This argument is pretty much off the shelf game theory. That is except for the ignoring the probabilities bit. Now, I agree with the conclusion, so don't get me wrong. The logic to get to that conclusion is flawed. If the probability the global warming is real is sufficiently low then driving the world into global depression isn't really the right choice.
The argument hinges on several assumptions.
1. Man can turn it around.
2. Spending lots and creating a global depression and failing to turn it around is better for mankind than not spending.
3. Creating global depression for something not real isn't that bad.
Invalid arguments can damage the overall case, so this video sadden me.
By the way, game theory was used by advisors in the 70's to the American governent to argue for a preemptive nuclear strike! Glad they ignored then.
This is I think a good argument because it focuses on choices facing us.
Failing to tackle climate change is not how a prudent leader would behave. Imagine if you live on a cliff and the cliff has been washed away as far as the back door. It might not get washed away this winter, but do you take the risk to stay another year?
A risk-averse attitude is now backed up by economic theory (Weizmann 2007). The risk of extreme climate change of >9F (>5 Celsius) is not zero, and could be significant. The impacts at this level would be catastrophic.
BTW Solving climate change may not even cause a global economic depression. This is because by taxing pollution or carbon we can reduce or eliminate employment, transactions and investment taxes on companies, the poor and families potentially making our economy more efficient.
Such policy can 'repatriate' some of the rent from fossil fuels from Middle Eastern nations back to the US and provide energy security.
Standard game theory argument
This argument is pretty much off the shelf game theory. That is except for the ignoring the probabilities bit. Now, I agree with the conclusion, so don't get me wrong. The logic to get to that conclusion is flawed. If the probability the global warming is real is sufficiently low then driving the world into global depression isn't really the right choice.
The argument hinges on several assumptions.
1. Man can turn it around.
2. Spending lots and creating a global depression and failing to turn it around is better for mankind than not spending.
3. Creating global depression for something not real isn't that bad.
Invalid arguments can damage the overall case, so this video sadden me.
By the way, game theory was used by advisors in the 70's to the American governent to argue for a preemptive nuclear strike! Glad they ignored then.
A good argument
This is I think a good argument because it focuses on choices facing us.
Failing to tackle climate change is not how a prudent leader would behave. Imagine if you live on a cliff and the cliff has been washed away as far as the back door. It might not get washed away this winter, but do you take the risk to stay another year?
A risk-averse attitude is now backed up by economic theory (Weizmann 2007). The risk of extreme climate change of >9F (>5 Celsius) is not zero, and could be significant. The impacts at this level would be catastrophic.
BTW Solving climate change may not even cause a global economic depression. This is because by taxing pollution or carbon we can reduce or eliminate employment, transactions and investment taxes on companies, the poor and families potentially making our economy more efficient.
Such policy can 'repatriate' some of the rent from fossil fuels from Middle Eastern nations back to the US and provide energy security.
zerocarbonnow.org
bound
I suppose there was bound to be a problem with the argument - oh well, back to hunches and prejudices then!