more money to afford to treat it, so Contemporary joe should do nothing. Smart?"

No. Current Joe gets a disease that is slowly progressing and will take years to have any effect on him. Does current Joe spend his entire life savings on dubious cures for the disease or does he save his money and wait and see if their are more effective and cheaper cures in the future?

Gilbert Martin | March 25, 2008, 11:58am | #

"Intergenerational ethics argue against us leaving massive, intractable problems for future generations..."

Oh you mean like the social security, medicare and medicaid programs?

Funny, I don't hear any of these "ethicists" calling for elimination of those programs that confer massive (and increasing) financial liabilites on future generations.

Reinmoose | March 25, 2008, 12:00pm | #

Look, there's a tremendous difference between me deciding that I want to buy a low-emission car or take steps to reduce the amount of energy that I consume (be it for economic or environmental reasons). It's quite another thing to claim that artificially raising the price of energy so that I can only afford to consume the reduced amount (that I already choose to consume), and no more, is a boon to the economy.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:00pm | #

I think the appropriate medical metaphor is prostate cancer.

Most men who get prostate cancer will die from something else before the prostate cancer kills them.

You have been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Do you invest in treatment or not?

J Sub D | March 25, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Don't take advice on anything from people who think they know, absolutely, what will happen in 50 years.

We'll have solar powered flying cars, which we will never use because everything will be virtual and we'll never need to leave our houses!

Any clean safe hydrogen fusion will be only 20 years away.

Gilbert Martin | March 25, 2008, 12:01pm | #

"The world has yet to see a shred of "actual" evidence that global warming is a problem, let alone an expensive one."

Indeed.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:03pm | #

John,

The technologies, if they are truly benificial will happen on their own. If the only benefit we were looking at here was the reduction in energy costs/dispersal of energy technologies, that would be enough.

However, the question is about several other costs and benefits. The supposed cost to developing countries was thrown out as an argument against investing in new energy technologies. I was presenting the economic benefit of these technologies not as an adquate reason for this investment, but to more accurately understand the economic impact of that investment - that redirection of investment - on the developing world.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Whoops, on the first 'graph sould be in italics.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:05pm | #

"The world" has seen plenty of evidence of how global warming impacts the species living on it. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it is a very very bad thing. Hell even in the relatively short time frame humans have been around, climate change has wiped out cultures. You really need to be willfully ignoring evidence to make your claim.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:05pm | #

Does current Joe spend his entire life savings on dubious cures

Implausible assumptions bolded.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:06pm | #

if they are truly benificial will happen on their own.

Technologies don't happen on their own.

People recognize a problem and develop a solution for it.

If you deny the problem exists, you will not put energy into solving it and the technology will not be developed.

J Sub D | March 25, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I've lived in "rich" neighborhoods.
I've lived in "poor" neighborhoods.
I've visited many "rich" nations.
I've visited many "poor" nations.

One thing I have found remarkably consistent is that rich, in a neighborhood or in a nation, is much cleaner than poor. Grosse Pointe is cleaner than Detroit. The U.S. is cleaner than Fiji. There is a lesson there that many in the environmental movement refuse to even consider.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:10pm | #

It's funny. If joe had lived in the 1920s, he'd have been a supporter of eugenics. I mean, all the hip scientists were for it and believed in it. It was a consensus, right?

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Remember when eliminating leader gasoline was going to wipe out the American automobile industry...by 1975?

Remember when the cost of removing acid rain precursors was going to be so high that a profitable market in credit-trading was going to emerge?

Has there ever been a prediction about pollution reduction destroying our economy that didn't turn out to be wrong?

The private sector has proven itself to be incredibly adept at innovating in response to price incentives, and we've always come out with a stronger economy in the end.

Joe S. | March 25, 2008, 12:12pm | #

It snowed in Baghdad and Jerusalem this year, and we're still talking as if Global Warming is for real.

Every year, reality and politics just get farther and farther apart.

robc | March 25, 2008, 12:14pm | #

joe,

Democracy is a value.

Wrong. Democracy is a government system. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, like all the others. Better than most. What it isnt, is a value.

Freedom is a value (in the sense you mean). And its one I believe in (in the sense you mean). As Ive said many times before to you, democracy is a tool that can (and is usually very useful) help advance that value. When the tool is inappropriate, it shouldnt be used. Which, amongst other reasons, is why we arent a pure democracy. The FFs realized that democracy has its limits.

Some people dont value freedom, some value safety or wealth or power. Its that disagreements about values that makes democracy just a tool.

Duh | March 25, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Joe S.

Weather does not = climate

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Episiarch's "contribution:"

You know who liked scientists? HITLER!!!

When you are arguing literally against science as a means of understanding the universe, it's time to re-evaluate.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 12:17pm | #

Neu Mejican:

"Hell even in the relatively short time frame humans have been around, climate change has wiped out cultures. You really need to be willfully ignoring evidence to make your claim."

Enlighten me... which culture are you referring to that was wiped out by climate change?

If you're talking about an Ice Age wiping out Neanderthals, please refer back to my original comment: I invite you to point out any costs that can be attributed to the last century's 0.6 degree Celsius increase in average global surface temperatures, which IPCC attributes to human's emissions of GHGs.

Yeah, and I'm the one being wilfully ignorant.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:17pm | #

robc,

I believe the idea that people have a legitimate claim to input into their government's actions, aka democracy, is a value just as liberty is a value.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Does this not advocate for democracy as a value?

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:18pm | #

robc,

Democracy is both a system and a value.

This was, literally, in Chapter 1 of freshman poli-sci.

You should stop posing as if you're talking down to me.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:18pm | #

When you are arguing literally against science as a means of understanding the universe, it's time to re-evaluate.

When you are arguing literally for consensus as a means of understanding the universe, it's time to re-evaluate.

robc | March 25, 2008, 12:18pm | #

NM,

The prostate cancer analogy is a good one. And the answer is: its up to me to decide. The government shouldnt put a per-cell cancer tax on it to encourage me to get the treatment.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Russ R.

"The world has yet to see..." is what I was commenting on.

It was an attempt to get you to look beyond the narrow time-frame.

You don't, btw, need to go back as far as the Neanderthal to find evidence of cultures wiped out by climate changes.

Maya, Anazazi, etc...

Saul | March 25, 2008, 12:20pm | #

It's funny. If joe had lived in the 1920s, he'd have been a supporter of eugenics. I mean, all the hip scientists were for it and believed in it. It was a consensus, right?

What's actually funny about this is that it's pretty clear who among us seems more predisposed to favor faux-rationalist policies that flatter our own ideological leanings. (Hint: Episiarch.) But, yeah, climage change = eugenics, or something.

I remember Ron Bailey once described the web site Real Climate (written by scientists) as "alarmist" and now Grist is "environmentist".

My own term for Ron's science writings has always been much simpler: hack. I look forward to his next breathless report of a Venezualan study suggesting that electromagnetic waves from Prius batteries causes puppy eyeballs to explode. Those stupid environmentists!

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:20pm | #

When you are arguing literally for consensus as a means of understanding the universe, it's time to re-evaluate.

One scientist is a pioneer. Ten thousands scientists is a deluded conspiracy.

The denialists are now reduced to arguing that global warming is false, because TOO MANY SCIENTISTS have concluded that it's true.

galthran | March 25, 2008, 12:20pm | #

joe-

there are already Pacific Islands that have been abandoned to the rising seas

Do you have a reference for this? I just spent a minute looking online and couldn't find anything.

Gilbert Martin | March 25, 2008, 12:21pm | #

"It snowed in Baghdad and Jerusalem this year, and we're still talking as if Global Warming is for real."

That never slows down the true believers.

Whether it's cold or hot, wet or dry, it's all "proof" of global warming.

LOL

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Saul, if you're going to make a point, it needs to make sense. Try again.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:22pm | #

And the answer is: its up to me to decide.

Doesn't fit the metaphor. In this case, the person with the cancer in the world as a whole.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:23pm | #

I invite you to point out any costs that can be attributed to the last century's 0.6 degree Celsius increase in average global surface temperatures, which IPCC attributes to human's emissions of GHGs.

Increased air conditioning costs?

;)

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:24pm | #

There can't be global warming, because it was cold somewhere.

Nobody on the "skeptical" side of things ever bothers to call this nonsense out.

But hey, buddy, you'd better give me a list of sources if you expect me to believe the environmental problems fall harderst on the poor!

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:25pm | #

The denialists are now reduced to arguing that global warming is false, because TOO MANY SCIENTISTS have concluded that it's true.

How many is that? That's very scientific. "Too many." Bonus points for your religious heretic word "denialists".

kinnath | March 25, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Changing the original question up a little bit. Do I, as a well-off citizen of the USA, owe anything to an impoverished resident of sub-saharan Africa?

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:26pm | #

I see the thread has deteriorated to name calling.

Sad.

It is a topic that could engender discussions about the benefits or lack thereof of various ideas for addressing an issue that is certain to gain importance in our society in the next few years.

joe-pisiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Maybe if I put the words "scientist" and "relgious" in the same comment, no one will notice that I don't have anything to say.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Kinnath,

Respect, at least.

And that would include acting according to some version of "do unto others..."

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Yup. Thread's done.

Too bad, it was going pretty well there, discussing costs and benefits and how they are spread among differenc populations and different incomes.

Then at 10:53 AM, we got "there is not global warming."

Then Episiarch showed up.

And you know how that goes.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Neu Mejican"

"The world has yet to see..." is what I was commenting on. It was an attempt to get you to look beyond the narrow time-frame."

Fair enough. I should have been a bit more specific:

"The world has yet to see a shred of "actual" evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a problem, let alone an expensive one."

Better?

Reinmoose | March 25, 2008, 12:31pm | #

I have issues anytime there is a discussion of "we." Can it be better defined please?

robc | March 25, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Does this not advocate for democracy as a value?

It seems to me it advocates democracy as the tool to secure the rights of the people. It could also be considered a value, but in a perfect world where government wasnt needed, democracy wouldnt be needed either.

I can imagine (and realize it is impossible to achieve) a world with freedom and security and etc but without democracy. If democracy was a value itself, wouldnt we be missing it? I dont think we would.

In a stable (yeah, yeah, I know, its impossible) anarchy, democracy is unnecessary, and thus, not a value.

In the real world where anarchy is, at best, metastable, its probably useful to think of democracy as a value. But it isnt really.

Gilbert Martin | March 25, 2008, 12:31pm | #

"Has there ever been a prediction about pollution reduction..."

If carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" then you need to stop breathing.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Intergenerational ethics argue against us leaving massive, intractable problems for future generations, forcing them to deal in perpetuity with

... Social Security, Medicare, National Debt, etc.

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 12:32pm | #

joe, try to take a breath and walk away from the childish sarcasm. I can't believe that you're astonished that people would actually ask you for proof of your wilder assertions like:

- There are real, major costs associated with global warmining right this very second that are akin to broken windows in houses.

- That (ceterus paribus) the effects of global warming fall predominately in poorer areas rather than wealthier ones.

So, where are the real, immediate and catastrophic costs? The only thing I've gotten from you is an unsubstantiated claim that there are some lost islands, which you imply were swallowed by the ocean because of a rise in water levels, due to melting caps.

State your facts and thesis plain and clear and stop acting like a child.

kinnath | March 25, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Respect, at least.

Endowed by their creator with certain unalienalble rights . . .

And that would include acting according to some version of "do unto others..."

Not relevant, since I have never seen a resident of sub-saharan Africa, and it is highly unlikely that I will during the remainder of my life.

The question is more directly related to whether or not I have an exiting obligation to "do something for them" rather than "to them".

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:34pm | #

If carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" then you need to stop breathing.

Yes, Gil, Lord knows the human body doesn't excrete anything that can be harmful to human and other life.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:35pm | #

joe, if I can ruin "your" thread with 2 or 3 snarky posts, you are truly pathetic. But I sure am glad to help!

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 12:36pm | #

joe:

"Yup. Thread's done."

Uh, you can't call the thread done until you tell us which Pacific Islands were evacuated due to rising sea levels.

FYI, sea levels have risen less than 20 centimeters in the last century, and only about 3 centimeters in the last 25 years.

Chart

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Ayn Randian,

No one has claimed that there are "immediate catastrophic" costs. There are immediate cost, and there are expected costs of increasingly greater scope, if the problem continues to grow.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Russ R,

Sure that's better.

Why would we assume that the warming that we are causing (assuming we are...) would have any less detrimental effects than similar natural warming cycles observed in the geologic record?

We can even look at similarly dramatic cases of CO2 emissions in the past and estimate their impact.

Usually it is considered prudent to avoid causing situations that have been shown in the past to be detrimental to overall well-being. No?

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:36pm | #

But I sure am glad to help!

Yes, troll, we know. It's pretty much all you ever do.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:38pm | #

Russ R.,

Tuvalu and Kiribati have each lost islands already.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Yes, troll, we know. It's pretty much all you ever do.

Sure is! joe, someone once asked you if it seemed odd to you that anyone who disagreed with you eventually got called a troll, racist, or various variations on "stupid".

You didn't seem to understand their question. How about now? THINK HARD.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:40pm | #

robc,

In a stable (yeah, yeah, I know, its impossible) anarchy, democracy is unnecessary, and thus, not a value.

In the real world where anarchy is, at best, metastable, its probably useful to think of democracy as a value. But it isnt really.

So, to sum up.
In a hypothetical fantasy land where anarchy works, democracy is not a value, but in the real world we can "think" of democracy as a value, even though it isn't really, because it wouldn't be in a hypothetical world where anarchy works.

Is that about right?

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 12:41pm | #

There are immediate cost, and there are expected costs of increasingly greater scope, if the problem continues to grow.

I am going to temporarily grant this assertion as true, and tell that (even if the above is true), I very much doubt that inefficient systems like government and taxation are going to in any help resolve the situation.

That said, in re: the above assertion: what are the costs? Would a cap-and-trade or carbon tax be more or less beneficial WRT to these costs? That is, what is the estimated dollar amount of these costs, and what would be the estimated collection amount of the tax?

And don't you think that, regardless, the market is a better problem-solver for this kind of thing?

That money belongs in R&D for the private sector, not in the pockets of some dumb congressman with his next horrible "idea".

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:43pm | #

joe,

It would be difficult to attribute the events in Tuvalu and Kiribati to global warming.

It is easier (not yet definitive, of course) to attribute loss of coral reef to global warming, and given the impact this will have on fish stocks, I believe that is a important cost.

robc | March 25, 2008, 12:43pm | #

NM,

yep, thats about it.

Call democracy a psuedo-value. It acts much like a value, but it really isnt.

If you think the hypothetical world part is silly, think about the more common hypothetical of being Tom Hanks, alone on an island. Other values still have, umm, well, value, but democracy is worthless at that point (unless he is giving Wilson a vote).

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Episiarch,

I would rather "think hard" about global warming than about your feelings.

Please, either add something to the thread, or kindly fuck off.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Kinnath,

Not relevant, since I have never seen a resident of sub-saharan Africa, and it is highly unlikely that I will during the remainder of my life.

The question is more directly related to whether or not I have an exiting obligation to "do something for them" rather than "to them".

We're all connected man.

It is disingenuous to assume that your actions on impact those whom you have face-to-face contact.

But as for the "do something for them" question.

We all live the lives we do because, in general, humans believing in doing things to support each other. It is the core feature that has led to our species success.

NM | March 25, 2008, 12:47pm | #

on =only

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 12:47pm | #

Do you invest in treatment or not?

Depends on how old I am. If I'm 25, yes. If I'm 85, probably not.

NM | March 25, 2008, 12:47pm | #

believing = believe in

Sheesh

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Ayn Randian,

And don't you think that, regardless, the market is a better problem-solver for this kind of thing?

Both cap-and-trade systems and a carbon tax are all bout the marking solving the problem. The market does a great job innovating and solving problems - when there is an economic incentive to do so.

That's the government's role here - to incentivize the private sector - for the most part. Direct government action akin to the DPW paving a road is, by anyone's calcultion, a very small part of the solution.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:49pm | #

I would rather "think hard" about global warming than about your feelings.

Maybe you should start, then. Lapping up the offerings of your consensus isn't thinking.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:49pm | #

robc,

"pseudo-value"

Sorry, but I fail to see how you can create a meaningful distinction between a "real-value" and a "pseudo-value" given that values are nothing more nor less than beliefs.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Heh.

The conclusions drawn by an overwhelming majority of the world's climate researchers from their study and observation are now "my consensus."

You flatter me, Episiarch!

Please, write a few more comments about ME. Because everyone really comes here to read about what you have to say about ME.

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:52pm | #

robc,

Regarding Tom Hanks on an island.

In that scenario, property rights also turn out to be "pseudo-values."

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 12:52pm | #

Fine and fair, joe, but for this democratically-inclined individual to actually motivate his government to alter the market, I need more evidence that AGW is like an "infected cut" that requires immediate treatment, rather than another fad like the "population bomb", "the upcoming global famine" or "global cooling".

Neu Mejican | March 25, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Russ 2000

So, is human culture 25 or 85?

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Please, write a few more comments about ME. Because everyone really comes here to read about what you have to say about ME.

Freudian slip, or direct honesty? Hard to tell.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Do you really need more evidence, Randian? Would any amount of evidence really make a difference in what you believe?

Really?

This is obviously so wound up with other things you believe and value, and the sheer volume of the evidence already available is so overwhelming, I really have to wonder if the amount of evidence is actually the sticking point here.

If you want evidence, Google IPCC 4 and read the report. There evidence is there, and a layman like me couldn't possibly do it justice in the comment thread of a blog post.

joe | March 25, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Reading through all of Episiarch's comments, it would be impossible for someone to tell what the subject of the thread is.

Useless troll.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Neu Mejican:

"Why would we assume that the warming that we are causing (assuming we are...) would have any less detrimental effects than similar natural warming cycles observed in the geologic record?"

Good question. I've got a one simple answer: Technology. Future warming is nearly certain to have less detrimental effects than those in prehistoric times because we humans have access to countless survival aids that earlier species or civilizations did not.

Furthermore, the geologic record indicates that ice ages, volcanic, and impact events were associated with mass extinctions, not the warming cycles. Biodiversity proliferated during periods with warmer temperatures. (See Cambrian Explosion).

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Useless troll.

Projection, or just more insults? Not so hard to tell.

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 1:02pm | #

joe, to answer:

Do you really need more evidence, Randian?

Yes, I need more evidence to consider getting government involved. I have a higher threshold, is all.

Would any amount of evidence really make a difference in what you believe?

Absolutely, provided I found the evidence compelling enough.

In sum, yes, joe, the amount and type of evidence really IS the sticking point here. Remember when there was overwhelming consensus from the world's intelligence communities that Saddam had WMD? And how we all believed it too? I feel like I'm in AGW UN and Colin Powell is saying stuff that may make sense, but doesn't feel right; it feels like theater.

Lesson to you: there's rarely such a thing as too much skepticism when it comes to governmental interventionism, either here or abroad.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:05pm | #

So, is human culture 25 or 85?

Probably closer to a million. Too damn old to keep on life support if you ask me.

Both cap-and-trade systems and a carbon tax are all bout the marking solving the problem.

You're trying to convince people that a market in taxation is a real market? What. The. Fuck.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Russ R.,

Actually, there is strong evidence that Folsom (or was it Clovis?) Man endured a massive die-out during a warming period 13,000 years ago, as the area they were living in on the east coast of North America was subject to massive dust storms.

But be that as it may, technology is a double-edged sword here. In all other warming perioids, humans were more mobile, and had much less constructed. If the water's edge was fifteen horizontal feet closer this year than last year, then they set up their camps fifteen feet further inland, or found a different field. No big deal.

Today, we have an enormous amount of our wealth is tied up in settled construction. We can't just take buildings in Manhattan with us if the seas rise. Farm families who see their land become less productive are much more screwed than families that just followed the herd if it moved.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:09pm | #

This is obviously so wound up with other things you believe and value

That's a given with ALL values. They're relative.

robc | March 25, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Russ 2000,

You're trying to convince people that a market in taxation is a real market?

Its a real market, its just not a free one.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Ayn Randian,

Remember when there was overwhelming consensus from the world's intelligence communities that Saddam had WMD? No. I do remember that a great deal of what some politicians claimed about Iraqi WMDs required them to remove all sorts of warnings and qualifiers from the reports from the intelligence officials.

Russ 2000,

OK, what's a "real market?" One without taxation? I think my point was perfectly clear about how the market respondes to incentives.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 1:13pm | #

joe:

"Actually, Russ R., there are already Pacific Islands that have been abandoned to the rising seas." ... "Tuvalu and Kiribati have each lost islands already."

The result of a few minutes on Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, two small UNINHABITED Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999."

*** AND ***

"The highest elevation is five meters (16 ft) above sea level, which gives Tuvalu the second-lowest maximum elevation of any country (after the Maldives). Because of this low elevation, the islands that make up this nation MAY be threatened by any future sea level rise."

Sorry joe... looks like nobody had to abandon any Pacific Islands due to rising sea levels. At most, a few coconut trees were lost.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:13pm | #

That's a given with ALL values. They're relative.

Yes, but we were talking about the state of the science.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:13pm | #

OK, what's a "real market?" One without taxation?

One without coerced participation.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Russ R,

So? You see the kitchen is on fire, but it's ok, because you're in the living room?

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Even in markets that don't meet your purity test, participants respond to incentives.

robc | March 25, 2008, 1:18pm | #

participants respond to incentives.

Slaves responded to the whip.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 1:20pm | #

joe:

"...technology is a double-edged sword here. In all other warming perioids, humans were more mobile, and had much less constructed."

True, we might incur moving costs, possibly significant, but this is a long, long way from the catastrophic extinctions that our species technology helps us avert.

In fact, were talking multiple orders of magnitude difference between the two edges on your double-edged technology sword.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:20pm | #

Muggers respond to the whip, too.

When you are harming others, it is apporpriate to use force to protect them.

Polluting others, destroying their property, is an assault.

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 1:20pm | #

joe - you're misremembering, but I'm not inclined to have THAT argument out for the one-thousandth time.

In light of the "lost populated islands" thing being debunked, in what way is global warming:

- A broken window in the house?
- A fire in the kitchen?
- An infected cut?

All of these things require immediate attention. I've seen no evidence that convinces me that such immediacy is warranted.

joe, additionally there is debate that the cut in GHG emissions because of a carbon tax (in the US) would be so minuscule that the effect on AGW would be nil.

Now, let me sum up my position:

- No one can tell me what the immediate or long-term harms will be, if there are any at all.
- Claims of these harms are specious because of the difficulty in predicting the future.
- I very much doubt that, if the harms are shown to be real, that a carbon tax is going to help in any way.

You want to help "fight" AGW and do something good? Let's get the war ended.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:21pm | #

Russ R,

Costs are what we're talking about here. It is probably a good idea to avoid harms even if they come up short of "catastrophic extinction of the human species."

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 1:21pm | #

When you are harming others, it is apporpriate to use force to protect them.

YES, but you have presented zero proof of immediate harm. Or even long-term ramifications, for that matter

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 1:22pm | #

joe:

"So? You see the kitchen is on fire, but it's ok, because you're in the living room?"

More like "There's a fire in the kitchen, on the stove, making my dinner warm. And a side effect is that it's warming up the living room by a barely noticable amount. But it's ok, because if it gets too warm, I'll either open a window, or turn on the air conditioning."

R C Dean | March 25, 2008, 1:22pm | #

The greater concentration of environmental harms in poor communities is widely understood and documented.

Hence the link in joe's posts. C'mon, people, click n' learn!

Tuvalu and Kiribati have each lost islands already.

Oh for God's sake. The sea level around Tuvalu has actually been declining . If Tuvalu is about to go under, its because Tuvalu is sinking (key phrase: "sinking volcanic rock"), not because the oceans are rising.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Polluting others, destroying their property, is an assault.

Then offer me an insurance policy against those assaults and see if I accept your offer.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Ahem.

joe | March 25, 2008, 11:58am | #

Actually, Russ R., there are already Pacific Islands that have been abandoned to the rising seas.

Nothing has been debunked. Just so we're not fudging, Randian.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:27pm | #

I've seen no evidence that convinces me that such immediacy is warranted.

Then you couldn't be looking very hard. That's ok - I understand you've got a lot on your plate right now.

joe, additionally there is debate that the cut in GHG emissions because of a carbon tax (in the US) would be so minuscule that the effect on AGW would be nil. The direct reduction from lessened fuel usage isn't the point - it's the economic incentive it will provide for research into new technologies that matter.

And by all means, let's get the war ended, and not go down that road again.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:28pm | #

Randian, if you want proof and projections, google IPCC 4.

Your understanding of this issue shouldn't be wholly dependent on what I write.

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 1:28pm | #

joe - not debunked, but certainly called into question, specifically about whether the islands were populated and whether the sea level is rising or the island is sinking.

One problematic example of (possible) harm? I'm not overwhelmed, joe. Not at all.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 1:29pm | #

Oh for God's sake. The sea level around Tuvalu has actually been declining . If Tuvalu is about to go under, its because Tuvalu is sinking (key phrase: "sinking volcanic rock"), not because the oceans are rising.

Wait, are you saying joe doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, makes uninformed statements out of his ass, and comes to conclusions that fit his preconceived notions, yet treats anyone who doesn't believe with his religious fervor as a heretic, fool, or liar?

Bonus question: how much money does reason make from joe's page hits (which include POST redirects)?

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:30pm | #

Russ R writes,

Then offer me an insurance policy against those assaults and see if I accept your offer.

The problem here is two-fold. First, people who can't afford insurance policies are endangered, too.

Second, do you take out mugger insurance, or do you pay taxes for a police force and whatnot?

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 1:30pm | #

joe:

"Costs are what we're talking about here. It is probably a good idea to avoid harms even if they come up short of "catastrophic extinction of the human species."

Yes, costs are what I'm talking about. Not hyptothetical ones... real costs.

And I'm wondering:

Have you got any evidence of the real costs that the last century's 0.6 degrees celsius of AGW has unleashed upon humanity?

Is the best you can offer me some coconut trees on a sinking Pacific Island?

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:31pm | #

Oh, look, Episiarch is writing about me again.

Because it's all about me.

RC, Cato? Really?

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:31pm | #

Bonus question: how much money does reason make from joe's page hits (which include POST redirects)?

Lol, I mentioned that years ago.

He's just a shill for Big Liberty.

Ayn_Randian | March 25, 2008, 1:31pm | #

it's the economic incentive it will provide for research into new technologies that matter.

yes, but the purpose behind those future technologies is to reduce future harm. Said future harm cannot be demonstrated to even exist, nor to what extent.

perhaps I should expand my knowledge and get back to you. However, I don't think that this should be the level of proof to get government involved. It should be a very simple, clear-cut case, and right now it is very much NOT that way at all.

Russ R | March 25, 2008, 1:32pm | #

joe...

minor detail... that was Russ 2000 talking about insurance, not me. But I do like his point.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Russ R.,

Have you got any evidence of the real costs that the last century's 0.6 degrees celsius of AGW has unleashed upon humanity?

The IPCC 4 does.

Really, you're better off learning what the experts have to say than random people in comment threads.

Unless you're Episiarch, in which case you have to make sure that there aren't TOO MANY SCIENTISTS who agree on something. Because that's just like Hitler.

Episiarch | March 25, 2008, 1:33pm | #

Because it's all about me.

Finally, joe begins to understand his own personality. Narcissism, or insecurity? Hard to tell.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:34pm | #

You talk about me more than I do, Episiarch.

So, still nothing about...uh...what was this thread about again?

Typical troll.

joe | March 25, 2008, 1:36pm | #

Bonus question: how much money does reason make from joe's page hits (which include POST redirects)?

Let's not forget about those produced by people who post exclusively on the subject of me.

It's a multiplier-effect.

Russ 2000 | March 25, 2008, 1:38pm | #

Second, do you take out mugger insurance, or do you pay taxes for a police force and whatnot?