So, to those of you who are convinced that industrial/transportational CO2 is the major driver of human-caused global warming, what do you propose to do about China and India?
Complaining about the U.S. is all well and good (as is ignoring how far off of Kyoto protocols are the nations who are actual signatories), but China and India have half the world’s population and are ramping up their CO2 emissions to the point that European/U.S. emissions will be irrelevant - or at least greatly reduced in terms of overall percentage.
See this article in the Economist:
Question: How would you convince a person skeptical about CO2 emission as important in the first instance that he should sacrifice a large percentage of economic growth (and thus future wealth) if India and China (and Brazil, actually) aren’t going to sign on to be restricted?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Question: How would you convince a person skeptical about CO2 emission as important in the first instance that he should sacrifice a large percentage of economic growth (and thus future wealth) if India and China (and Brazil, actually) aren’t going to sign on to be restricted?[/quote]
I would make a movie and show phony images of polar bears drowning, shout down logical debate and use various forms of scare tactics thus marginalizing skeptics.
That might win you an Oscar, but let’s assume you’re aiming at intelligent people… perhaps even economists who understand the importance of assumed discount rates…
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Question: How would you convince a person skeptical about CO2 emission as important in the first instance that he should sacrifice a large percentage of economic growth (and thus future wealth) if India and China (and Brazil, actually) aren’t going to sign on to be restricted?
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would make a movie and show phony images of polar bears drowning, shout down logical debate and use various forms of scare tactics thus marginalizing skeptics.
That might win you an Oscar, but let’s assume you’re aiming at intelligent people… perhaps even economists who understand the importance of assumed discount rates…
[/quote]
But that audience is not receptive.
If CO2 induced global warming is a real issue it will be a hard sell to people that think about all the implications of trying to reduce CO2 emissions.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Question: How would you convince a person skeptical about CO2 emission as important in the first instance that he should sacrifice a large percentage of economic growth (and thus future wealth) if India and China (and Brazil, actually) aren’t going to sign on to be restricted?[/quote]
You cannot convince people who already have their sights set on financial gain to change their habits. We have to change their (and our own) ideas about economics and how it cannot be separated from the environment since the environment is the only resource.
If CO2 output affects the environment in a negative way it doesn’t make sense that we wouldn’t try to limit it. The problem is how do we prove CO2 affects the environment? We do not have hard proof that CO2 output really means anything. However, I do believe it is in our best interest to curb our output before we choke ourselves–if nothing else.
I think the best we can do is convince people that it is actually economically more beneficial to be sustainable and that absolute economic growth isn’t absolutely beneficial if the environment is being compromised.
If CO2 output affects the environment in a negative way it doesn’t make sense that we wouldn’t try to limit it. The problem is how do we prove CO2 affects the environment? We do not have hard proof that CO2 output really means anything. However, I do believe it is in our best interest to curb our output before we choke ourselves–if nothing else.
I think the best we can do is convince people that it is actually economically more beneficial to be sustainable and that absolute economic growth isn’t absolutely beneficial if the environment is being compromised. [/quote]
It’s not even so much proving CO2 affects the environment. Let’s assume arguendo that people agree that CO2 emissions have some deleterious effect on the environment. The question is why people in the U.S. - or to a lesser extent, Europe - would choose to spend money (via opportunity cost or direct costs) to reduce their emissions if, net-net, it wasn’t going to be effective in combating the problem because of fungible emission increases from China, India and Brazil (among others)?
We could get more complex by looking at alternative ways to attack the problem, whether via investments in technology (as opposed to simply shutting various things down) or by reducing other, more potent greenhouse gases such as methane (we could still consider banning private planes though, just because…).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, to those of you who are convinced that industrial/transportational CO2 is the major driver of human-caused global warming, what do you propose to do about China and India?[/quote]
The first thing would probably be to lead by example. You can’t expect them to do something about their emissions if the US is doing nothing about its own. They can ask the same question in reverse.
Assuming that the US became serious about curbing its emissions and adopted policies to do so, China and India could be cajoled/convinced/pressured in the same myriads of ways that are used for other trade disputes.
Offer to share technology/research/etc. with them if they participate in emission reducing policies; offer to help them technologically so they’re not economically impacted too hard, etc.
It’s a rather odd questions. International disputes have been occurring throughout all of history and have been resolved in various ways. Pretending that this problem is somehow insoluble is a pretty weak way of trying to avoid the question entirely.
There are many steps that can be taken to reduce emissions that don’t require the sacrifice or “a large percentage” of economic growth. You might convince the skeptic to start with those low-cost “low hanging fruits.” If you can get a high percentage of the population to participate, the accumulated reductions can be quite significant.
Framing the question in term of choosing between an ecological catastrophe or an economic one creates a false dichotomy.
Of course, if it turns out that the only way GW can be solved is by taking a huge economic hit, then it is still preferable to repair a crashed economy than it is to try and live on Venus 2.
Come on Boston, this is grade school material here.
The argument you are making is that nobody should be bothered to even try because Bobby the bully isn’t going to and he’s a large part of the issue anyway.
Don’t be such a retard.
Perhaps, if you are willing to accept that CO2 is a problem, as you suggest, you might consider using this bizarre concept that has fallen into disfavor recently. It’s called diplomacy and can involve long-term negotiation.
Look into it some time… it’s really fascinating stuff.
You might have heard of recent negotiations and compromises that have taken place with respect to North Korea, which of course flies in the face of all the right wing blather about talking to people and negotiating with them.
I think I’m going to freeze myself for a thousand years and see if there is any intelligent life on Earth then… because there sure as shit isn’t much right now.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Framing the question in term of choosing between an ecological catastrophe or an economic one creates a false dichotomy.
[/quote]
If the economy cannot be sustained by the ecology they both will fail regardless of the terms. It is not coincidence that these two words share an etymological root:
eco-concerned with living things in relation to their environment.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not even so much proving CO2 affects the environment. Let’s assume arguendo that people agree that CO2 emissions have some deleterious effect on the environment. The question is why people in the U.S. - or to a lesser extent, Europe - would choose to spend money (via opportunity cost or direct costs) to reduce their emissions if, net-net, it wasn’t going to be effective in combating the problem because of fungible emission increases from China, India and Brazil (among others)?
[/quote]
You have to pose it to them in very capitalistic terms as an investment toward sustainability.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, to those of you who are convinced that industrial/transportational CO2 is the major driver of human-caused global warming, what do you propose to do about China and India?
Complaining about the U.S. is all well and good (as is ignoring how far off of Kyoto protocols are the nations who are actual signatories), but China and India have half the world’s population and are ramping up their CO2 emissions to the point that European/U.S. emissions will be irrelevant - or at least greatly reduced in terms of overall percentage.
See this article in the Economist:
Question: How would you convince a person skeptical about CO2 emission as important in the first instance that he should sacrifice a large percentage of economic growth (and thus future wealth) if India and China (and Brazil, actually) aren’t going to sign on to be restricted?[/quote]
Interesting problem because even if the West can lead by example and convince - through carrot-and-stick policies - China and India to improve its emissions profile, what about the next China and India that industrializes? And the next?
I tend to be skeptical of being able to convince a place like China that is in their best interests to lower emissions in the name of ‘the good of the world’. Outside of hitting them where it counts - putting trade with the Western world in doubt if they don’t clean up their act - the expectation that a totalitarian supergiant will suddenly get a conscience for ‘sustainability’ seems naive to me.
The problem, of course, is that curbing emissions is not just a matter of turning a knob down - it is a matter of trading off wealth for it. The costs are high. Nations compete. The engine of free trade is built on the ideas that nations compete - and the emissions ‘tax’ that some nations would have to swallow will rankle them. Why ask them to do a global service when others are not asked to do the same?
Moreover, there is the problem of moral hazard. If one group takes care of some of the risks of a problem - as in the West brings down emissions as much as they can - there is often an unintended incentive for the others to essentially say “well, we can pollute a little more if they are polluting a little bit less, because in the end, we offset one another”. In a tragedy-of-the-commons type scenario, the polluters don’t see the other nations as ‘leading the way’ by which they should follow, but rather that they sit on the other end of a seesaw that allow them to go ever higher as the other party goes ever lower.
This effect is especially acute when it results in billions of dollars of GDP gained.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interesting problem because even if the West can lead by example and convince - through carrot-and-stick policies - China and India to improve its emissions profile, what about the next China and India that industrializes? And the next?[/quote]
What about them? At that point, the various technologies in place in other countries can be sold/given/licensed/etc. to those new developing economy.
China and India comprise almost 1 third of the entire human population, with the West accounting for maybe another fourth. The Earth being finite, it’s not like we’ll be presented with the same problem ad infinitum.
[quote]I tend to be skeptical of being able to convince a place like China that is in their best interests to lower emissions in the name of ‘the good of the world’. Outside of hitting them where it counts - putting trade with the Western world in doubt if they don’t clean up their act - the expectation that a totalitarian supergiant will suddenly get a conscience for ‘sustainability’ seems
naive to me.[/quote]
Of course, a large part of the deal is demonstrating beyond skepticism that the apprehended danger is real. If they think that dealing with desertification, coastal flooding and mass exodus of populations is good for their economy, then yes, we might have a problem.
Still, even then, doing something unilaterally might be better than doing nothing. At worst, it might push back the inevitable problems that are anticipated.
Again, if GW is really a threat, and the evidence that’s accumulated year after year is getting harder and harder to reject, the alternative is much worse.
The question becomes whether it is smart to risk it.
No world economy can thrive without trading with the West. If the carrot doesn’t work, the stick will have to come out.
Obviously, “Global” Warming ideally requires a “Global” solution. And if the dangers are real, then at some point, no one will be able to deny the effects. Hopefully, that time will come at a point where corrections remain possible.
On the upside, after a few billions of lives lost, politicians might be convinced to see the other side. One would hope that it doesn’t have to come to that, but if history is any indication, humans always react after the fact, seldom before.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If the economy cannot be sustained by the ecology they both will fail regardless of the terms.
Actually, the ecology will do just fine. It might simply eventually transform into an ecology unsuitable for most of life as we know it.
Even in that worst case scenario, chances are that microbial organisms would survive and eventually evolve new species adapted to the new environment.
Just because you found two words that have identical roots doesn’t mean that conclusions you reach from that amusing fact are valid.
[/quote]
It is more than valid–it is a universal certitude. The economy comes from where? If you think that economy and ecology are independent of each other you are most assuredly going to be disappointed.
And yes, life may eventually evolve under new environmental constraints but where does that leave our current economy and our current ecology? I would call that “failed” with respect to the status quo.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is more than valid–it is a universal certitude.
The economy comes from where? If you think that economy and ecology are independent of each other you are most assuredly going to be disappointed.[/quote]
I’m not saying there’s no relation; but that assuming that if one fails, the other fails also is only true if the ecology fails. The economy can fail without destroying the ecology. The Great Depression on 1929 was an economic failure, but had little impact on the ecology.
Calling the Earth climate a “status quo” is rather odd, since, if anything, it’s a dynamic system undergoing constant changes.
As for our current ecology, there’s nothing special about it, except that we can live in it. My point was that destroying “our” ecology does not preclude the existence of ecology per se, but just one where we can live. Ecology doesn’t require us to be present. Even if we, and our economy, where to disappear, chances are rather good that life would go on without us.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Come on Boston, this is grade school material here.
The argument you are making is that nobody should be bothered to even try because Bobby the bully isn’t going to and he’s a large part of the issue anyway.
Don’t be such a retard. [/quote]
No, that’s not a good analogy to the argument.
The point would be more like this: You are worried that a cylinder is filling with water, provided by disparate parties, and if it fills with water X problem will occur, costing Y dollars.
Should party A incur costs of Z dollars to stop only A’s filling the cylinder if parties B & C will simply make up the missing volume of water that A was adding?
More to the point, should party A consider spending Z dollars on other, more effective measures?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps, if you are willing to accept that CO2 is a problem, as you suggest, you might consider using this bizarre concept that has fallen into disfavor recently. It’s called diplomacy and can involve long-term negotiation.
Look into it some time… it’s really fascinating stuff.
You might have heard of recent negotiations and compromises that have taken place with respect to North Korea, which of course flies in the face of all the right wing blather about talking to people and negotiating with them.[/quote]
Yeah, that damn Bush administration with its insistence on 6-party talks while providing economic pressure on the NORK regime… that was never going to work… all the “right-thinking” people wanted us to throw money at the NORKs and capitulate to their demands for one-on-one negotiations.
What was your point again?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think I’m going to freeze myself for a thousand years and see if there is any intelligent life on Earth then… because there sure as shit isn’t much right now.
[/quote]
That would reduce the overall CO2 emissions after all…
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is more than valid–it is a universal certitude.
The economy comes from where? If you think that economy and ecology are independent of each other you are most assuredly going to be disappointed.
I’m not saying there’s no relation; but that assuming that if one fails, the other fails also is only true if the ecology fails. The economy can fail without destroying the ecology. The Great Depression on 1929 was an economic failure, but had little impact on the ecology.
[/quote]
Got it. Yes, I got overly zealous and bit off a little more than I could chew. You are right. I should have been a little more careful with my argument I didn’t even realize I was making that connection. My point was that our economy cannot exist with out a healthy ecology. I only meant they “both fail” given that the ecology would have already failed in that event.
Ding! Ding! The status quo is that life currently thrives here. The climate has always varied and thus has no status quo.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, that’s not a good analogy to the argument.
The point would be more like this: You are worried that a cylinder is filling with water, provided by disparate parties, and if it fills with water X problem will occur, costing Y dollars.
Should party A incur costs of Z dollars to stop only A’s filling the cylinder if parties B & C will simply make up the missing volume of water that A was adding?[/quote]
That’s a bit incomplete.
You should at that there is a good possibility that past a certain point, there is no way to empty the cylinder. And that if it fills too much, it is likely to kill A, B and C.
Of course, a large part of the deal is demonstrating beyond skepticism that the apprehended danger is real. If they think that dealing with desertification, coastal flooding and mass exodus of populations is good for their economy, then yes, we might have a problem.[/quote]
The problem I see with that is that I don’t see the Politburo as some rational actor worried about its long-term economy in the way that GW is presented. I’d love to think they would - but I have no reason to think that. In fact, I would be more inclined to think they see great advantage in the short term to growing economically/militarily while the West sacrifices in the name of sustainability.
That is if you assume that China maintains its current output of emissions when we cut unilaterally. What if China - as in my moral hazard approach - decides to actually raise emissions while we lower? They have every reason to.
If China raises output - and why wouldn’t it? - any unilateral gains would we wiped out. And the West would be poorer, weaker, and with nothing to show for it environmentally.
[quote]Again, if GW is really a threat, and the evidence that’s accumulated year after year is getting harder and harder to reject, the alternative is much worse.
The question becomes whether it is smart to risk it.[/quote]
I agree, but it is difficult to assume that China would behave so rationally. China wants dominance theoretically in the next 15-20 years - what is their interest in accepting the costs of cutting emissions right in the middle of building their economic and military juggernaut? I don’t see one, not that wouldn’t be overridden by another a different priority.
If anything, China would love to see the West run this ‘race’ - economic and military development over the next 20 years - with the West’s shoelaces tied together. That seems more plausible to me than thinking China will be convinced it will suffer, in the long run, because of GW’s effect on its economy.
I am a big believer in The Stick, but there are consequences outside the environment that are substantial. Tell a totalitarian supergiant that you are cutting off trade with it in the name of ‘global environmental concerns’ and expect something other than a polite change in environmental policy on their behalf - something much nastier.
If the world is unwilling to isolate China over Tibet, its military buildup, or its flouting of commercial and trademark practices - why would there be any reason to think that isolating China in the name of GW would be any more feasible?
I am not suggesting it is off the table - I am merely saying that antagonizing through isolation and therefore inevitably locking horns with China would make GW look like tea party.
If true, let’s hope so. But what we call ‘dangers’ and what China calls ‘dangers’ likely have little in common - so I don’t think a ‘global’ solution is possible in the near term.
I think you are right about human reactivity for the most part, but again, China is not run by ‘politicians’, it is run by power-mad dictators hell-bent on domination. If you can convince them that GW affects their naked national interest, then perhaps they would do something. I suspect they wouldn’t, for the above reasons.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The problem I see with that is that I don’t see the Politburo as some rational actor worried about its long-term economy in the way that GW is presented. I’d love to think they would - but I have no reason to think that. In fact, I would be more inclined to think they see great advantage in the short term to growing economically/militarily while the West sacrifices in the name of sustainability.[/quote]
I’m sure that they currently see “the West” doing very little. Even if all of Europe and most of America was on board, until the US joins the effort, they can use the same arguments you’re
using to justify inaction.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the matter was one that didn’t involve unreversible damage to the environment but this situation is almost a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” problem where mutual cooperation is better for everyone involved, but where everyone chooses non-cooperation out of fear that the other will do the same.
Like I said, my bet is that whatever disaster GW entails, we will all find out first hand, or our kids will.
Even if they do, what tells you that we couldn’t eventually develop some technology that enables us to control CO2 in the atmosphere enough that we can pick up the slack from India or China?
Think of it in term of going to the moon in the 1960s. There was a matter of national pride, as the USSR had beat you to space; and while the cost to achieve that goal were unilateral, the technological dribble-down effect helped the US become one of the most technologically advanced society on Earth. Personally, I think that investment paid off handsomely.
Think of the advantages of managing to wean yourselves of oil, while China or India are left behind having to deal with ever diminishing supplies of it. Here too, the initial costs would be more than recouped in a couple of generations.
Even if China and India got a free ride on your coattails while you “save the planet,” wouldn’t you agree that the final outcome would still be worth it, vs. the possible alternative involving massive disruptions to the economy, coastal cities and a world of permanent crazy weather? Worldwide Katrinas every year would take some time and money getting used to.
So your conclusion is that if China is unwilling to participate in the efforts, it is better to do nothing and slide together towards a possible destruction of civilization, rather than try to do something unilaterally?
Again, you seem to assume that pursuing GW thwarting technology or methods is and “all cost” proposition with no clear benefit. Historically, most large endeavors, while costly to its implementor, have yielded enormous technological benefits in the long run. The Apollo Missions are an example, The Manhattan project is another.
Of course, those were seen as “races” where it was clear that whoever finished first got a lot of prestige or an advanced weapon. GW is a race where cooperation pays off more than competition and it seems to be a major sticking point, as no one wants to contribute on iota more than the next guy.
It could be done through public awareness campaigns, where people simply do not buy goods made in countries not participating in our GW efforts. They can’t really attack us for not voluntarily buying their goods, can they?
The hardest part of that plan is weaning our own corporations of the cheap labor teats of China and India.
Maybe. If GW science is right - and more and more it seems to be - then the stakes are immeasurably higher. An occupied Tibet or pirated software do not threaten the very existence of everyone on the globe. A runaway greenhouse effect does.
GW now maybe. GW in a hundred years? Maybe not so much. The rub is that the longer we wait, the harder it might be to correct the situation.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I hope that either GW is wrong, but that’s looking less and less likely. Let’s hope that there’s still time left when it becomes globally obvious that cooperation is required.
Alternatively, we’ll all experience first hand that Chinese saying wishing us “to live in interesting times.”
If you scrap the planet, there’s not much left to dominate.
Unfortunately, most real-life prisoner dilemma experience always end up with everyone betraying everyone else. Add politics, greed and general human shortsightedness to the mix and the outlook is bleak.