Environmentalism, Pollution, Global Warming Deniers, Government Regulations, and Market Incentives
One important question of the modern environmental movement is whether market processes can be used to mitigate climate change more efficiently, and what the government's role in climate change should be. How do we properly assess the economic risks of inaction or action? And further more, what responsibility do we have to those more vulnerable to the phenomenon (poorer countries, our descendants)? In short, how do we deal with this example of the tragedy of the commons?
Of course, before we address the issue, I will attempt to dispel some of the beliefs of the global-warming deniers among us. In fact, there is a definite consensus in the scientific community that global warming is occurring, and at least part of it is due to human causes.
This argument is a bit long for posting, so I'll link to it in the comments section so it doesn't clutter the front page too much.
So once we have come to the conclusion that global warming is occurring, which IS the scientific consensus, the question becomes what we do about it. And this is where the legitimate debate comes in. The question is not one of if, but of when and how much. Until these questions are answered, one cannot properly perform a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. And at the present our science is not good enough to conclusively say when and how much, or whether anything can realistically be done about climate change. Certainly, trying to impose climate change regulations may be a mistake, but so may opposing them, and this is what we should be debating – not whether climate change is occurring, but whether it is worth the investment to try to stop it, when we may fail anyway. (Of course, there are many other reasons for environmental regulations that are entirely unrelated to climate change, but that is another matter.)
So back to my original point. Should we decide that global warming is something worth dealing with, how can it be done efficiently using market processes?
I have posted an article from the Encyclopedia of Earth (a Wikipedia-like, but professionally written, source) that covers the issue of environmental economic policy in detail.
1 comment:
This argument is in no way complete, and could have easily been much longer.
The problem with the global warming debate is that it is a manufactured debate (same deal for evolution). Organizations such as the Heartland Institute find a few dissenters and then play up their testimony to support their platform. This can be done because the general public is typically ignorant on the subject, is not willing to do the research for themselves, and cannot test the assertions themselves. The global arming deniers seize upon small pockets of scientific dissent to bolster their arguments, yet many do not even seem to understand the concept of consensus. There are always dissenters on any scientific issue; there are even people who deny gravity, and people who believe the Earth is flat, but they aren’t taken seriously. If you actually take the time to examine respected scientific organizations, you will find that almost all major scientific organizations, and many private companies do believe that global warming is occurring.
A good summary of the global warming consensus at
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
Their list includes numerous scientific organizations and many industries and political organizations, several of which would be expected to oppose the global warming consensus, including Shell and BP. Among national/international scientific organizations, none explicitly oppose the consensus of man-made global warming. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists did previously, but even they (who have strong incentives to oppose the consensus) have changed their official statement to a non-committal statement after massive outcry from their members. Other non-committing organizations include the American Association of State Climatologists (who are appointed by politicians, not scientists).
As for the dissenters, the famous list by the Heartland Institute of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming” has since been exposed to be fraudulent. The list was compiled without the permission of the scientists represented, and almost 10% have since demanded that their names be removed, arguing that the Institute distorted, misrepresented, or misinterpreted their data. I’m more inclined to believe that the scientists interpreted their data in the correct manner, not some political think-tank member.
see http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
It’s also worth noting that the rash in criticism of the IPCC’s report on climate change can be in part attributed to Exxon-Mobil’s explicit funding of global warming denying research. Exxon Mobil also gave $600,000 to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2006, and even skeptics are criticizing each other for improper science/misinterpretation. While industry funded science is not uncommon (and generally looked on skeptically by reputable journals), it is rare for a company to come out and say “we will pay x for y findings. It also violates all rules of scientific ethics. If this happened in the pharmaceutical industry, (say, falsifying safety studies, it would be grounds for major lawsuits and probably criminal cases).
see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
One way that the debate continues is that the economic incentive structure favors deniers, who have industry and political support, if not scientific support. True, a global warming denier may risk his scientific credibility, but the potential for industry funded research is a significant incentive (especially as its can be better funded than government research).
Finally, the issue is complicated by poor science on both sides. Many on the left make out global warming to be a catastrophic, flood-your-cities-in-two-decades type phenomenon. This is ridiculous, and unsupported by the scientific literature. Most of the ice will not melt anytime soon, and sea level rise will be small. However, people also fail to realize that small changes in sea level can have massive effects on coastal areas and low lying areas. Sure, two feet of sea level change over 80 years won’t mean anything to California or most cities, but it is enough to increase erosion to the point that entire island countries, such as the Maldives, could be destroyed. In the US, we are already experiencing massive erosion and shoreline retreat in the Outer Banks and other areas, and tens if not hundreds of millions are spent every year simply dredging sand to put back on the front of the islands so that oceanfront property doesn’t fall into the ocean.
And there are many other potential problems – increased spread of disease, drought conditions, etc. that come with global warming. There are also benefits – increased productive farmland in northern regions, for example, or possible increased precipitation due to increased evaporation from the oceans. But deniers highlight regional or recent cooling to highlight their position without appropriately interpreting global trends. Overall, when this “science” is put in the public eye it creates an appearance of debate and evidence for both sides, even when the scientific community as a whole is very consistent.
As for Jake's argument that harmful pollution doesn't exist - seriously? What are you, a Captain Planet villain? I still can't believe you weren't joking there.
Post a Comment