A very interesting and clever argument about the climate change debate, for both sides of the isle. The video is a bit long [09:33], but it's definitely worth watching!
Of course this is a simplified look at a complex problem, and the discussion could certainly be expanded to include other important issues such as our current oil-addiction and its consequences across the world, air and water pollution, and economic opportunities presented by an emerging "green" industry, just to name a few.
But there's no question the reasoning presented in the video makes a lot of sense. If you agree, please do spread the word. I don't mean to sound dramatic, but honestly, our fate may just depend on it. Public demand is our best - if not only - hope for change.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
--Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)
Bestsellers:
4 comments:
This guy should have done some research.
Amazingly, he is not the first person to have thought of odds and impacts of scenarios in this way. He might start with the decades-long modeling project executed by the Yale School of Forestry and Department of Economics to do for real what he is showing on a whiteboard. For that matter, he might have read the UN IPCC WG2 and WG3 reports which reference a lot of relevant research on this question.
Here are some (example) problems with his video:
1. His "bad case" is overblown and rhetorical. Under a reasonable scenario for global economic and population growth (Scenario A1B), the IPCC projects about 2.8C increase in global temperatures by 2100. According to any competent modelers (for example, the Yale project), this would lead to about break-even net global economic impacts, i.e., the positive benefits of warming would about equal the negative impacts. It's only when you get to warming of about 4C in 22nd and 23rd centuries that you, according to the IPCC, see a net reduction in global GDP of about 1- 5%. That's a lot of money, but it's hardly the Armageddon that he is describing.
2. According to the IPCC, no global climate model currently predicts any of the disaster scenarios he describes for the next century.
3. Without any quantitative consideration of odds of an outcome, you could apply this same 2X2 matrix argument to the risk of space aliens descending from the sky and killing everybody. Why don't we have crash programs that risk global depression against space aliens and a meteor strike and a global pandemic based on a modified version of Avian Flu and, and, and, and....? Because the list of such anxieties is endless and our resources are finite.
Hi, thanks for commenting! It's nice to see people are reading the blog :)
He's definitely not the first person to think about these scenarios in this way. But I don't think that's the point. He's a high-school science teacher who is presenting the argument in a clear and concise way for the general public to understand. He's simply trying to raise public awareness and inciting people to learn more about an important issue. And by this perspective, he's clearly succeeding.
The IPCC report "Climate Change 2007" is certainly a must-have reference, and I'd urge anybody who hasn't read it yet to do so ASAP (I provide links to it in a previous post).
However, regarding the extreme scenario presented in square 2B, it seems clear to me that this wasn't his only reference. Other reports present far more extreme scenarios (see, for example, Pentagon's "Abrupt Climate Change" report or this article about it).
In fact, it is acknowledged in the video that square 2B may present an excessively extreme scenario; but so is true for the "global economic depression" referred to in square 1A. As I point out in the post, there are several advantages of investing in cleaner technologies and alternative energy sources, independently of global warming concerns.
Finally, I agree that quantifying the odds of something happening or not is very important (this 0 or 1 approach is obviously a simplification); however, I believe that the same 2X2 matrix argument is usually not applied to the "risk of space aliens descending from the sky and killing everybody" :) because that is not really a threat people are too much concerned about... but on the other hand, climate change certainly is!
Regards,
MM
Talking about odds, please remember that the IPCC WG1 report ("Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis") affirms that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" (i.e. >90% certainty) causing most of the rise...
Nice work, I admire what you are trying to do but I don't think you can simplify the issue to a 2 dimensional decision matrix.
Even when the problem is reduced to that; the strategy that you have adopted (avoid the worst) is personal. Strictly speaking you would need some probability of outcome actually happening to make it more realistic.
Personnally I beleive that graphically representing the problem is only useful to a certain extent.
Imagine your four boxes but in three dimensions...and changing dynamically in time. That would probably be more realistic but dam hard to make a point with!
Good work!
Post a Comment