Professor Paddle: The Upside to Global Warming vanlinelogistics.com Seattle Washington (WA) Warehousing & Order Fulfillment vanlinelogistics.com Seattle Washington (WA) Warehousing & Order Fulfillment vanlinelogistics.com Seattle Washington (WA) Commercial Relocation vanlinelogistics.com Warehousing & Order Fulfillment
Professor Paddle Professor Paddle
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Home Calendar Forum FSBO Gallery PPages Reviews Rivers Links
  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch
Chit Chat
 Professor Paddle : General : Chit Chat
Message Icon Topic: The Upside to Global Warming Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Author Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 12:54pm
Yes, these scientists are overconfident in their models and their projections.   But the politicians and the lay people are much worse.  And massive societal investment is being driven more by hysteria than science and cost/benefit analysis.

In the middle of the 19th century, most scientists thought TB was caused by bad air (it isn't, it is a bacteria).  When I was a kid, virtually every scientist believed that ulcers were caused by stress.  Now we know that it is H. Pylori, a bacteria.  A week ago, it was revealed that the projections for AIDS made by all of the scientists at the UN over the past 10 years were wildly off and greatly overestimated the spread of disease.  2 weeks ago, the only way to create stem cells was from human embryos and the US was going to be hopelessly behind on research because GWB is the devil and wouldn't allow federal funding for research.  Today there is another method to create stem cells (from skin cells) and it sidesteps the entire ethical question (because there is none).

Models are a poor substitute for experiments.  Correlation is not causality and Arn has way more humility and uncertainty about "settled science" than a bunch of windbag politicians and supposed experts.

Conventional "wisdom" is often wrong and usually oversimplified. 

Anyone want to take a 10 year bet on the price of oil??


Edited by arnobarno - 23 Nov 2007 at 12:59pm
arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 3:02pm

Nice red herring Arn.  It is true that scientists have been wrong about about many things in the past and that correlation does not equate to causation.  This is not however a basis for dismissing scientific theories as you seem to be implying.  Scientific theories are always changing and evolving as more information becomes available and all we can do is review the latest data and make informed decisions based on it.  Computer models are far from the only evidence that suggests that global warming is caused by CO2 from human activity.  While there are still gaps in the prevailing theory the evidence is overwhelming. 

Are you planing devils advocate?


Edited by tradguy2 - 23 Nov 2007 at 4:29pm
... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
jondufay
PP Junkie
PP Junkie
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 772
  Quote jondufay Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by arnobarno

Yes, these scientists are overconfident in their models and their projections.   But the politicians and the lay people are much worse.  And massive societal investment is being driven more by hysteria than science and cost/benefit analysis.
 
huh?
 
http://www.physics.wwu.edu/jstewart/globalwarming.html
 
not sure that the scientists agree with you on this one arn...


Edited by jondufay - 23 Nov 2007 at 4:44pm
ahh, f--- it dude, lets go boating...
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
The OAC
WW Industry
WW Industry
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote The OAC Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 4:37pm
The public overstates the importance of models, not the scientists.  This is not a case of thinking "well, maybe TB is caused by bad air".  The models can not tell us with any certainty exactly what will happen in the future.  But we know, with out a shadow of a doubt, that increased levels of CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases in an atmosphere have a warming affect.  Not only do we know this, but we know how it does it.  Calling global warming hypothetical is like calling AIDS hypothetical (we don't know everything about AIDS, but we know A LOT).  The only sensible thing that we can do is assume the worst case scenario.
 
And I'll start the 10 year oil pool at $300/barrel, unless China invades the Middle East...


Edited by The OAC - 23 Nov 2007 at 4:39pm
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
The OAC
WW Industry
WW Industry
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote The OAC Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 4:40pm
Now lets go boating before the Sky starts steaming, cooking us all like lobsters in our little GoreTex baster bags...
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 9:21pm
Wooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee.

Who called global warming hypothetical?  I certainly didn't.  It seems undeniable that the northern hemisphere is warming.  The data over the past 100 years is the data and it seems virtually everyone agrees that the earth has gotten warmer.  It is also undeniable that greenhouses gases can cause the earth to get warmer (since they are the primary reason why the planet is habitable at temperatures that are pleasant for us humans in the first place).  The comparison with AIDS though is specious. 

What I'm talking about is why it is warmer, what is likely to happen in the future (models) and what we should do about it (public policy).   All of these questions are much more in the supposition category - especially the last two.

Just because you care about the environment (I do deeply) or people (I do deeply) doesn't mean we can afford as a society to toss money around to solve every problem that exists.  Some are more important than others and assuming the worst case scenario as Jeff suggested is terrible public policy.

There is a super interesting website to look at if you are interested in looking at a framework for how we invest our money in terms of trying to solve the most important problems on the planet today.  It gathered many Nobel scientists, politicians and specialists looking at a menu of problems facing the world - not just global warming (or AIDS for that matter) and how we could help the most people.  It also allows you to try to formulate your own ranking of various problems facing the world.

Here is the link: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

Hopefully it is thought provoking.

And, for what it is worth, I'm hoping for some global warming tomorrow - focused around the Index -> Gold Bar corridor because it looks like it is going to be pretty cold out there.


Edited by arnobarno - 23 Nov 2007 at 9:44pm
arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
ashleygoesdisco
PP Junkie
PP Junkie
Avatar
Princess Sparkle Horse

Joined: 12 May 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 904
  Quote ashleygoesdisco Replybullet Posted: 23 Nov 2007 at 9:25pm
wooooOOOoooo global warming!

only because it gets me excited to climb things that wont be there in some number of years....


Edited by ashleygoesdisco - 23 Nov 2007 at 9:25pm
Ashley Duffus
Well behaved women rarely make history.
www.naiyadays.blogspot.com
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
spindrift
Viener Schnitzel
Viener Schnitzel


Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9
  Quote spindrift Replybullet Posted: 24 Nov 2007 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by arnobarno



...GWB is the devil...

Well, at least you have one thing right!

IP IP Logged Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 25 Nov 2007 at 3:37pm

Arn, first let me say I think the limits of internet forums have resulted in a bit more animosity being inferred than intended. I am just trying to understand your point of view.

It appears to me that your perspective is primarily an economic one. You may be surprised to know that I too believe that a great deal of the money we spend to solve problems (including global warming) is wasted if you look at it in terms of a cost benefit ratio. Ethanol for example poses a series of problems that make me seriously question its value as a practical alternative fuel source.

I believe we are really discussing two separate but related issues.

1. Does global warming justify immediate action? Remember, yelling fire in a burning building is not alarmist if the building is really burning. We need to do is determine how significant the consequences of global warming are likely to be. Is this a one or five alarm fire? Unfortunately there is no way to be certain until after the fact. All we can do is base our actions on the best science.

2. If action is required, how should be best approach it? The answer to this question obviously changes with the urgency of the problem at hand. If the consequences are minor the appropriate response is very different than if it is significant.

... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 25 Nov 2007 at 4:43pm
Tom,
Don't worry.  I don't take anything personally on these forums unless people are really attacking personally.  I think virtually everyone stayed on point here so that is cool.

I appreciate you taking the time to understand my point of view.  And, yes, virtually all of my objections are based on economics.

Regarding your two specific questions, I'd ask people to do a thought experiment.  Suppose I could prove that GW was natural.  That is, even though CO2 has increased because of man and is projected to increase further, it was not the cause of GW or was a minor cause, at best.  Rather, variation in solar radiation or some other random cause was to blame.  Now then, I'm not saying this is true - merely hold out that possibility for my thought experiment - would you propose that we try to take action to lower temperatures and move us off of this "natural" course?  Because, if climate change is "bad" and requires immediate action, the reason for climate change shouldn't matter.  Any change off of today's "optimal" temperature pattern should want you to invest in altering it.

Okay, enough for that thought experiment.

Now then, even if GW was 100% caused by man and was proved as such, and even if the forecast models were correct (two big IFs), virtually all of the proposed solutions are driven more by "hysteria" (I'll use quotes here simply because it is my value laden judgment that it is hysteria) than by a careful analysis of what we'd get for our money and other alternative investments we are forced to forgo.

For example, even if all countries had ratified Kyoto and lived up to their commitments - which many are having a hard time doing - and stuck with them through the 21st century, the temperature in 2050 would have been .1 degree F lower and by 2100 .3 degree F lower.  And, the cost for implementing just Kyoto over the century - with the US participating - is estimated to be about $5T (that is trillion) for marginal benefits.  Really making a dent in the projected forecasts would cost much, much more and the payoffs have been measured at single cents on the $ of investment.

What could you get instead?  There are so many other and more pressing issues for the planet - especially in the third world.  4M (million) people dying right now from malnutrition, 3M from HIV/AIDS, 2.5M from air pollution and 2M from lack of clean drinking water - just to name a few problems.

People need to ask themselves what do we want to do first?  Where do extra resources do the most good?  To me, it is more important to "do good" than to "feel good" and all too often, people want to throw money at problems because it makes them feel good but they don't reflect on what they aren't doing when they take that action.   We could save more polar bears, reduce flooding, decrease poverty, reduce starvation, etc. etc. for far less money than is being proposed to be spent on GW.

I'd urge people to keep an open mind and consider their views in the context of all of the things we could "do good" with our resources.  Furthermore, remember that hurting economic growth - at the margin - restricts resources that we have in the future to do good.  People don't start worrying about the environment until they have food on the table, roofs over their heads and can educate their children.  Limiting economic development can be very counterproductive to your overall goals of a "cleaner" environment.


Edited by arnobarno - 25 Nov 2007 at 5:29pm
arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
huckin harms
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1477
  Quote huckin harms Replybullet Posted: 25 Nov 2007 at 5:42pm
Cept for the whole bear and croc thing... that was getting off point
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 12:40pm

I doubt anyone will read this but…

 

First off, I need to agree with Arn on a couple of your points.  From an economic point of view he is 100% correct in stating that the money we are spending to fight global warming has been largely ineffective by almost any measure.  CO2 output continues to grow annually and indications are that the Kyoto Protocol has done little to slow that growth.  In my estimation the economic debate should be divided into two parts.  

 

1.  Is the current economic response effective?  I think we agree that it is not.  

2.  Is the economic response proportional to the problem?  I believe this is where we differ.

 

I don't think I’m off base when I say that I think global warming is a much bigger problem than Arn does.  While it is true that the media and environmentalists often overreact that fact alone is not reason to conclude that this issue does not warrant more attention. 

 

Arn is correct in stating that there could be other causes of the warming.  Unfortunately none of the alternative explanations currently proposed are very plausible.  The solar radiation theory used is a great example.  This theory is often proposed by skeptics but the problem is that that there hasn’t been a trend  

in any index of solar activity since about 1960 that would support that conclusion.  In addi

... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 1:16pm
By the way, I think we should finish this over beers rather than hijacking a whitewatwer forum.  
... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 1:27pm
Tom,
Good discussion.  And, it would be fun to continue over beers instead of here because at this point, I think only you and I are reading this

I think that we are totally in agreement that this is an economic discussion.  Though I ask you to answer the thought experiment I posted above - if this was proved to be natural, would you be arguing for adaptation or active steps to change the climate off its "natural" course.

But, let's assume that climate change is real.  Let's assume it is 100% caused by man.  Let's assume that the earth will be warmer in 100 years in the range of the forecast.  So what do we do?

An interesting analogy I read is about automobile fatalities.  2% of the deaths in the world are caused by auto accidents.  1.2M people a year - many in the 3rd world and it is growing there.  And the costs of these deaths is estimated to be $500B per year.  Yet, we have the technology today to lower the number of traffic accidents virtually to zero.  Just reduce the speed limit to 5mph.  Nobody dies.  But society views that the benefits from driving moderately fast outweigh the costs.

This isn't a crazy analogy.  Because if we are to believe the scientists and their models, GW is caused by people and we have the technology to reduce it to zero.  Yet, every year we continue to make it worse.  Why?  Because we have decided that the benefits from fossil fuels outweigh the costs.

Unfortunately, the discussion on GW has become so fixated on CO2, that people forget what presumably is the bigger objective - how to improve our quality of life and the environment.  This, of course, is a question of economics.  We look for solutions where the benefits outweigh the costs.  That is a discussion worth having.  But, this is often a difficult discussion for people to have because some feel they shouldn't have to make these choices (e.g. if we can afford to put a man on the moon, or if we can afford to go fight a senseless war in Iraq, or ...)  And, sadly, all too often people are focused on feeling good rather than doing good.  I'm not saying they want to do something bad - but they go for solutions that feel good rather than look at the full costs and benefits of what they've proposed.


Edited by arnobarno - 26 Nov 2007 at 1:29pm
arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
franzhorner
PP Junkie
PP Junkie
Avatar
outdoors music woodwork

Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 751
  Quote franzhorner Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 3:29pm
I read this banter for sure!  Intresting stuff!

Once again I will say that man will not turn anything around unless it is feasable economically.  We'd rather continue making the same mistakes knowing full well of their outcome than to have the economy take a hit!   For shame!

Whats gonna happen to our economy if  we enter into the Kyoto treaty?

We promote democracy and capitalism around the world yet we thumb our nose at the world democracy and world economy if it would weaken our own econmic standing.

We can't stop the war on drugs because that would screw up the economy.

We had to have the war in Iraq because if we didn't our economy would have taken a huge hit not cashing in on the war machine investments of companies like Halliburton.

I could go on an on with these examples....

The first thing we look at  in this country no matter what the issue is how will that affect the economy.  Someday when the whole system fails maybe we'll gauge our "to do" lists on something other than money......

DON'T STOP HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS!  START AND OFF-TOPIC  FOLDER!  BOATERS SHOULD DEBATE THESE ISSUES WITH BOATERS!!!  WAY TO GO PP!
MORE RAIN PLEASE
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 3:51pm

I agree Arn, your analogy is not crazy.  The only serious point of contention I have with any of your arguments or analogies is this:  I believe, as do most climatologists, that the results of GW are more serious than you do.  If true, the cost benefit analysis yields a different result. 

 

One last thought.  I believe the problem we have now is, at least in part, the result of a segment of environmental movement that has been crying wolf for years.   People have grown so weary of their false cries that they are no longer checking to see if the wolf is really there.  Let’s hope it isn’t.  If it is, we’re screwed.  

... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 26 Nov 2007 at 3:57pm
Topic has been moved to the Chit chat forum.
... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
The OAC
WW Industry
WW Industry
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote The OAC Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 2:20pm
I think tradguy2 makes some pretty good points.  Arno, one thing that hasn't come up in response to your earlier post about the cost/benefit analysis of solving global warming is that many of the issues you list as more important (disease, malnutrition, access to drinking water) are all strongly linked to global warming.
 
The likely effects of global warming are more tangible then a couple of polar bears starving to death in the arctic.  We know that shifting climates dramatically alter precipitation patterns (this can be seen even on very small scales in terms of time).  This in turn affects agriculture and the availability of drinking water to population centers.  In the developed world a shift in agriculture means higher food prices.  In the developing world it means starvation and social upheaval.
 
Even the effects of global warming on disease can be easily imagined.  Tropical regions are the source of most diseases, many of which originate in marine environmens.  As ocean waters warm this organisms are able to expand their range.  This seems a little far fetched but is no different than catching subtropical fish of the coast of Washington during El Nino events.  In fact this expansion of marine pathogens has already been noted noted with cholera. 
 
And what about the potential mass displacement of humanity if ocean levels rise?  It seems trivial to us at a safe elevation of feet about the high water line but what about the millions of people who live within inches in southeast Asia and elsewhere?
 
It's a poor anology to compare the potential damage of global warming to automobile fatalities.  Automoble fatalities are easily quantified, mitigated, and minimized.  Global warming by its very nature is something that will increase in intensity with time.  If we want to simply accept the likely calamity as the cost of the developing world living in large houses and driving hummers so be it, but we need to realize that this is something that will continue to get worse with time...
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 3:51pm

Thanks Jeff, I made those points to Arn as well.  I also recomended that he read book called Six Degrees that is coming out in January.  Based on a few reviews it should be pretty good.  In the interest of open-mindedness I am also going to read a few books he recomended while I am away on business.  I think Arn agrees with us more than I originally thought.  The primary difference is that as you noted, he believes the effects of GW will be more limited than I do.  He also has great faith in science to solve the problem.  This is a point we will probably discuss over beers in the future.     

... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 5:10pm
Actually, speaking for Arn, he still has lots of disagreements with you guys.

The fact that some of the issues are linked to global warming (and tropical diseases actually is a good example, the others are more dubious) doesn't change the framework in which you want to make decisions.  Figure out the places where you get the best bang for the buck, using a variety of expected scenarios.  Spend money to improve quality of life and the environment.

All that is usually in the debate is the scare side of the equation w/o a lot of context.  It sounds scary to talk about people who live within inches of the sea - but how much land is really at risk?  What are the economic costs of protecting it?   How much land can you protect with how many $$$?  How many people foolishly build in flood plains today - that is, regardless of global warming?  How much money do we foolishly spend to bail out those people or encourage people to settle there?  How much less economic development (and thus money to pay for future protection) do we forgo by making foolish investment choices today? 

It is all economics.

Or, in plainer language.  Do stuff that makes sense.  Don't spend money on stupid sheet.





arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 5:34pm
Originally posted by arnobarno


It is all economics.
Or, in plainer language.  Do stuff that makes sense.  Don't spend money on stupid sheet.
Arn, why do you keep coming back to this, I have never disagreed with you on this point.  There are indeed many example of money that was not spent wisely in an effort to "solve" a problem.  I have NEVER said otherwise.  Performing a cost benefit analysis is a great way to determine how to spend money wisely.   
 
It is simply my opinion that the figures you are using in your cost benefit analysis are wrong.


Edited by tradguy2 - 27 Nov 2007 at 5:34pm
... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
The OAC
WW Industry
WW Industry
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote The OAC Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 5:45pm

Actually I would consider the spread of disease to be the more dubious (but quite real)... the other effects are better established, especially the changes to rainfall patterns. 

You're right in that it is all economics, but it shouldn't be.  Economics is just a word that describes the rather warped group psychology that drives consumerism in the western world.  I can't put it any better than a former vice president of Esso (of all people) who stated "Socialism failed because it did not allow the market to tell the economic truth.  Capitalism may fail because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth".
 
The more we ignore global warming (at the behest of industry and industry financed politicians) the more we build up a massive debt (metaphorically and literally) that future generations will have to pay.  We can suck it up and deal with it now and it probable won't be that bad, or we can allow the problem to get a whole lot worse and really have to pay for it later.
 
One last note on the floodplain issue... there are places we shouldn't build (looking at you, New Orleans) and places people have to build (Bangladesh, Pacific Islands, etc.).  We should differentiate between the two. 


Edited by The OAC - 27 Nov 2007 at 5:46pm
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
tradguy2
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar
Fabric Fanatic

Joined: 25 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1433
  Quote tradguy2 Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 6:28pm

Arn, I suspect part of the problem is that we are looking at 2 separate CBA's (cost benefit analysis).  You seem to like economic analogies so l'll try to illustrate my point using life insurance.  The alanogy is not perfect because policies are not quite as simple as I imply, but I think in this case the analogy is sufficiently accurate. 

There are two ways to determine the CBA of life insurance policies.  One is to compare individual policies and determine which one gives the best coverage for the price.  Clearly, the one that gives you the most bang for the buck (so to speak) should be the one we choose.    

The second part of the CBA should be to determine how much the policy is needed in the first place.  If I am independently weathy, single, young and heathy the need for life insurance is quite small.  That is to say that the CBA tells me that there is not much value in purchasing a policy.  On the other hand if I am old, financially strapped, in poor health and have 10 kids dependent on me being a bread winner a quick CBA would tell me that my need for a policy is much greater.
 
As far as I can tell you are referring to the 1st CBA and I am talking about the 2nd one.  I believe we agree on the first one.  If we are going to spend money to "solve" the problem of GW we should spend it wisely.  There is no need to debate this further as I doubt anyone disagrees with this premise (even if they do unknowingly spend their money poorly).
 
In my opinion the real debate should be about the 2nd CBA.  If the earth is not very sick the risk is low and the need for insurance is as well.  I happen to believe that mother earth is pretty damn sick and that we should consider getting a pretty big (but well chosen) policy.   
 
To summarize,  I think we both agree that we should buy the most cost effective policy.  We just disagree on how large it should be.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am not trying to put words in your mouth. 
 


Edited by tradguy2 - 27 Nov 2007 at 6:31pm
... preparing for a river beating!     
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
arnobarno
Big Boofer
Big Boofer
Avatar

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 450
  Quote arnobarno Replybullet Posted: 27 Nov 2007 at 8:45pm
Actually, Jeff, I'll help you here since it appears you need it as you resorted to trash talking (which would be okay but it wasn't that funny). 

Disease was actually your best point because malaria will be worse with global warming.  Estimates are for it to grow substantially.  Now then, there are ways to mitigate this and there are lots of things we should be doing today in the 3rd world which have very little cost and save lots of lives.  I believe this is actually one of the projects of the Gates Foundation.

But, you are dead wrong on the economics.  It should be all about economics and this is where I take issue with the entire discussion around GW (not with you, Tom, we agree here).  If there is an externality (like pollution or in the case of GW, CO2), it can be regulated by governments and priced by markets to achieve outcomes that are benefit maximizing for people.  That is the beauty of markets.  But fiat-type regulations and scare tactics don't help anybody.

Regarding insurance Tom, again, we agree here and your analogy is a fine one.  But I am talking about your case #2 as well as case #1.  The problem is the cost of the insurance in case #2.  If you know you are sick and old and have lots of dependents.  And, the insurance company knows you are sick and old and have lots of dependents, that insurance is going to be mighty expensive.  And, insurance - in the aggregate - is a sucker's bet by definition or there wouldn't be insurance companies.  So, again it comes down to economics.  For society as a whole, insurance only makes sense against the tail of the curve.

But, Tom, something you said earlier is perhaps where we have the most fundamental difference.  Basically, I am an optimist on people and technology.  I believe that people are infinitely resourceful and will find solutions to our problems so the idea of 100 year projections is prima facie crazy to me.  The only thing I know about projections of the future is that they will be wrong.  Or, as Yogi Berra said, "The future ain't what it used to be."  One fundamental breakthrough in physics (e.g. nuclear fusion) would relinquish this entire discussion to the dustbin of history.  For me, my "insurance policy of type #2" would be spending more money on R&D in non-carbon emitting energy technologies.


arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address)
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
The OAC
WW Industry
WW Industry
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote The OAC Replybullet Posted: 28 Nov 2007 at 7:04am

Who's trash talking?  There was no trash talking in there (and lets keep this on the level of a friendly, insightful conversation).  You've yet to address the fundamental flaw in your argument, which is the assumption that the effects of global warming will be minimal.  If that's correct, then fine.  Assuming it should be all about economics then we can wait until it becomes an economic necessity before we do anything about it (at which point in time it will be too late).

If, as all the best science suggests, it is more serious than that then it becomes an economic imperative to do something about it now.  Take a small economic hit now instead of a big one down the road.

And are you really suggesting we stake the entire future of our society and the habitability of our planet on the likelihood that some future technological breakthrough will save us all?  Just so that we can continue excessive lifestyles now?  Why don't we start to ease back on our lifestyles now (which will solve a lot of problems beyond global warming) and work toward the technology of the future.


Edited by The OAC - 28 Nov 2007 at 7:29am
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum