Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

Lurch · 05-24-2007, 09:57 AM

I just don't get how anyone can make an argument against reducing GHG emissions in the current environment. The argument boils down to reducing emissions slows growth, hurts the economy and the negative impact is not 100% proven. So, if even if we accept all of these negative things, reducing emissions accomplishes at least the following:
1. Reduced use of fossil fuels (potential geopolitical benefits by reducing imports from OPEC, air quality benefits, extend life of a finite resource.)
2. Spur investment in alternative fuels
3. Helps developing countries advance in a clean(er) fashion to the extent that offset trading occurs
4. Put a price on pollution, something that clearly has negative impacts that are not reflected in the current economy.
5. Lower health care costs (seen various studies suggesting this is a large potential benefit)

All of these things occur with a price tag less than the Iraq war, even at the high end of estimates from what I've seen. Perhaps there is a net cost to the economy, perhaps not. It depends on your bias, I imagine. I personally suspect a short-lived adjustment (5 to 10 years) of lower economic growth, then back to business as usual as people, firms and governments adapt to the new reality.

Now, if you add to these benefits the risk adjusted possibility the global warming fearmongers are correct, it is not even a question of whether to act or whether to twiddle our thumbs and wait for THE PROOF. As a very simple example, suppose lowering GHG emissions reduces severe hurricanes by 1 hurricane per year (many have suggested severe weather will be amplified by global warming). Katrina caused $25b damage in the southern US alone. If there is a 10% likelihood that the severe weather theory is right and just one less severe hurricane per year is the only benefit, you are looking at a $2.5 billion risk adjusted benefit every year.

Obviously, above is a simplistic example. However, unless you believe there is basically a 0% chance that reducing GHG emissions can impact global warming and any/all of the associated damages, there is an expected net benefit to acting now. Even the downside has some benefits, and IMO arguing against action mathematically requires you to take an extreme position that there is 0% chance we are having an impact and/or there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

05-24-2007, 09:57 AM	#119
Lurch Scoring Winger Join Date: Jan 2004 Exp:	I just don't get how anyone can make an argument against reducing GHG emissions in the current environment. The argument boils down to reducing emissions slows growth, hurts the economy and the negative impact is not 100% proven. So, if even if we accept all of these negative things, reducing emissions accomplishes at least the following: 1. Reduced use of fossil fuels (potential geopolitical benefits by reducing imports from OPEC, air quality benefits, extend life of a finite resource.) 2. Spur investment in alternative fuels 3. Helps developing countries advance in a clean(er) fashion to the extent that offset trading occurs 4. Put a price on pollution, something that clearly has negative impacts that are not reflected in the current economy. 5. Lower health care costs (seen various studies suggesting this is a large potential benefit) All of these things occur with a price tag less than the Iraq war, even at the high end of estimates from what I've seen. Perhaps there is a net cost to the economy, perhaps not. It depends on your bias, I imagine. I personally suspect a short-lived adjustment (5 to 10 years) of lower economic growth, then back to business as usual as people, firms and governments adapt to the new reality. Now, if you add to these benefits the risk adjusted possibility the global warming fearmongers are correct, it is not even a question of whether to act or whether to twiddle our thumbs and wait for THE PROOF. As a very simple example, suppose lowering GHG emissions reduces severe hurricanes by 1 hurricane per year (many have suggested severe weather will be amplified by global warming). Katrina caused $25b damage in the southern US alone. If there is a 10% likelihood that the severe weather theory is right and just one less severe hurricane per year is the only benefit, you are looking at a $2.5 billion risk adjusted benefit every year. Obviously, above is a simplistic example. However, unless you believe there is basically a 0% chance that reducing GHG emissions can impact global warming and any/all of the associated damages, there is an expected net benefit to acting now. Even the downside has some benefits, and IMO arguing against action mathematically requires you to take an extreme position that there is 0% chance we are having an impact and/or there is nothing we can do about it anyway.