Gambling on global climate change

[ApeAttack]

This post is not about debating whether global climate change is occuring due to humanity.

The most recent IPCC report states that humans are almost certainly responsible for global climate change (GCC) and that there will be a significant temperature rise over the next century (the scientists did not say they were 100% sure humans are causing GCC because it is not possible to say this from a scientific standpoint). This temperature rise could be catastophic for much of the world since a lot of the human population and commercial enterprises are near the coast, and many animals and plants are well-adapted for their environment and will not be able to adjust to new climate conditions. For what its worth, I believe that if nothing is done to curb GCC this will happen.

Of course, there are many who do not believe that humans are responsible for GCC, the effects on the planet will not be that drastic if GCC and temperature increases do occur, the world's economy would suffer too much if drastic steps are taken to curb GCC, or some combination of the above statements. This question is mainly aimed toward these people.

Most of us at 2+2 are gamblers to some degree. Let's assume for a second that there is some probability (p) that the worst effects of GCC will come true -- many cities will be flooded and huge economic centers will be lost, many species of animal and plant will be wiped out as their habitat changes too fast, many areas on earth will become inhabitable due to a changing climate (hundreds of millions or billions could starve due to drought or flooding), etc. -- How large would 'p' have to be before you would agree that drastic steps should be taken now to curb global climate change? These steps would include strict government-mandated reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for vehicles and power plants, perhaps have tariffs on nations who do not reduce GHGs, etc.

What if there was a 25% chance of this happening... would you feel drastic steps should be taken now? Remember that the stakes are incredibly high.

For those who believe in global climate change, how small would 'p' have to be in order for you to not worry about changing emissions of greenhouse gases? For me, it would have to be pretty small (<5%). The stakes are just too high in my opinion.

[Rearden]

A statistically significant portion of America, sadly notable individuals in government, put biblical rapture as "going to happen within the next fifty years".... is it surprising that these same people don't acknowledge GCC.

IMO... Global Climate Change as well as Peak Oil are the 800lb gorillas in the room with respect to the industrialized world's future despite the truth in your arguement (that the stakes are simply too high with even a low % of probability). Outside of individual lifestyle changes I have not heard many well thought out and articulated policies with respect to national efforts/plans.... I also don't think we will have such plans until it is too late (again assuming it is going to happen and that it is already not in fact too late)

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
A statistically significant portion of America, sadly notable individuals in government, put biblical rapture as "going to happen within the next fifty years".... is it surprising that these same people don't acknowledge GCC.

IMO... Global Climate Change as well as Peak Oil are the 800lb gorillas in the room with respect to the industrialized world's future despite the truth in your arguement (that the stakes are simply too high with even a low % of probability). Outside of individual lifestyle changes I have not heard many well thought out and articulated policies with respect to national efforts/plans.... I also don't think we will have such plans until it is too late (again assuming it is going to happen and that it is already not in fact too late)

[/ QUOTE ]

Soooo... p = low then for you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Rearden]

yes... "p" is pretty darn low

Also, I did not mean to make this any sort of religious thread in the above so please dont hijack that aspect... I only wanted to bring up an extreme example of how someone's world view would impact the issue (and what p has to be to make it worthwhile for them)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is not about debating whether global climate change is occuring due to humanity.

The most recent IPCC report states that humans are almost certainly responsible for global climate change (GCC) and that there will be a significant temperature rise over the next century (the scientists did not say they were 100% sure humans are causing GCC because it is not possible to say this from a scientific standpoint). This temperature rise could be catastophic for much of the world since a lot of the human population and commercial enterprises are near the coast, and many animals and plants are well-adapted for their environment and will not be able to adjust to new climate conditions. For what its worth, I believe that if nothing is done to curb GCC this will happen.

Of course, there are many who do not believe that humans are responsible for GCC, the effects on the planet will not be that drastic if GCC and temperature increases do occur, the world's economy would suffer too much if drastic steps are taken to curb GCC, or some combination of the above statements. This question is mainly aimed toward these people.

Most of us at 2+2 are gamblers to some degree. Let's assume for a second that there is some probability (p) that the worst effects of GCC will come true -- many cities will be flooded and huge economic centers will be lost, many species of animal and plant will be wiped out as their habitat changes too fast, many areas on earth will become inhabitable due to a changing climate (hundreds of millions or billions could starve due to drought or flooding), etc. -- How large would 'p' have to be before you would agree that drastic steps should be taken now to curb global climate change? These steps would include strict government-mandated reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for vehicles and power plants, perhaps have tariffs on nations who do not reduce GHGs, etc.

What if there was a 25% chance of this happening... would you feel drastic steps should be taken now? Remember that the stakes are incredibly high.

For those who believe in global climate change, how small would 'p' have to be in order for you to not worry about changing emissions of greenhouse gases? For me, it would have to be pretty small (<5%). The stakes are just too high in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not actually p that I worry about, it's the impact - it's a compound distribution. I think p=1 if the statement is 'global temps will rise', but I put p=0 if the statement is 'humans will become extinct'. I just have a lot of trouble believing (and maybe i'm in denial /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) that the impact will be disastrous in any sense of the word. I think that if we were looking at 1 billion deaths (which HAS to be absurd, no?) we would find a way to reverse it...cover all free land with highly reflective material e.g.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not actually p that I worry about, it's the impact - it's a compound distribution. I think p=1 if the statement is 'global temps will rise', but I put p=0 if the statement is 'humans will become extinct'. I just have a lot of trouble believing (and maybe i'm in denial /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) that the impact will be disastrous in any sense of the word. I think that if we were looking at 1 billion deaths (which HAS to be absurd, no?) we would find a way to reverse it...cover all free land with highly reflective material e.g.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of humanity will not perish due to global climate change, but our way of life could be changed for a long time. I don't know of anyone who said that all humans will be wiped out, although it is possible many species of animals and plants will be.

In the scenario outlined in the OP, I was assuming 1-2 billion die. Let's not worry what the actually number will be... let's just say it will be devastating to much of the world's population. What p would be acceptable to those who feel global climate change will not occur? Given the scenario outlined in the OP, what p would be acceptable to you?

By the way... it would be impossible to cover the earth with a highly reflective material and even if we could it would be devastating to plant life. ~75% of the earth is covered by water (more when temps rise) which absorbs light well... it would be impossible to cover up the ocean.

Also, 1 billion deaths over the course of many years is not absurd IF the earth's climate shifts significantly in many areas. Think about how droughts will affect places like India, Africa and China. The US may be too busy relocating tens of millions of people from coastal areas and reorienting its economy to care about these places. Probably few in the 'western world' will starve, but we make up only a fraction of the worlds' population.