The problem with Pascal's wager is that its set up is for a binary probability ie an either or situation. But there is a bias in the way this one has been set in that it is a choice between nothing and a single choice on climate change which is to reduce pollution or carbon emissions.
But another choice is to take actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change such as developing foods that can grow in elevated temperatures and other coping mechanisms. Pascal's wager then can't determine which of two strategies should be pursued.
I have to admit to being in the sceptic camp. My main problem is the news that is emerging that the rates of loss of ice exceed the models. This means that the models are misspecified in some way or miscalibrated. In the first instance it may mean that carbon emissions are not the only thing driving this and if that contention is correct then we may be putting all our eggs in one basket if we adopt a politically correct approach of dismissing sceptics outright and just focus on carbon emissions instead of refining our understanding. Ironically Pascal's wager really is about not committing to a belief, but relying on probability.
A much stronger argument is that there are other benefits to reducing pollution that are unrelated to climate change and that the first steps on this road are relatively cheap to pursue. I wouldn't be an economist if I didn't want us to look at the costs and benefits and optimise for a fuller model of how the economy and the environment interact.
It's a debate where a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing and climate change populist thinking is an act of faith not of science. As such it potentially sets up similar anomolies to what we see in the genetically modified foods debate where the same people who oppose GM foods often simultaneously support stem cell research on embryos.
Is it easier to be populist than to tackle the Hard Questions>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Here is a link to a speech by the chair of the Productivity Commission that is very interesting and in the first half and particularly the bottom of page 8 makes similar points about the range of options for policy making.
http://www.pc.gov.au/speeches/cs20090204
> The problem with Pascal's wager is that its set up is for a binary
> probability ie an either or situation.
Sure, real life isn't black/white, either/or, but even if you allow for shades of grey, you still get those consequences, just in a continuum rather than discrete.
> But there is a bias in the way this one has been set in that it is
> a choice between nothing and a single choice on climate change
> which is to reduce pollution or carbon emissions.
OK, let's separate the three issues:
Either climate is changing substantially or it is not. If climate change is real, then it is either caused (and can be affected by) human activity or it isn't. If human activity does have an effect on the climate, then either drastically reducing carbon emissions is the only way climate change could be halted or reversed, or else other, less drastic methods would be sufficient. Now, instead of a 2 by 2 grid, we have a 4 by 3 grid. The consequences are still massively unequal: the worst that can happen if we don't drastically reduce carbon emissions is some unnecessary spending and some unnecessary fear (unless climate change is real but is not caused by human activity, in which case the consequence is essentially the same no matter what we do); whereas the worst that can happen if we don't do anything - or don't do enough - is nothing short of global disaster.
> But another choice is to take actions to mitigate the impacts of
> climate change such as developing foods that can grow in elevated
> temperatures and other coping mechanisms.
We will probably have to do this anyway.
> My main problem is the news that is emerging that the rates of loss
> of ice exceed the models. This means that the models are
> misspecified in some way or miscalibrated. In the first instance it
> may mean that carbon emissions are not the only thing driving this
> and if that contention is correct then we may be putting all our
> eggs in one basket if we adopt a politically correct approach of
> dismissing sceptics outright and just focus on carbon emissions
> instead of refining our understanding.
In other words, human activity may be only part of the cause. But changing human behaviour is the only "basket" we have! We have to do what we can, not what we can't.
Also, dismissing an opposing opinion as "politically correct" (or "populist") is not really a criticism, is it? It's like referring to the "silent majority". :-)
> It's a debate where a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing and
> climate change populist thinking is an act of faith not of science.
That's the whole point of what I'm saying. We (ie the non-climatologists) don't have sufficient knowledge to be able to examine and draw conclusions from the evidence. But we do know enough to say that IF all the climatologists who say that drastically reducing carbon emissions is the only way climate change can be halted or reversed are correct, then we'd better do something about it; because if we don't, and it turns out that they were correct after all, it will probably be too late.
Cheers, Jonathan
Post a Comment