This was written for the plik-l mailing list, Nov 16 2007
I actually had a bit of an argument yesterday with my dentist, no less, about global warming:
- Dentist: Hello, how are you today?
- Tim: Ok.
- D: Are you still in school?
- T: <defers complicated explanation for the simplified>
- D: Oh, so do you believe in global warming?
- T: <cites scientific study, like http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm>
- D: Well, i don't believe in it but even if it is happening, nobody is going to stop burning gas.
- T: Yea, but if gas and electricity were more expensive, then people would make better economic decisions, smaller cars etc.
- D: That would just prolong the supply. Oil is a great source of energy, and we are not going to stop using it until it become economically infeasible to do it. So, why worry? Oil will be depleted and the C02 will be stuck in the atmosphere, if not by us then by some other country that needs cheap energy to grow its economy, eventually. Economics.
- T: You seem to be hinting of China, I guess. But, if our leaders decided to let the price of oil float to where it should be, and did not fight wars over it, then there would be greater economic impetus & possibly government funding to develop alternatives to oil. This would give us some energy-independence.
- D: We are not in iraq for the oil. That's enough now, open up!
- T: Wait wait! But don't you know what global warming will do to the envirnoment? More storms, droughts, floods, famines, etc - all very expensive, terrible.
- D: I do not think there is sufficient organization in the world to impose the true costs of burning oil - e.g. the cost, accumulated over the future, of present greedy practices - upon present consumers.
- T: True, i suppose if we integrated up, the cost would be almost boundless. Hence we should stop burning oil right now!
- D: A responsibility to the future is not in the nature of man. They eventually die, and are selfish, greedy, and lack foresight during their lives. Besides, abstaining from oil imposes a severe economic disadvantage.
- T: But what about their - your! children? and the climate then?
- D: They are going to be rich dentists. See, I'm charging you $50 for 15 minutes of work. It's only going to get better.
- T: Not if the economy collapses. It seems we have based it on unsustainable growth, fueled by unreasonably cheap energy. This could happen in your lifetime, or mine - and your kids. Present luxury and high wages are based on the efficiency / cheapness of transportation of goods into the US, and the developed world's exploitation of the developing world.
- D: No. It is based on the labor/economic efficiency of manufacturing and agriculture. Anyway, take Europe for example - the price of oil there is high, and their economy is humming along.
- T: Yet efficient manufacturing and agriculture is somewhat dependent on cheap transportation. As for Europe, that's because they tax oil to pay for public development, among other things. And Europeans consume half the oil of their American counterparts.
- D: A gas tax that large would never happen here. People would go nuts, such a law would never pass!
- T: True. The political system is irrational and irresponsible, but I can't think of an alternative structure. Humans were not designed for this, such responsibility!
- D: If you keep talking I'm going to have to charge more.
- T: <opens mouth>
Mostly I'd have to agree with the dentist - the oil is going to be burned eventually, because it is just such a cheap source of energy. We are going to have to deal with the consequences. However, for coal - of which we have a far greater supply, and is considerably more dangerous / expensive to obtain - there is good reason to search for alternatives, and putting a tax on oil/natural gas now fund development of alternatives is probably very future-responsible, and will shift the energy climate so we relinquish coal (and maybe some oil) earlier, resulting in less CO2 in the atmosphere.
There are infinitely many things more worthy/long-range responsible than the war, but our leaders have not touched on that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is little evidence that they even measured the worth of all alternatives, and decided rationally, based on integrating (over time and path probability) best-of-present knowledge of benefits and consequences. Or maybe they decided rationally, but with the worth of alternatives measured *personally*. It is this that truly angers me.
Bayes for president 2008!
Comments:
|