From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: ages Environmental Show Trials
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:55:08 GMT

[Followups redirected to talk.environment.]

In article <1992Aug19.153426.21442@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>As Balling points out, the available evidence indicates that global warming
>is more likely to be beneficial than harmful.

It amazes me that people can be so naive!  "Available evidence"... "more likely
to be beneficial"...  What if we're missing some crucial evidence?  What if we
don't really understand the long-term effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and
methane?  What if it turns out to be a disaster instead of a benefit?  "Oops,
sorry about that--guess we were wrong.  Too bad it's too late to do anything
about it now."  Whatever happened to caution?  If we screw up this planet, it's
a *major* bummer, not just a lesson learned.

>The most likely warming comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore,
>increased precipitation, and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve
>agricultural productivity. 

More unbounded naivete.  Do we get our "money" back if these happy scenarios
don't play as you predict?  For example, what would be the impact on farmers
and crops of increased precipitation and CO2?  Would it really be an overall
benefit?  Would they be able to adapt to the changes?  I don't know.  You don't
know.  Balling doesn't know.  *Nobody* knows.

>He also shows very impressively that even if you accept the global warming
>hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to take immediate action, because
>the environmental impact of taking action now rather than 5 or 10 years from
>now is negligible, while the societal impact is substantail.

Brilliant logic.  But what if we take modest measures now?  If it turns out, 10
or 20 years down the road when we know everything there is to know about the
carbon cycle, that our fears were unfounded, we can relax and undo those
measures.  If it turns out, though, that our fears *were* justified, at least
we won't have been compounding the problem for those 10-20 years.  And, as they
say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  It'll be much harder to
undo the excesses of those years and lower CO2/methane emissions to acceptable
levels than it will be to simply continue reduced emissions or reduce them
more.

>Also, we are likely to know a lot more about both the hypothesis, and the
>viability of alternatives to CO2 emissions, in 10 years.

The old "don't do anything until you know exactly what needs to be done"
argument.  Which is fine if you can afford to wait that long.  Lacking any
convincing evidence that such a wait is safe or prudent, I think we should play
it safe.

>I would like to add that any political action that damages the economy
>kills people who are marginal to begin with (in the third world). When
>one advocates expensive measures to limit CO2 emissions, one is advocating
>(without realizing it) millions of deaths in the poorest populations.

First of all, it's not a given that reducing CO2/methane would damage the
economy.  But even if it was, we'd be justified on the basis that the long-term
viability of the species is more important than a given fraction of the
current population: i.e., which is more important: keeping the population
maximized or ensuring the survival of the species?

>Furthermore, I think that the greatest environmental threat is overpopulation,
>which is demonstrably worse when there is poverty (due to the margninal
>advantage to a poor family of having additional children).

Overpopulation is certainly a major factor.  But the Real Problem is not
population, per se, it's population *times* per capita environmental impact. 
We can attack the problem by reducing population or reducing per capita
environmental impact, but the best approach is to work to reduce both
simultaneously.

>This is not to say that in 10 years we should not take action - it may be
>necessary.

How magnanimous of you to admit that, John.

>However, it makes a lot of sense to wait awhile (given that even
>in the case where the global warming predictions are correct, it makes
>little difference whether we start now or 10 years out).

Sorry, I just don't think this is a wise approach.

>Balling compares two scenarios:
>  A. No effort at all to restrict emissions.
>  B. Immediate major shifts to lower carbon fuels. Major efficiency increases. 
>     Carbon monoxide controls stringent, deforestation reversed.

What about the missing option between A and B where modest efforts are taken? 
Remember Pareto's Rule--the first 90% of excess greenhouse gas emmisions will
likely be cheaper to cut than the final 10%.  Let's at least go after the
cheap/easy ones.

>In the year 2040, the difference between the two cases is only .1 degrees C,
>which is indeed negligible.

God, what incredible faith you have in the current ability to predict long-term
global change!

>Furthermore, scenario B does not STOP global
>warming, it only retards it by a few years. Scenario B is likely to have
>disastrous economic consequences if implemented in a short time, and if 
>implemented more gradually would probably have less effect on global warming.

Scenario B is indeed drastic, albeit perhaps necessary.  But how can you
dismiss a more gradual approach on the grounds that it would, certainly, be
less effective?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham