> Even if one assumes the premise that we are "optimally adapted" to the
> present climate (which I think would be difficult to rationally defend),
> it does not follow that changes to the climate would result in net costs.
When I made the remark that we were optimally adapted to the current
climate, I did not think that I would have to "defend it." We live in a
global free market economy, and Adam Smith's "invisible hand"
ensures that the economy is maximised for the environment in which it
acts. Of course the fit is not perfect. The Amazon jungle has not yet
been felled and cleared, so that is an area where production for human
consumption could be increased. Over-fishing in the North Atlantic
has wiped out the most productive fish species - cod, so in that
case we are also not in a maximal condition, but overall we grow
rice in the areas most suited to it, and corn in areas mot suited to that.
However, your point is that climate change might not result in a net
cost. My point is that there will be a cost. If vines become viable to
grow in Scotland, then there will be the cost of planting them. Of
course the farmer will not do that unless he sees a net saving, over
his current crop. So for min there will be no net cost, otherwise he
would not proceed, But what of the French farmer who now has to
give up his centuries old family vineyard because the climate is now
to hot and dry. That is a big cost that could be avoided if the climate
remained unchanged. Note that in this case there is a net cost,
because the Scot is switching production for marginal gain, but the
Frenchman is going bust.
Of course that scenario depends on the desert regions of the world
expanding. If they do, then there will obviously be a net cost. If we
say that there is a 10% possibility this would happen, then we can
calculate the net cost by multiplying the cost of the deserts expanding
by 10%. This then yields a net cost, and so there will be a net cost
to climate change.
Another way of looking at that is if the desert regions move towards
the poles, then a five degree move north will remove far more land
from agricultural production, than the five degree north movement of
the taiga will release to production, because the circumference of the
polar zones is much smaller than that in the sub-tropics.
As improvements from global warming you quote the opening of
the Northwest Passage. Is the fact that New Yorkers will be able
to get the gasoline for their SUVs from the North Slope of Alaska
for a few cents less really a benefit? But perhaps you were thinking
of the savings in the price of a Sony GameBoy in the UK, when the
shipping costs from Japan will be reduced.
And is it really and improvement if Scots can no longer have
porridge for their breakfasts, and have to eat cornflakes, because
their native land can no longer grow oats :-? The point is that for
every winner from change there is a loser. It is not axiomatic
that the winners will outnumber the losers. Of course, that is true
with technological change, which is driven by benefit, but it is not
necessarily true for climate change which is driven by inanimate
forces. Those forces have no consideration for the good of
mankind, nor do they ever show mercy.
For instance when technological change meant that the British
economy had to switch from coal to oil as the main source of
energy, the government closed the mines, and the miners were
thrown out of work. The net benefit was positive to the British
economy. However, the government ensured that the miners
received large redundancy payments. In this case mercy was
shown. Climate change, unlike Maggie, does not have a human face.
> To boldly assert as axiomatic that "change = bad" is, I think, rather
> naive and simplistic.
Agreed!
> Living as I do in a country where houses are expected to last about 30
> years, I find it hard to take seriously any worry that they might not be
> optimally adapted to the climate 100 years hence (let alone the sea
> level a few centuries later).
Living in an earthquake zone, in "temporary accommodation" is not
typical of most of the world, and really rules out any general conclusions
that you draw from that.
> Extropians would assert that "change = good" ...
Isn't that "rather naive and simplistic"?
> I do not endorse this point of view 100% but the difference in opinion
> seems as much philosophical as scientific. I think that understanding
> this POV goes a long way to explaining the differences between the
> environmentalists and the sceptics (even if it does not excuse the
> dishonesty of the denialist wing).
>
> I hope this doesn't sound too much like a septic handwave, expecting
> technology to magically save the day.
I am afraid it does, and only goes to confirm my suspicions of your sceptic
tendencies!
We do in fact differ on a philosophical POV. For me, Extropism is a
linear philosophy, which believes in steady, perhaps sometimes unsteady,
progress. For you, life is always improving, even if not monotonically.
For me, a neo-catastrophist, life is not that simple. By life I mean, Life,
the Universe, and Everything. They are all dynamical systems. There is
no a priori reason why there should be steady progress. Extropism seems
to view the world as system with a gentle positive feedback. But that is an
unstable situation, and if the positive feedback increases, then there is a
runaway situation - a catastrophe. Because it is runaway situation it
cannot
last long. On the other hand, when negative feedbacks dominate the
system it is stable, and the system remains in that state for a long time.
When you look at such a dynamical system passing in and out of positive
and negative feedback, such as the climate, there is a very high probability
that when you look it appears stable. Catastrophic events happen seldom,
are very short lived, and so are seldom seen.
Extropism believes in a gentle positive feedback, and so you, as an
Extropist believe in a gently warming world. But the real situation
is that both positive and negative feedbacks exist. The positive feedbacks
provide the chaos, or worse.
Broecker, is publishing a paper in Global and Planetary Change entitled
"Abrupt climate change revisited" where he concludes that the D-O
events were due to sea ice. I believe that the changes in albedo
trigger positive feedback from water vapour. The Arctic sea ice is melting
rapidly. If Broecker is correct, and I am sure he is, then we can expect
another rapid climate change when next year's El Nino finishes off the
remaining Arctic sea ice. I think I can guarantee that the net benefits
from
that will be negative! The world is not extropistic. It is catastrophic.
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
