The Speculist

I don't necessarily disagree, but how do # 4 and 5 differ?

5 makes 4 more specific. 5 is all about whether there's anything that can be done. 4 is about whether what's proposed is effective.

(As I read it, anyway.)

Actually, the way I read it, #4 asks whether there are actions that can be taken that mitigate the problem under consideration. #5 asks whether those actions would cause greater harm IN THEMSELVES than the harm incurred by taking no action.

A simplified example from a medical situation may serve to illustrate.

Problem: Patient complains of pain in foot.

Proposed solution: Attending physician recommends amputation of the limb above the knee.

According to the constraints of #4, amputation IS a valid solution to the problem. Adding condition #5 to the mix rejects the solution as excessively drastic.

In the context of the global warming debate, any solution that incurs greater costs in loss of economic output, and, consequentially, outright human suffering due to poverty and famine, than the projected human and economic impacts of maintaining the status quo should be carefully reconsidered.

Yo Jefe --

By my reading, your analysis is spot on, but actually deals with items 5 and 6, not 4 and 5.

Serves me right for popping my head up and using the "Ready, Fire, Aim" technique. I'll be in the hideout if anybody wants to send the pitchfork and torch crowd my way...

How is number 2 relevant? If the other 5 conditions are met, ie, there is a huge problem and we can take actions that will not cause greater harm than good, why would we sit back and wait for devestation to hit? Silly.

If you read Paul Hsiesh's piece, you'll see that there is not a requirement that each item be met in order for us to act. No one is suggesting waiting for devastation to occur before acting. Item 2 establishes human responsibility. I think it's reasonable to say that our response to an effect we have caused may be markedly different from one that occurs naturally. If I own some open land where wild animals are occasionally struck by lightning, I will accept that as the course of things. One the other hand, if animals are being electrocuted by power lines that I left exposed, I'll probably do something about it.

4 is theory. 5 is policy.

In theory, we could easily devise a policy to deal with our nuclear waste. In practice, our policy is actually quite bad.

Kyoto is a great example. Put carbon on a market. Limit the size of the market with penalties. Exchange of carbon credits means only the countries that want it the most will choose to purchase credits -- others will find alternatives.

In practice, the penalties are not paid and the benchmarks are set to benefit certain countries whose industries were in bad shape.

These is also no room for growth. I wouldn't want the credits to randomly increase yearly: they could be contingent upon increases in GDP. That carrot just isn't there.

A policy action that would solve any harm done by carbon emissions would be to replace the technologies that create carbon with cheaper technologies that do not. They are cheaper, so the market would adopt them.

This makes me feel every cent subsidizing expensive technology instead of funding research into better technology is a cent wasted.

Actually, the other 5 steps are completely important in determining if action is needed. Step 2 is not. Step 2 is only important in determining a solution, not in establishing if there is a problem, and not in determining if action is needed.
Phil, your example doesn't include the 3rd factor. Let's make it personal. Let's say those animals were your livestock. Regardless of the cause, you need to act, if you can, if you wish to save your livelihood. Steps 1, 3 and 6 are really the important ones (steps 4 and 5 are subsets of 6 - if the solution is worse than the problem, then it really isn't a solution, eh.) Is the problem real? Is the problem bad enough that preventing/reversing it is worth the cost? Step 2 is not necessary in the logical argument, the other 5 steps are sufficient and complete. That was my point.

A few weeks back, I posted an excerpt from Freeman Dyson's remarks on global warming.

"There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens mostly in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than in the tropics, in winter more than in summer, at night more than in daytime. On the whole, the warming happens most where it does the least harm. I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better."

I don't think we'll ever understand warming patterns under the current "climate" (pardon the pun) of inquiry. As long as people have an agenda to prove, we'll be locked in ad hominen arugments forever. But we should be looking for ways to develop clean energy and sustainable environmental and economic practices whether global warming is happening or not--and the private sector should be doing this without waiting for the government to demand it.

When I worked as a case management consultant, I helped self-insured companies manage their health care costs by assessing patients' needs rather than assiging a limit on medical services based on the diagnosis or procedure out of a text book. It was common for inpatient mental health and substance abuse programs to be designed on the "lengths of stay" insurance companies would allow, which had very little to do with what the patients might actually need. When I suggested that they make a treatment plan based on what the individual patient needed instead of an arbitrary "length of stay," they thought I came from another planet.

I think our approach to global warming is a lot like that. We've let bias and agenda pushing dictate our practice. We need to step back and give ourselves the freedom to assess the situation to see what the "patient" really needs.

Point 2) is important from the point of view of handling externalities. Ie, if certain human activities contribute substantially to global warming and impose substantial costs on others, then that extra cost should be reflected in the activity.