tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17322354.post114730209287258783..comments2023-05-16T03:46:32.576-10:00Comments on The Inflamitory: A Chill Wind Blows Through Tokyo...Carlos DelFuegohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14502773797090286126noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17322354.post-1147437326569466682006-05-12T02:35:00.000-10:002006-05-12T02:35:00.000-10:00Carlos, you’ve written a lot, in a calm tone, but ...Carlos, you’ve written a lot, in a calm tone, but actually said very little. I appreciate the time and tone, but am disappointed that you’ve punted. I conclude that you do so out of predilections that are unstated, and out of a lack of understanding of the economic principles involved.<BR/><BR/>My chief point in the RedState post was to note that it may be justified to take policy actions based on correlations without establishing direct causal links – so that, just as we regulate pollution and carcinogens in the US based on statistical correlations even though it is not possible to link these directly with damages sustained in any particular cases, it may very well be justified to take action to limit possible anthropogenically-forced climate change based on our current knowledge of how the climate system works and the role played by the greenhouse gases that we are pumping into the atmosphere (or otherwise affecting indirectly, such as methane and water vapor).<BR/><BR/>You agree that it is “common sense” to regulate carcinogens (neatly skipping past the regulation of air and water pollution), but offer no principled basis for refusing to take similar action on climate change. You refer to two “fallacies” relating to climate change, but it seems that essentially you are simply not satisfied as an evidentiary matter that action is justified at this point (rather than being opposed in principle to the concept that action can be justified based upon statistical correlations/expectations of costs - which can take the form either of likely or simply unpredictable consequences). <BR/>Based upon what I understand the bulk of climate scientists believe (including the AGU, the NAS and the chief international national academies of science), I understand that we have a sufficiently clear idea of the present and likely future consequences of human-induced climate change to justify taking modest actions now, and to try to coordinate with China and India to reduce the amount of GHCs that they can otherwise be expected to produce. <BR/><BR/>This is not based upon media “Doom and Gloom”, but what the scientific community is convinced of, and what captains of industry and political leaders have been persuaded of. The growth in levels of anthropogenically affected GHGs is startling large, and the effects being manifested are as well – Arctic thawing is particularly noticeable (25% of Arctic ocean ice in three decades; rapid melting of Greenland), and Lindsay and Zhang suggest that it will only be reversed through a pronounced cold period – something quite unlikely, as the open Arctic will continue to amplify the anthropogenic forcing. <BR/><BR/>We are looking at significant changes in the earth’s temperature; mankind as a whole can of course adopt and survive, but there are costs involved in the adaption and in the damages that are already being manifested – changes in hydrological cycles and water availability, increased susceptibility to pests such as the pine bark beetle, coastal erosion and buckling of roads and structures as permafrost melts. There are also real but uneconomic costs as species are disrupted and fail to adapt to the rapid change.<BR/><BR/>From an economics viewpoint, this problem is arising because of externalities in the behavior of all those producing and consuming fossil fuels and other GHCs, but who do not pay the price for their actions – as use of the atmosphere is largely unregulated (either through private property rights or through governments). Globally essentially we have a “tragedy of the commons” problem, since negative behavior is borne by all, so individual actors are essentially subsidized. The regulatory goal would be to cease the subsidy, and to make people bear the full costs of their actions. <BR/><BR/>As a background matter, I would note that other aspects of fossil fuel use also is subsidized, in the forms of pollution in development and consumption that is borne by all, by public road expenditures, and by vast expenditures on “defense” by the US – efforts to deal with climate change matters will to some degree offset these other subsidies. By dealing with these externalities, we actually improve the efficiency of the economy and general welfare.<BR/><BR/>In this connection, it is worth noting that doing nothing is itself a course of action, and pondering whom this course of action benefits. Who is funding non-action? Who is getting political gains from saying there is no problem or it’s not sufficiently proven?<BR/><BR/>I presume you are also aware of the growing consensus of opinion among world religious leaders to proactively deal with potential climate change, including most recently the "Statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative" by a coalition of conservative Christian leaders in the USat: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement. The statement is full of useful links to scientific and other relevant documents; there is also a very interesting resources page: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/resources. The positions of the US Catholic church and the Vatican on climate change are here for your reference: http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm; http://www.holyseemission.org/3Nov2005.html.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your further thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Regards, TomTokyoTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09588387872596983852noreply@blogger.com