Global warming and climate change: Why they’re so hard to get right

“Since we can’t accurately know these costs, can we say that “the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action”? No, we can’t, because we can’t prove that statement either way.”
You are mixing the unknown costs of various choices with the costs of making no choice at all, which in light of the predicted outcomes from global climate change is nonsense.
If your car is speeding over a cliff,  when/where/how to jump may have unknown risk, but staying in the car is not an equivalent risk — it is a certainty of death.
And while I agree that “necessity is the mother of invention”, and the conclusions of Malthus have not generally held true,  your counter-examples to the NRDC report are naive and less than relevant.  While A/C costs in the U.S. may be holding somewhat steady,  it is emerging economies like China that are the concern.
The NRDC estimates are just that — warning signs for a worst case scenario.  I can understand that.  Making  assertions like “The NRDC seems to have forgotten that by 2050, hardier, heat resistant crops will be developed, especially if companies believe that a huge market for them is around the corner.”  show a misunderstanding of both the problem and the solution.  Water is the limiting factor,  not crop genetics.  It is required directly by both humans and food plants,  is not easily transportable or manufacturable, and conservation may not keep pace with massive, simultaneous drought caused by global climate change.
“(For those of you who think that research into more efficient methods will happen regardless of the situation, remember that the new lightweight SUVs didn’t exist until oil prices rose in the late 2000s.)”
I have no idea how this statement factors into your main point,  but the fact is that automotive fuel efficiency has been an on going area of research since the beginning of the automotive age,  and the new “light weight SUV’s” are a result of that research starting decades ago.   Even the worse SUV driven in the 90′s had gas mileage better than an equivalent vehicle from say, the 70′s.  But since I don’t understand your point, maybe I am just missing it.
“It’s the same thing with Global Warming predictions. Even if accountants were to include the current rate at which AC efficiency is rising, it wouldn’t be good enough because they can’t determine the effects of AC  research and the AC efficiency increase spurred by an ever-increasing global temperature.”
I don’t know about accountants,  but I am pretty sure that even a merely competent physicists or engineer could determine the maximum efficiencies possible by various A/C approaches.  There are limits,  and they are known.
(I don’t buy your premise anyway, as you have totally ignored the energy savings that exist with even inefficient A/C systems,  because the big bang for the buck is insulation and building design, something the U.S. has  encouraging for quite some time. )
But this is irrelevant –  a lack of A/C is not the big problem from global warming.  It is species extinction,  drought and flood,  massive crop failure,  displacement of millions of the poor living at sea level,  etc.
You have completely ignored the specifics of the NRDC report and its intent with  a barrage of logical fallacy.
 
 
 

Hi Chris,

Your response isn’t a rebuttal. There are no facts and no supporting evidence. You’re of course allowed to think and say whatever you want on your own site, but you’re hurting your own credibility by posting a “rebuttal” that’s nothing more than an opinion piece.

If you’d like to debate with the article writer, please do so. Otherwise, I’m not sure why it is you posted at all.

Andy

Much clearer now, and your points appear to echo my points.
I wish the original author would respond.

I’m sorry I haven’t replied to this till now. I’ve spent the last week at a parliamentary debate in Bombay where I haven’t had time to more than fleeting check my inbox.

“You are mixing the unknown costs of various choices with the costs of making no choice at all, which in light of the predicted outcomes from global climate change is nonsense.
If your car is speeding over a cliff, when/where/how to jump may have unknown risk, but staying in the car is not an equivalent risk — it is a certainty of death.”

Actually, what I’m questioning is the certainty of death. My submission was that the idea that humanity is going suffer enormously is based on faulty assumptions.

“And while I agree that “necessity is the mother of invention”, and the conclusions of Malthus have not generally held true, your counter-examples to the NRDC report are naive and less than relevant. While A/C costs in the U.S. may be holding somewhat steady, it is emerging economies like China that are the concern.”

And why shouldn’t consumers in China feel the pinch of higher energy prices causing them to switch to more efficient ACs?

“The NRDC estimates are just that — warning signs for a worst case scenario. I can understand that. Making assertions like “The NRDC seems to have forgotten that by 2050, hardier, heat resistant crops will be developed, especially if companies believe that a huge market for them is around the corner.” show a misunderstanding of both the problem and the solution. Water is the limiting factor, not crop genetics. It is required directly by both humans and food plants, is not easily transportable or manufacturable, and conservation may not keep pace with massive, simultaneous drought caused by global climate change.”

Replace the words “heat resistant crops” with “crops that require less water” and you’ll have my rebuttal. Oh, and read the report. The NRDC admits that crop output will increase till 2050. So it *is* about botany.

“I have no idea how this statement factors into your main point, but the fact is that automotive fuel efficiency has been an on going area of research since the beginning of the automotive age, and the new “light weight SUV’s” are a result of that research starting decades ago. Even the worse SUV driven in the 90’s had gas mileage better than an equivalent vehicle from say, the 70’s. But since I don’t understand your point, maybe I am just missing it.”

The research may have started decades ago, but the markets didn’t open up till oil prices hit the roof. When oil is expensive, conservative vehicles become popular. My point is that people react to incentives (to borrow an overused phrase) so even if the energy efficiency of your AC isn’t important to you now, it will be once you have to use it more often, prompt more research in the field.

“(I don’t buy your premise anyway, as you have totally ignored the energy savings that exist with even inefficient A/C systems, because the big bang for the buck is insulation and building design, something the U.S. has encouraging for quite some time. )”

Sure. Why not? Replace the idea of a consumer looking for an efficient AC with an efficient home and I don’t see how the conclusions change substantially: improved tech (ACs or homes) reduce the “cost” of AGW. And I don’t think the government needs to encourage this any more than they needed to encourage people to move away from horses to cars: the benefits are obvious (or will be, once it gets cheap enough).

“a lack of A/C is not the big problem from global warming. It is species extinction, drought and flood, massive crop failure, displacement of millions of the poor living at sea level, etc.”

Sorry, man. These are severely different issues. For example “species extinction” is a hugely controversial topic because A. It’s so hard to measure B. A particular species going extinct hasn’t had any recorded severely negative impact on the human race. C. This means the value of a species’ existence is intrinsic and therefore subjective, so some people might find it worth paying millions of dollars to preserve an owl – others might not.

That said, I doubt AGW is occurring at such a fast rate that there are going to “massive crop failures” next year. I’ll bet you on it. $50 (inflation adjusted) says that in the next five years crop failures will not occur in 25 countries simultaneously. These countries should be so divided that no more than 5 of them will exist on the same continent.

If “crop failures” occur at all (the NRDC doesn’t see it happening for half a century) they will be slow and not impossible hard to adjust to. Ditto migration: sea levels won’t ride a foot in a year and engulf entire villages overnight. The migration will be the slow, routine migration that humanity sees regularly. Migration of rural folk into city slums to find work is a bigger worry.

I find this habit of clubbing issues disturbing.

 
>>> Actually, what I’m questioning is the certainty of death. My submission was that the idea that humanity is going suffer enormously is based on faulty assumptions.
 
You need to make up your mind here:  You now seem to be creating a false equivalency between “certainty of death”  and “humanity is going to suffer enormously”.
 
As to the latter, whether humanity is going to suffer enormously is of course based upon assumptions.  Over time, through scientific analyisis, we will get a better grasp on how good these assumptions are. But declaring them “false”?  Based upon what type of statistical analysis?  This appears to be merely an argument from ignorance.
 
>>> And why shouldn’t consumers in China feel the pinch of higher energy prices causing them to switch to more efficient ACs?
 
Please stick with your premise:  that control of A/C costs is evidence that global climate change is a controllable problem.  A/C is a luxury, not a necessity like manufacturing and agricultural production.  The ability to control the impact of a luxury is not the same as being able to control the impact of the necessitys.  The scale of the problem is so different, it makes your A/C fixatation completely irrelevant.
 
>>> Replace the words “heat resistant crops” with “crops that require  less water” and you’ll have my rebuttal. Oh, and read the report. The NRDC admits that crop output will increase till 2050. So it *is* about botany.
 
Ok. So your argument is the invention of “heat resistant crops” will accompanied by the invention of “crops that lose less water”, both of which will nutritiously feed a world population that has doubled, can be planted on currently non-arable land, and not be susceptible to massive crop failures, known monoculture dangers, civil wars, and economic downturns.
If compounding fantasy is a form of argument, I guess you can make your point.  It makes one wonder why we have a global climate change problem at all — science has a magic hat from which any rebuttal can be pulled.
As far as the NRDC “admission” that crop output will increase,  no says it will not.  The question is “will it be adequate”.
>>> The research may have started decades ago, but the markets didn’t  open up till oil prices hit the roof. When oil is expensive, conservative vehicles become popular. My point is that people react  to incentives (to borrow an overused phrase) so even if the energy efficiency of your AC isn’t important to you now, it will be once you have to use it more often, prompt more research in the field.
 
People do react to incentives.  You seem to expecting the laws of physics to also do so.  I find it contradictory that when scientists warn that possible catastophre is on the horizon, you dismiss them, but within the same argumentive context, turn to them for the solution.
 
>>> Sure. Why not? Replace the idea of a consumer looking for an  efficient AC with an efficient home and I don’t see how the  conclusions change substantially: improved tech (ACs or homes) reduce the “cost” of AGW. And I don’t think the government needs to  encourage this any more than they needed to encourage people to  move away from horses to cars: the benefits are obvious (or will  be, once it gets cheap enough).
 
Why not? Because you are contradicting your own premise: that more efficient technology is going to bail us out of this mess, keeping current standards of living constant.
 
Conservation is about using existing resources more efficiently, but it is mostly about doing with less.  We used to cool our homes to a comfortable 72 degrees all day and night — now, even with better insulation and more efficient A/C,  we learn to live with 78 degrees, and only when we have to at that.
 
Your second comment about government encouragement — you assume that people will adopt smarter technologies, if there is a benefit.  But your basic premise denies any real fear from global climate change should be the incentive. Your arguments are as fluid in their logic as the rapidly melting northern ice cap.
 
 
>>> That said, I doubt AGW is occurring at such a fast rate that there are going to  “massive crop failures” next year. I’ll bet you on  it. $50 (inflation adjusted) says that in the next five years crop failures will not occur in 25 countries simultaneously. These countries should be so divided that no more than 5 of them will exist on the same continent.
 
A novel form of argument:  invent a scenario, then ask others to bet on your conveniently constructed odds.  If they refuse,  you consider yourself correct I suppose.  The reason we call things “catastrophic” is because they represent unpredictable outcomes that affect the lives of many.  That is also precisely why we worry about them so much. It seems rather heartless to place a wager on it.
 
>>> If “crop failures” occur at all (the NRDC doesn’t see it happening  for half a century) they will be slow and not impossible hard to adjust to. Ditto migration: sea levels won’t ride a foot in a year and engulf entire villages overnight. The migration will be the slow, routine migration that humanity sees regularly. Migration of rural folk into city slums to find work is a bigger worry.
 
I can’t remember anyone arguing sudden drowning as the most worrisome result of global climate change.  And your grasp of the impacts of mass migration is once again an argument from ignorance (routine? can’t we assume the current balance of those living on the coast vs. inland represents some form of necessity, not convenience?)
 
I must say, as badly as your originally premises were supported, you have no problem merely extending them, a certainty in one’s knowledge that I don’t posess.
 
When I am uncertain, I err on the side of caution.  I prefer to have the option of changing my mind based upon new evidence, as opposed to being forced to accept failure due to an unsupported reliance upon false assumptions.
 

Starting with Chris:
 
My curiousity is piqued. Could you show me an exmple of a speicies whose death caused substanial harm to humanity? Heck, I can think of one example of human-induced extinction which actually helped the human race: the smallpox virus.
 
By the way, do you know how the number of species killed is calculated? Do you think it’s by counting the number of species in one year and seeing how many of these are left at the end of the next? Heck no: they use a *formula*. Pure theory. Based on how they *think* extinction should work. And that formula has never been backed by empirical evidence.
 
But I’ll grant you there hasn’t been a huge hue and cry about this. The reason is simple: people who use this model have a vested interest in people believing the numbers generated by it to be true.
 
BTW, there is a difference between the costs of instantaneous migrations across huge distances (which is the kind of migrations caused by wars) and slow, steady migrations across short distances (which is the GW induced kind of migration).
Coming to Moore, who is – thankfully – not going off on tangents.
 
Let me repeat my fundamental submission: Global Warming causes pain. Preventing global warming (by imposing the various measure Chris has suggested) also causes pain. In order to figure out which is worse, you have to actually crunch the numbers – which is what the NRDC has attempted to do. But I submit that the cost will be lower than estimates due to improvements in technology. I’m NOT concluding that the costs of GW are less than the benefits or vice versa. I don’t think enough analysis has been done. I hope that clears up some of your doubts.
>>Please stick with your premise:  that control of A/C costs is evidence that global climate change is a controllable problem.  A/C is a luxury, not a necessity like manufacturing and agricultural production.  The ability to control the impact of a luxury is not the same as being able to control the impact of the necessitys.  The scale of the problem is so different, it makes your A/C fixatation completely irrelevant.
 
I don’t have an AC fixation. I talk about ACs because the NRDC does. They are simply one example of the kind of costs faced. The logic I use to explain them is the logic I can use to explain the changes in agriculture or production. In fact, because these are necessities, the amount of research that will be put into them will be more than into Air Conditioning, making them more insulated from GW than air conditioning.
 
>>Ok. So your argument is the invention of “heat resistant crops” will accompanied by the invention of “crops that lose less water”, both of which will nutritiously feed a world population that has doubled, can be planted on currently non-arable land, and not be susceptible to massive crop failures, known monoculture dangers, civil wars, and economic downturns.
If compounding fantasy is a form of argument, I guess you can make your point.  It makes one wonder why we have a global climate change problem at all — science has a magic hat from which any rebuttal can be pulled.
As far as the NRDC “admission” that crop output will increase,  no says it will not.  The question is “will it be adequate”.
 
Regarding the NDRC: See page 17 of the report. The NRDC acknowledges some of the beneficial aspects, but also cushions it’s acknowledgment.
 
Food production has always increased to keep pace with population. Two hundred years of increasing production and fallinf food prices and people still doubt this. Sigh. (BTW, world population is supposed to level off at 9 or 10 billion in 2050 according to the UN although I don’t know how relaible the UN is.) As for the non-arable land, it might interest you to know that many in many places, there is actually reforestation (http://reason.com/archives/2007/06/01/back-into-the-woods) because improvements mean that less land is required for agriculture. I don’t know what causes your Massive Crop Failure (TM) so I can’t talk about it. Monoculture dangers are largely due to soil and water issues, both of which can be dealt with technology. And I need proof that slow GW will lead to civil wars or economic downturns which are both – if my knowledge of history is correct – caused by quick moving stimuli.
 
You think technology is not sufficient. I think it is. I point at history to prove myself. Where do you point?
 
>>People do react to incentives.  You seem to expecting the laws of physics to also do so.  I find it contradictory that when scientists warn that possible catastophre is on the horizon, you dismiss them, but within the same argumentive context, turn to them for the solution
Huh? That seems very poetic but do you think scientists are one single bloc? The researchers who fiddle around with plant genes aren’t claiming that there is no way they can create the right variants in time. And anyway, there are crops today which can survive harsh climes and can be used in places which see the impact of climate change badly.
 
The scientists (and lawyers) who warn about the problem of GW must prove that the costs are less if we “do something” – which I say they must prove. And I say that the way they’ve reached the number they’ve provided is flawed.
 
>>Why not? Because you are contradicting your own premise: that more efficient technology is going to bail us out of this mess, keeping current standards of living constant.

Conservation is about using existing resources more efficiently, but it is mostly about doing with less.
 
What do you think technology is? It’s not just machines. Technology is anything that converts inputs into outputs. More efficient technology gets more outputs with less inputs. So you stay cooler in summer while spending less on energy. Insulation allows you to reduce your consumption while not reducing your comfort. If you wish to go further, it’s your choice. My point was that better insulators will be discovered.
 
>>.  But your basic premise denies any real fear from global climate change should be the incentive.
 
Firstly, it doesn’t deny ANY fear and I don’t think tech will “bail us out”. I’ve never concluded that, I’ve merely said the costs are going to be less than calculated. Can you grant me that I’m not a total idiot and can be nuanced in my stand?
 
And the reason that’s true is because people will change their behaviour as the climate changes by switching to better crops and better insulation. The incentive is the pain the feel initially when some crops fail or the energy bill comes in too high. The NRDC hasn’t factored in changes in behaviour or technology.
 
>>A novel form of argument:  invent a scenario, then ask others to bet on your conveniently constructed odds.  If they refuse,  you consider yourself correct I suppose.  The reason we call things “catastrophic” is because they represent unpredictable outcomes that affect the lives of many.  That is also precisely why we worry about them so much. It seems rather heartless to place a wager on it.
 
If you think it’s heartless, we can donate the proceeds to DBS. And I’m more than happy to give you 1-100 odds, so you lose only $.50. But go on record saying it’s gonna happen. The bet is simply a way of keeping the fact present on peoples minds, like the Erlich-Simmons wager.
 
>>I can’t remember anyone arguing sudden drowning as the most worrisome result of global climate change.  And your grasp of the impacts of mass migration is once again an argument from ignorance (routine? can’t we assume the current balance of those living on the coast vs. inland represents some form of necessity, not convenience?)
See my rebuttal to Chris on this.
 
>>When I am uncertain, I err on the side of caution.  I prefer to have the option of changing my mind based upon new evidence, as opposed to being forced to accept failure due to an unsupported reliance upon false assumptions.
 
Really? There’s a risk you might die crossing the street. Would you err on the side of caution and stay at home. Heck, no. You’d weigh costs and benefits. But first you’d have to figure out what they are. That’s what the GW debate is about. I say the calculations done are flawed.
 
I hope me repeatedly explaining that clarifies what my premises are.

Odd that this has become an argument about extinction. But okay. Here goes:
 
I *didn’t* say species loss is a myth. I have no doubt that species have gone extinct in the past, are going extinct now and will go extinct in the future. I also have no doubt that human beings caused (eg. Mammoth) and are causing (e.g. Bengal tiger) some of these extinctions. You’ve got to stop seeing me as some kinda wingnut.
I *did* say that the methodology used by scientific journals  is questionable. Many of these numbers are the results of projections and rules of thumb and has been since people have tried to quantify biodiversity. I’m training to be an economist and I’ve developed a deep dislike for theory not backed by empirical observation. The usage of the very wide range 100 to 1000 backs my belief that they aren’t sure.
Coming to a deeper issue. Can you name to me a species that has the following attributes:
a) It’s critical to some aspect of human consumption/production.
b) Has no substitutes.
c) Is on the verge of extinction.
Farmers keep or rent out bees to fertilize their crops. Bees are hardly under the threat of extinction.
Some edible fish are under threat because of the tragedy of the commons that occurs in many oceanic areas. A Great Banks style treaty or some sort of privatization would be the solution.
If my view seems harsh, it’s because many people feel that the existence of a species has intrinsic worth. This is a value (which I don’t debate) and societies have to work this out for themselves. But the idea that the human race is doomed because of a looming biodiversity crisis is one I happily will. I repeat: give me an example of a species whose extinction has, in the past,  caused great harm to the human race.
Just so that you’re aware, we’re now debating two separate questions: 1. Are the numbers behind extinction reliable? and 2. How important are individual species to the human race?

1. Fair enough. I’ll find the dispute and post it asap
2. The problem with your list of examples is that they explain the dangers arising out of the wiping out of a range of species: a very wide range at that. Problems like erosion only become insurmountable if we’ve lost every single tree in existence. Remember: the debate is about species loss (the number of species in existence reducing) and not the loss of forest cover etc. If we could take one fast growing tree with wide roots, we could grow it in areas suffering from erosion to halt or reverse it. And some trees are better for this job than others. Apply the same principle: take a species that goes furthest in reducing this problem and reproduce it. Instead of having a field full of insects, use only bees and so forth.
And these “useful species” are hardly under threat of extinction, which addresses your points about “useful building material”, “jobs dependent on certain species” etc. Humans have a vested interest in keeping these species alive and well.
The only “loss” on this list that links to the dwindling number of species is plants whose medical uses haven’t been discovered yet and now might never be discovered. However, I believe the number to be so small as to not be worth considering. Of all the species of plants known to man, how many have medical uses?
You haven’t provided any examples of specific species. Please do.