A crash in slow motion (continued)
*I've just realised that I first used this image back here in response to Sam's analogy.
To push this picture a little further, perhaps we could imagine that we are driving on a narrow road on the side of a tall cliff. We've been driving too fast and are out of control. The outcome could involve sailing through the barrier over the precipice or crashing into the cliff-face that rises above us on the other side. It seems to me that worrying purely about the economic costs of ecologically responsible action is a little like obsessing over not crashing into the cliff face. Sure, crashing into a cliff face would be bad, and in normal circumstances you want to avoid it. But in our case, already speeding and out of control, better the cliff face than over the edge of ecological destruction. Why better? Because economic damage might last years or decades; ecological damage might last decades, centuries or millennia.
Perhaps a simpler image is speeding along a two lane road and finding a stopped or very slow truck up ahead. We can slam on the brakes and probably slide into the back of the truck, in which case, the sooner we hit the brakes the better. Or we can swerve into the other lane and risk a head-on collision with oncoming traffic. Since we can't see around the truck, we just have to hope there is a gap. In the past, it has usually made sense to swerve and keep accelerating, but traffic is increasing.
Perhaps this analogy is reaching its limits. The point is, we often pay too much attention to the wrong threat.
Image by BuenosAiresPhotographer.com, used under creative commons license.
Posts
5 comments:
Hi Byron,
I’m not inclined to buy into your analogy, but be that as it may. I need to comment on this statement.
It seems to me that worrying purely about the economic costs of ecologically responsible action is a little like obsessing over not crashing into the cliff face
I’m with you if we think of economic costs as some sort of abstract concept that just involves Governments, bankers and the like.
However, bearing in mind the derivation of the word economy in the Greek, the economy has to do with the livelihood of persons and households. It just may be that the present day economic costs of a specific actions to address climate change may in fact far outweigh future and uncertain benefits. This is a subject of legitimate concern. There is quite a literature around this subject that simply can’t be dismissed as some sort of irrational “obsession”.
Did I say that it was an irrational obsession? No. Crashing into a cliff face will hurt. It is to be avoided if possible. But it is not nearly as bad as driving off the edge of a cliff.
I fully realise that a declining econoy is an abstraction that refers to a whole complex of human relationships and interactions (far more than just banks and governments), many of which are made more difficult by a declining economy. My point is simply that there are things of greater concern than the economy.
If you'd like to think about the etymology of the words economy and ecology, you could do worse than considering this talk from Rowan Williams. Here is a taste:
"Economy and ecology cannot be separated. If Dasgupta is right about the proper definition of wealth, ecological fallout from economic development is in no way an 'externality'; it is a positive depletion of real wealth, the 'human and natural capital' of which he speaks. We should not be surprised; after all, the two words relate to the same central concept. An oikos is a house, a dwelling-place: ecology is the science of what makes up a dwelling place, an environment, the way it works and holds together, the 'logic' of a material setting; and economy is the law that regulates behaviour in an environment, the active 'housekeeping' that manages what is at hand. To seek to have economy without ecology is to try and manage an environment with no knowledge or concern about how it works in itself – to try and formulate human laws in abstraction from or ignorance of the laws of nature."
In short, the human laws for running a household (economy) have to take their cue from the underlying logic of that household (ecology).
Ross Garnaut recently gave a speech that is worth reading in full, though here is a relevant piece:
"Climate change mitigation will be cheaper than climate change. It was a conclusion of the Garnaut Climate Change Review that I presented to Prime Minister Rudd and the State Premiers two years ago, that effective mitigation of the effects of climate change need only deduct one to two tenths of a percentage point per annum from the growth in Australian living standards over the next four decades. After that, the gains from avoided climate change are likely to outweigh additional costs of mitigation. Without effective mitigation, Australian economic growth would probably be damaged over time by an amount that exceeds the costs of mitigation when appropriate discount rates are applied to future costs and benefits, even if only easily measureable effects this century are taken into account. It is possible that catastrophic outcomes would terminate the era of global and Australian economic growth. Probably, and not with certainty, because the science acknowledges uncertainties in the climate impacts. But the uncertainties encompass the possibility of much worse as well as more benign outcomes. The uncertainties therefore add to the extent and urgency of the mitigation response that is warranted."
David Palmer says "It just may be that the present day economic costs of a specific actions to address climate change may in fact far outweigh future and uncertain benefits."
Most of the most qualified minds think that, on the balance of evidence, there is a larger chance that the present day economic costs of specific actions to limit climate change may pale in comparison to catastrophic outcomes. Compare "one to two tenths of a percentage point per annum from the growth in Australian living standards over the next four decades" with "It is possible that catastrophic outcomes would terminate the era of global and Australian economic growth". Not sure who these people who ignore possibilities and uncertainties are, but they don't seem to include Prof Garnaut. Sounds like those who advocate doing little or nothing are those who ignore possibilities and uncertainties in the science.
Most of the most qualified minds think that, on the balance of evidence, there is a larger chance that the present day economic costs of specific actions to limit climate change may pale in comparison to catastrophic outcomes. Compare "one to two tenths of a percentage point per annum from the growth in Australian living standards over the next four decades" with "It is possible that catastrophic outcomes would terminate the era of global and Australian economic growth". Not sure who these people who ignore possibilities and uncertainties are, but they don't seem to include Prof Garnaut. Sounds like those who advocate doing little or nothing are those who ignore possibilities and uncertainties in the science.
I think this goes to the heart of the issue and is what the debate should be about.
I’m not sure what “most of the most qualified minds” is meant to convey, but if you think action now to derail the inexorable climb in carbon emissions over the next 5+ decades will only cost "one to two tenths of a percentage point per annum from the growth in Australian living standards over the next four decades", then you need to think again, and if Garnaut says this he is misleading the Government and Australian public, no matter how great his standing may be.
I recommend that you read the following material:
1. Why we disagree about climate change by Mike Hulme from the University of East Anglia
2. Cool it by Bjorn Lomborg
3. The Hartwell Paper found here and written by a group of climate scientists.
4. Roger Pielke Jr’s An evaluation of the targets and timetables of the proposed Australian ETS is worth consulting for an upgrade of "one to two tenths of a percentage point per annum from the growth in Australian living standards over the next four decades". Here is the link.
5. Pielke has a book dealing in depth with these issues, The Climate Fix coming out next month.
Capitalism vs climate: "in a choice between addressing the stresses of the planet and addressing the stresses of corporate capitalism, President Obama chooses the latter, while undermining the former."
Post a Comment