Even if we cannot be sure about the net effect of climate change this does not imply that society should not try mitigate it right away. The expected net change might be about zero (expected benefits equal expected cost) but the variance matters too, and in some cases, might be more important due to risk aversion.
According to this view it is rational for the IPCC to be biased and try to “scare” people and nations into doing something. I am simply restating the precautionary principle, I guess. I also realize that people can use this logic to freak about many other complicated and difficult to predict things (i.e., population explosion, AI, and so on).
I cannot make any sense of the "precautionary principle." As I understand it, it holds that you should not do something if there is some chance that it will have very bad effects.
Consider the issue of whether we should get much of our power from nuclear reactors. If we do, that raises the possibility of a terrorist getting access to nuclear materials and using them, so the principle says we shouldn't. If we choose to ban nuclear power that makes it harder to prevent climate change, which could have very bad effects, so the principle says we must permit reactors. More generally, in a world of uncertainty, lots of choices we face have some non-zero chance of very bad effects either way. Controlling global warming might result in the end of the current interglacial, if global warming is what is preventing it from ending, so the principle forbids actions to prevent warming.
This is very interesting. One very nitpicky thing: climate change will be good for some, bad for others. I think the distributional aspect of this is more important than the net impact.
I think the clearest prediction is that it will be good for countries much of whose area is cold. That includes Canada, the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries, which are pretty rich, but also Russia, which is pretty poor.
Also, the cost of slowing climate change has distributional effects. The countries that will be worse off if they stop burning coal, most obviously India, are poor.
Even if we cannot be sure about the net effect of climate change this does not imply that society should not try mitigate it right away. The expected net change might be about zero (expected benefits equal expected cost) but the variance matters too, and in some cases, might be more important due to risk aversion.
According to this view it is rational for the IPCC to be biased and try to “scare” people and nations into doing something. I am simply restating the precautionary principle, I guess. I also realize that people can use this logic to freak about many other complicated and difficult to predict things (i.e., population explosion, AI, and so on).
I cannot make any sense of the "precautionary principle." As I understand it, it holds that you should not do something if there is some chance that it will have very bad effects.
Consider the issue of whether we should get much of our power from nuclear reactors. If we do, that raises the possibility of a terrorist getting access to nuclear materials and using them, so the principle says we shouldn't. If we choose to ban nuclear power that makes it harder to prevent climate change, which could have very bad effects, so the principle says we must permit reactors. More generally, in a world of uncertainty, lots of choices we face have some non-zero chance of very bad effects either way. Controlling global warming might result in the end of the current interglacial, if global warming is what is preventing it from ending, so the principle forbids actions to prevent warming.
This is very interesting. One very nitpicky thing: climate change will be good for some, bad for others. I think the distributional aspect of this is more important than the net impact.
But that is also hard to predict.
I think the clearest prediction is that it will be good for countries much of whose area is cold. That includes Canada, the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries, which are pretty rich, but also Russia, which is pretty poor.
Also, the cost of slowing climate change has distributional effects. The countries that will be worse off if they stop burning coal, most obviously India, are poor.