The Obligatory
"Play safe. Ski only in clockwise direction. Let's all have fun together."
Monday, October 30, 2006
Warming Wager
This morning, while I was cruising for my daily dose of “hey, what’s going on in the world out there” information, I came upon this story on MSNBC, which investigates a report on the potential economic impact of the effects of global warming.
Usually, no big deal. Legitimate research studies like this come out all the time, even though we usually don’t hear about them. There’s probably a corporate tie-in reason for that, but instead I’ll just chalk it up to the fact that Americans are sadly more concerned with celebrity relationships than global issues...
Anyway, what is interesting about this particular study is that it was commissioned by a high-ranking member of the British Cabinet, and the results of the report are being acted on by the Prime Minister and the rest of the British Government. It’s also the first global warming study authored by an economist instead of an environmental scientist.
The author of the report – a former chief economist of the World Bank – says that the cost of counteracting global warming now, by reducing carbon dioxide and methane, making industries and transportation more efficient, and investing heavily in renewable energies, would cost 1% of the global GDP each year. That’s about what the world spends on advertising. If we do nothing, within a decade the associated costs could reach 5 to 20% of the global GDP each year. That’s a mind-boggling seven trillion dollars.
Thankfully, the Brits are taking a very strong stand on the issue. They’re already leading the European Union’s emission reduction targets, considering expanding their successful carbon tax program to their citizens, and working to link carbon credit markets across the world (including a handful of renegade U.S. cities and states like California, which are pledging to the Kyoto protocol while the Bush administration sits on their hands waiting for ‘more conclusive research’).
America is missing a huge opportunity by continuing to ignore global scientific consensus on this issue. And now, with this new report, we’ve got an economic incentive alongside strong moral and ethical ones.
Take, for example, my dad. He’s a police officer in a small town in Connecticut. He works absurd amounts of overtime, saves for retirement, and votes Republican. He is not, by any stretch of the word, an environmentalist. He probably could care less about global warming or spotted owls or attempts to sell off National Parks. But when I visited my home a few weeks ago, every single light bulb in the house was a compact fluorescent – from track lights to outdoor lighting to chandeliers. My dad had cut the entire household’s electricity usage by almost 60%, thus reducing the amount of electricity needed to be produced and therefore reducing my family’s overall carbon footprint. Why? ‘Cause it saved him a lot of money.
If every family in the United States made the switch, we’d instantly cut our national CO2 emissions by 90 billion pounds. With only the minor hassle of switching a few light bulbs (which, by the way, not only use less electricity than regular bulbs, but also last way longer … like 4 years a bulb), we’d be reducing pollution and the amount of money we pay toward our utility bills.
If we, on a national level, choose to ignore this problem, then not only will we jeopardize our planet’s sustainability, but we’ll also be scuttling our national economy. The Bush Administration’s boorish stance on stem-cell research has already caused American scientists to lag far behind Europe, Japan, and South Korea in genetics and cloning research. If we continue our myopic drive to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and blow up the Appalachians Mountains for coal, we’re also going to lag seriously behind in the sustainable energy field.
(Thankfully, we Californians have a chance to once again buck the Bush administration and go our own way on the issue.)
But if moral, ethical, economic, or nationalistic reasoning still doesn’t get you convinced that we have to start making changes now, how about a philosophical one?
Take this guy:
It’s Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, theologian and philosopher. Along with his triangle, one of his great contributions to mankind was his book, The Pensées. The book deals extensively with an examination of religion and the existence of God. One of the book’s most famous passages describes what is known as ‘Pascal’s Wager.’ (Very) basically, Pascal says if there’s a God and we act morally, then we’re in the clear and our reward is paradise. If we don’t act morally, we’re met with eternal torment. However, if there is not a God and we act morally, then we just get to live in a stable, moral society whether or not we choose to believe. Therefore, it’s in our best interests to ‘bet’ that God exists and to act accordingly.
While the argument does have flaws, we can still use its central logical position in this global warming debate. If global warming is happening and we take the steps to combat it, then we get to live in a sustainable society on a relatively non-destroyed planet for the conceivable future. If it exists and we do nothing, we’ll have to deal with floods, droughts, refugees, energy crises, and all sorts of other nasty things.
If global warming does not exist and we strive to combat it, then we’ll still live in a more efficient, sustainable, and ecologically friendly society. If America chooses to get involved, we may even be at the forefront of new technologies that can reduce worldwide consumption.
And hey, we might even save a few bucks on our electric bills.
Isn’t that worth a wager, too?
Usually, no big deal. Legitimate research studies like this come out all the time, even though we usually don’t hear about them. There’s probably a corporate tie-in reason for that, but instead I’ll just chalk it up to the fact that Americans are sadly more concerned with celebrity relationships than global issues...
Anyway, what is interesting about this particular study is that it was commissioned by a high-ranking member of the British Cabinet, and the results of the report are being acted on by the Prime Minister and the rest of the British Government. It’s also the first global warming study authored by an economist instead of an environmental scientist.
The author of the report – a former chief economist of the World Bank – says that the cost of counteracting global warming now, by reducing carbon dioxide and methane, making industries and transportation more efficient, and investing heavily in renewable energies, would cost 1% of the global GDP each year. That’s about what the world spends on advertising. If we do nothing, within a decade the associated costs could reach 5 to 20% of the global GDP each year. That’s a mind-boggling seven trillion dollars.
Thankfully, the Brits are taking a very strong stand on the issue. They’re already leading the European Union’s emission reduction targets, considering expanding their successful carbon tax program to their citizens, and working to link carbon credit markets across the world (including a handful of renegade U.S. cities and states like California, which are pledging to the Kyoto protocol while the Bush administration sits on their hands waiting for ‘more conclusive research’).
America is missing a huge opportunity by continuing to ignore global scientific consensus on this issue. And now, with this new report, we’ve got an economic incentive alongside strong moral and ethical ones.
Take, for example, my dad. He’s a police officer in a small town in Connecticut. He works absurd amounts of overtime, saves for retirement, and votes Republican. He is not, by any stretch of the word, an environmentalist. He probably could care less about global warming or spotted owls or attempts to sell off National Parks. But when I visited my home a few weeks ago, every single light bulb in the house was a compact fluorescent – from track lights to outdoor lighting to chandeliers. My dad had cut the entire household’s electricity usage by almost 60%, thus reducing the amount of electricity needed to be produced and therefore reducing my family’s overall carbon footprint. Why? ‘Cause it saved him a lot of money.
If every family in the United States made the switch, we’d instantly cut our national CO2 emissions by 90 billion pounds. With only the minor hassle of switching a few light bulbs (which, by the way, not only use less electricity than regular bulbs, but also last way longer … like 4 years a bulb), we’d be reducing pollution and the amount of money we pay toward our utility bills.
If we, on a national level, choose to ignore this problem, then not only will we jeopardize our planet’s sustainability, but we’ll also be scuttling our national economy. The Bush Administration’s boorish stance on stem-cell research has already caused American scientists to lag far behind Europe, Japan, and South Korea in genetics and cloning research. If we continue our myopic drive to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and blow up the Appalachians Mountains for coal, we’re also going to lag seriously behind in the sustainable energy field.
(Thankfully, we Californians have a chance to once again buck the Bush administration and go our own way on the issue.)
But if moral, ethical, economic, or nationalistic reasoning still doesn’t get you convinced that we have to start making changes now, how about a philosophical one?
Take this guy:
It’s Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, theologian and philosopher. Along with his triangle, one of his great contributions to mankind was his book, The Pensées. The book deals extensively with an examination of religion and the existence of God. One of the book’s most famous passages describes what is known as ‘Pascal’s Wager.’ (Very) basically, Pascal says if there’s a God and we act morally, then we’re in the clear and our reward is paradise. If we don’t act morally, we’re met with eternal torment. However, if there is not a God and we act morally, then we just get to live in a stable, moral society whether or not we choose to believe. Therefore, it’s in our best interests to ‘bet’ that God exists and to act accordingly.
While the argument does have flaws, we can still use its central logical position in this global warming debate. If global warming is happening and we take the steps to combat it, then we get to live in a sustainable society on a relatively non-destroyed planet for the conceivable future. If it exists and we do nothing, we’ll have to deal with floods, droughts, refugees, energy crises, and all sorts of other nasty things.
If global warming does not exist and we strive to combat it, then we’ll still live in a more efficient, sustainable, and ecologically friendly society. If America chooses to get involved, we may even be at the forefront of new technologies that can reduce worldwide consumption.
And hey, we might even save a few bucks on our electric bills.
Isn’t that worth a wager, too?
that one guy you know, 10:42 PM
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 Comments:
Right on! To learn more about how they are blowign up mountains in Appalachia, check out iLoveMountains.org. They use Google Earth technology to map out the 474 mountains destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining. Some other cool features too!
