Ok, so my last article didn’t go over so well. Now that I think of it, I guess it makes sense that people get offended when I infer that they are evil to some extent.
The point of the article was this. If I walked up to almost anyone, and asked them what they would do to ensure that their children lead good, happy lives, they would most likely say they would do a lot. However, these same people would then turn around and not take easy steps like drive less, flick off lights when not using them, turn off the TV when not using it, etcetera. Now maybe you’re not going to end up screwing over your children, or even your grandchildren. But, why would you gamble? Why play with fire when it’s so easy to help get on a safer side?
I agree with comments that yes, we contribute to global warming rather than completely cause it ourselves. However, evidence basically states that we do in fact contribute. It’s not a myth anymore. It’s also a fact that IF, global warming does indeed exist, it can be catastrophic for our planet. Melting icecaps could mean serious problems for anyone remotely close to the ocean. There is strong evidence that global warming leads to stronger storms (a la Katrina).
I see global warming as the human race deciding between a few different gambles. If we choose to continue on our current path, we’re facing a decent chance of pretty crappy life for the human race in the future. When that future is, nobody knows, but each year the chance of the problems hitting us gets bigger and bigger. As we reduce our carbon emissions, that probability gets smaller.
Since we can reduce a lot of our impact just by making small personal choices, it really confuses me as to why people don’t just take these easy steps to not only reduce their environmental impact, but save money?
Statistics point to humans being risk averse and ambiguity averse. That’s why there is a risk premium in the stock market. That’s why if you ask people between taking $50 and having a 50% chance of 100 and a 50% chance of 0, they’ll take the $50. So why aren’t humans worried about this gamble in a risk averse way? That’s what really confuses me. If people are afraid to invest in the stock market, and afraid to go skydiving, then why aren’t we afraid that we might just accidentally kill every living thing? Are we that certain that we want to gamble and take a payoff of a little more convenience now versus total destruction or a really crappy future life for all humans if we’re wrong?
I don’t know, maybe I’m oversimplifiying, but that’s how I see it, and that’s why I’m so confused that people are so strongly opposed to taking an environmental stance. Do you all think the last argument makes sense?
9 Comments for Clarification on Quiz Article
jon h | May 9, 2006 at 11:27 pm
jon h | May 9, 2006 at 11:30 pm
sorry for all of the posts, I really don’t feel like doing my masters paper…so all of this arguing is keeping the juices flowing while i take prolonged breaks…
Author comment by george | May 10, 2006 at 12:17 am
Don’t worry about it, Jon. I’m delighted that anyone reads this site, I don’t mind if they disagree with me, or even think I’m crazy. I’m just happy to have people who read!
Waco Kid | May 10, 2006 at 5:35 am
I think that you are right in that it does come down to risk aversion but now how you think.
People are risk averse, this much we generally agree on (to the extent this applies to future decisions is still subject to research, see savings decisions).
The issue of curbing and capping emmissions has known and verifiable economic ramifications in terms of GDP lost, etc.
However, the costs associated with global warming are unknown. Indeed the causes of global warming are much debated (good job on the global cooling reference jon).
So the choice confronting people is between taking a known loss (costs of emission caps) and only a possible loss (costs of global warming).
You’re 50/50 reference is being too generous to global warming. Between unknown causes and unkown effects a sample percentage of 50% is too high for the individual. Add to this that these impacts are way in the future (again think long term savings) and it makes perfect sense as to why individuals arn’t pushing for the change that you so desperately desire.
Waco Kid | May 10, 2006 at 5:43 am
Also your notion that if we continue down our current path.
Here’s the thing, we won’t. Technology is constantly changing and again it will change in this case. Thats what it comes down to. Thats what will stop global warming (if humans even have an impact on it at all).
Speaking of techonology. Is anybody else pissed off that we are essentially entering another Space Race. Shit we had that stuff won back in ’69. Sat on our asses for four decades and now we can’t even get back to the moom untill 2020. What a joke.
Author comment by george | May 10, 2006 at 9:20 am
Yes, but my point is, even if global warming is an unsure thing, if it does in fact end up being correct, we’re going to pay a catastrophic price, as opposed to to the very comparatively small one that we would pay to help avert it.
Think of it this way, it’s like getting a hepatitis (spelling?) shot. You’re most likely not going to get hepatitis, but if you do, you’re pretty much screwed. Thus, you get the shot, which sucks because it hurts and it requires you to go to the doctor, to help avert the small possibility that you might get the disease and suffer big time.
Author comment by george | May 10, 2006 at 9:21 am
Although we don’t know for a fact what the main source of global warming is, we definitely know if the earth continues to heat up, we’re screwed. Just like we know if we contract hepatitis, we’re pretty much screwed.
Waco Kid | May 10, 2006 at 11:16 am
Well first of all you act like people go out of their way to keep lights on. Fact is they don’t. Especially not in our age range as most of us are poor. As we move into our first apartments then we will certainly be doing our best to limit costs.
The next big assumption you make is that these little difference will add up and matter. Thats the thing, even if Kyoto was followed by those that ratified it, the impact it would make is small.
So lets say your doom and gloom is correct. Thanks to Kyoto we might have what 7 unbelievably bad storms instead of 8. Great.
Where your example falls apart is that we know the hep shot works. We don’t know that everything your proposing is. So for example would people still get the Hep shot if say it only had a 10-30% chance of working and even if it did it might put you on your death bed for 3months instead of killing you straight off. Would people still get it then?
merrydeath | May 10, 2006 at 12:20 pm
hi george,
I liked your article although I can understand why it generated some anxiety. You might want to post this follow-up as a comment on your newsvine post because I think it clarifies a bit (although you might just open yourself up to more misinterpretation and criticism).
anyway — thanks and I look forward to reading more from you.
peace,
md
yeah…i guess we are just going to have to go back to the bro’s comment. Everyone goes by what they see. Micro stuff.
You are talking about a society that is about instant gratification…what’s in it for me now. A society that has credit card debt and doesnt save for the future.
So there is your idea of slapping people until they look into the future… When you get them to look into the future they are going to know that not only are they messed up because of their me-first spending and debt, but they don’t have any money for their kids college, and they definitely don’t have money for retirement.
I am just saying that things have to be set up for saving… your idea is nice…. but it requires gov’t intervention.
Gov’t intervention just leads to trouble in my mind. Too many people telling other people how to act. The more you inact laws and taxes, the less freedom we have to act. anyway…thats a different topic.