Worst. Video. Ever.

Economics Economics Questions
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=player_embedded

A short summery: Given that Global warming could potentaly cause enormous destruction to the earth and human society, we’re better off taking big action now, even if the it causes severe economic harm than to do nothing.

The biggest problem I see here is that his argument could be used to justify big action against ANY potental threat. Even a zombie acpoclpyse, After all, spending money constructing massive zombie-proof shelters, training voodoo masters to control the zombies, and issuing every family emergency flamethrowers and shotguns will be expensive, but if the dead start rising it’ll prove more then worth it when our brains arent being munched on. Somehow I doubt the guy who made this video would agree that we need to prepare for a zombie apocoplyse, but I have to ask why? Why arent zombies at least an equally great a threat as global warming. I imagine he’ll respond that global warming is more likely than a zombie apocoplyse, but that just brings us back to initial question he claims to be able to avoid: How likely is global warming(and the disasters allegedly associated with it)?

But theres a problem even if we accept his contention that global warming is a credible enough threat to justify massive action. And that is that he assumes that we know what kind of action is needed, and that such action will actually prove effective in averting disaster. Suppose(to use my above example) that we actually DO prepare for a zombie outbreak, but that our ‘zombie proof’ shelters prove to be not so ‘zombie proof,’ that our voodoo masters cant command them, and just for the hell it, these zombies are fireproof(hey its my hypothetical I can do whatever I want), now we not only have the zombies to deal with, but we’ve wasted a lot of real wealth and have less left to fight the zombies with.

In terms of global warming, many enviormentilists have argued that most plans to reduce carbon emmissions will prove ineffective, theres no way to prevent global warming without reducing carbon to pre-industrial levels(which is impossible without returning to a pre-industrial lifestyle). Some have argued that even that isnt enough, we’ve reached a ‘tipping point’ at which global warming fueled disaster is inevidable. If thats the case(and I’m not saying it is), we shouldnt be trying to reduce carbon emissions at all. On the contrary, we should be EXPELLING carbon in order to move people from coastal areas and to cooler climes, and to renovate our currently existing structures to deal with the storms etc. that are coming. I dont know for sure, but I doubt that is the kind of ‘action’ he wants us to pursue.

Any other thoughts/comments/snide remarks?

2

While I do believe climate change is an issue that ought to be addressed, it’s clear that marine cloud whitening, iron seeding, and ocean pipes could all be used to solve the problem of excess CO2 more effectively for a tiny fraction of the cost of cutting emissions, and by the way, it is possible to lower the amount of CO2 to pre-industrial levels, but reducing emissions isn’t the way to do it.

3

It’s Pascal’s Wager.

4

It’s Pascal’s Wager.

I hadnt thought about it, but you are correct. The logic is pretty much the same.

Misguided thoughts: Good point about other methods of cleaning out carbon, but I dont think it takes away from criticism: before we can recommend any policy we need to be reasonably certain that global warming will be a disaster, AND that the recommended policies will actually have the effect intented. I’d also warn(I cant believe I for this in my OP) against unintented consequences of any suggested action.