Weather Banter - View Single Post - Global warming is a socio-econmic issue, not a scientific one

Eric Swanson

In article , says...

It is fairly clear to me from having worked for years in the environmental
policy field that what science says or does not say about global warming and
its impacts is largely irrelevant when it comes to deciding what, if
anything, to do about it. Because, in the opinion of most decision-makers,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions would result in an unacceptably high
socio-economic hit, it will never happen.

The logic of the decision makers is based upon their flawed understanding of
economics. Your usual economic analysis assumes that the environmental impact
is an externality, not directly related to the overall economic process and
is thus ignored. Economics operates as if the "benefits" of the environment
are free. This was true for generations, but is no longer the situation as
populations have grown and per capita consumption levels have shot up. If
the full accounting of the impacts were included in the economic calculations,
then doing something about maintaining the environmantal services would make
good long term economic decisions a possibility.

........Letting global warming take place
and adapting to its impacts is, in the view of many policy-makers, much more
acceptable and can result in net socio-economic benefits for current
generations. If science were a consideration, we would make a concentrated
effort instead to reduce emissions now in such a way as to minimize the
current hit, with a view to achieving intergenerational equity. Basing
decisions on socio-economic analysis will never result in significant
reductions because, among other things, of the enormous effect of
discounting a benefit stream over a century or so.

Again, that's a statement of a flaw in the way "economics" works.
It's just a way of saying "live for today, there is no tomorrow".

.....The irrelevance of
science was highlighted when the global and national emission reductions
targets were set in Kyoto - the over all reduction target and the individual
national targets were not based on science but on political negotiation with
countries' positions being driven by socio-economic considerations.

However, whthout the guidance from the scientific community, how would the
politicians be induced to proceed toward ANY reductions in business as usual?

The bottom line - move away from policy discussions based on science and the
resulting scientific "debate", which that detract us from examining what
needs to be done to ensure sustainability of our socio economic systems in
the long term. This includes, of course, sustaining the earth's life support
systems, without which socio-economic activity cannot exist.

Without the foundation and projections of the future provided by scientific
understanding, it becomes impossible to make rational long term decisions,
We have seen many decisions in the past which were shown to be wrong as
the sciences progressed. We now have a level of understanding in many areas
that makes projections into the future possible. The future planning must
include as much of this knowledge as possible, or else we risk taking steps
which may well lead to greater problems in future.

Consider sending a human to Mars. How would one estimate the cost without
knowing the basics of space flight, ie, the science? What if it cost $1X to
send him on a one way trip, but $4X to send him there and back? If we could
only allocate $2X, would we decide to send him (or them), then leave him/them
there to die? Then the social question might become simply, why go in the
first instance?

The problem of sustainability is more than an economic one and can only
approached with full inclusion of the sciences. How else would one expect to
assess whether a chosen path is better than any other? What if it turns out
that "sustainability" requires a reductiion in population to a much smaller
level or a major reduction in consumption with fixed or growing population?
How would the decision makers be able to choose which course to follow, given
that neither choice would be acceptable to a society based upon democracy?

It's been more than 30 years since the U.S. oil production peaked. The
"decision makers" have not been able to face the problem, since there was
more oil to be found in other countries. Now that's no longer true and the
price of oil and other energy sources is trending up. We need a major shift
in direction in national thinking, but it appears not to be happening.
Looks to me like we'll just try and muddle thru for a few more years.

Then what, does the next generation start lining up for the euthanasia
machines? Maybe a few quick and dirty nuke blasts over third world mega
cities? How about a new pandemic disease never before seen on Earth for
which the good guys have developed a vaccine (for themselves)? Or, GM
crops that render the consumers sterile or induce cancer?

Time to stop, this is getting a bit deep....

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------