CAT | Environment
I believe that if you do not have the learning/ability/training to understand how climate change works, it is illogical for you to believe climate change is not a serious issue.
Let’s say you hurt your arm. You go to nine doctors, and they all say you have a broken arm. You go to the tenth, and he says your arm is fine. Assuming all of the doctors are equally qualified, and you have no medical training, it is illogical to believe the one doctor who tells you your arm is fine.
This is analogous to what’s happening with climate change. A large number of scientists believe that climate change is a serious issue, and a small number of dissenters believe it is not a big deal. If I am going to make a choice about which side is right, and I do not possess the scientific training to grasp the climate change issue, I don’t know how I could justify logically agreeing with the dissenters.
Additionally, the scientists who are worried about climate change have published numerous studies in peer reviewed journals, and have come together as an international panel to address the issue. As far as I am aware, there are few, if any, studies published in peer reviewed journals that dissent from the hypothesis that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed soon.
I will admit that this article sounds a bit paternalistic in that it appears to discount whether people should read the evidence on both sides and make up their mind. I think people should do so in all situations where they are qualified to do so. If you can educate yourself to the level where you really and truly understand the climate change science at a comparable level as an expert, then by all means, you should pass your own judgment rather than rely on the scientific community.
However, most people only possess a layperson’s knowledge of climate change. With a layperson’s knowledge, it makes logical sense to believe the vast majority of scientists over a small minority.
It does not follow from this article that I believe we should always defer to experts in every situation. I just believe that in highly complex situations where laypeople do not have enough knowledge to make a reasonably thought-out decision, deferring to experts is smarter than taking a “guess” on your own.
Another criticism that will probably be raised about this article regarding the fact that Galileo thought the Earth was round, but most experts thought the Earth was flat, and it turned out that most experts were wrong. The criticism says that because Galileo was right, we shouldn’t just ignore something because only a small group of experts said it.
This is a faulty criticism for two reasons. First, Galileo’s battle with the flat-earth thinkers at the time was an argument between science and religion, not science and science. Secondly, the criticism is just ex-post analysis. Had I been able to go back in time, and 90% of experts told me the world was flat, and I were untrained to the point that I could not reason out whether the earth was flat or round on my own, I would believe the earth was flat. I think that’s a perfectly logical conclusion for a layperson.
Please post comments. This seems so clear to me that I’m sure I’m missing something important.
29
No Subsidies to Promote Alternative Energy
0 Comments | Posted by George in Econ, Environment, Politics
Many Americans who support the use of alternative energy in the United States believe that subsidizing the cost of producing alternative energy will lead to more alternative energy use. That may be true in the short run, but in the long run, it might not be the case. Instead, the subsidies on dirty fossil fuels should be eliminated.
Subsidizing alternative energy use, in the short run, will of course lead to increased use of alternative energy. If it is more profitable for firms to enter the industry, more firms will enter. Because subsidizing, all else equal, leads to increased profits for a firm, subsidization of alternative energy will lead to more firms entering the energy sector. Because more alternative energy firms enter the energy sector, competition will cause prices for alternative energy to drop, so consumers will consume more alternative energy. The caveat here is that perhaps a subsidy is needed to get a particular industry off the ground. Well, hasn’t that happened already? Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power are all supposed to be somewhat competitive cost-wise with coal and oil when you net away the subsidization of coal and oil.
However, in the long run, this might be problematic. Subsidies from the government must be paid by someone, because, as economists like to say: there is no such thing as a free lunch. How long are American taxpayers willing to pay subsidies? Additionally, subsidies may allow types of alternative energy that are not actually cost-efficient (read: corn-based ethanol) to stay in the industry when the production of that energy is actually costing society more than the benefit it creates.
Of course, for alternative energy to have any hope, in addition to the elimination of subsidies for alternative energy sources, subsidies for dirty fossil-fuel sources must be eliminated as well. I don’t know why we’re subsidizing oil or coal anyways. We have to pay the cost one way or another, why not pay it when we buy it instead of tricking ourselves into thinking its cheaper? That just leads to overconsumption…
Ideally, if the environmental cost of dirty sources of fuel could be taken into account, as well as the elimination of all subsidies, we could truly choose the best energy source objectively. However, that’s hard to do…
Wow this is a rambling article. Please post your thoughts so I can clear mine up.
Via Greg Mankiw:
A causal relationship between gasoline prices and obesity is possible through mechanisms of increased exercise and decreased eating in restaurants. I use a fixed effects model to explore whether this theory has empirical support, finding that an additional $1 in real gasoline prices would reduce obesity in the U.S. by 15% after five years, and that 13% of the rise in obesity between 1979 and 2004 can be attributed to falling real gas prices during this period. [link to study]
Always take studies like these with a grain of salt. However, if it makes sense, there could be some truth here. The cheaper the gas, the less people walk, and the more they drive to eat out at restaurants. Thus, the cheaper the gas, the more behavior occurs that could result in increased obesity.
It would be interesting to see some more studies on obesity/gasoline prices.
I drove home from Blacksburg, VA to Arlington, VA this past Monday and averaged 40.75 miles per gallon. I was pleasantly surprised, as I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry that is rated around 32 mpg highway.
I think the reason for this was drafting off a truck the entire way. Although drafting off of passenger vehicles is generally not recommended, because if they slam on the brakes, you’re in trouble; drafting behind a truck is significantly safer because trucks take a long time to slow to a stop, so if you see brake lights you’re not necessarily doomed. In addition, trucks are huge and block a lot of wind.
Anywho, there was a truck driving 75 mph for 200 miles of my journey, so I just sat behind him. When I filled up upon arriving home, I calculated that I had averaged 40.75 mpg. My recommendation is if you happen to have a truck driving near you on a highway, it might not be a bad idea to draft off of the truck to save some fuel.
6
Why Does the Environment Matter?
12 Comments | Posted by George in Econ, Environment, Politics
The reason I care about protecting the environment is not because I love trees, or have a penchant for big furry animals. The reason I care so much is because I believe protecting the environment is what’s best for human beings.
It seems like the anti-environmental crowd often tends to label those who want to protect the environment as overly extreme. Most environmentalists aren’t tree-huggers, SUV vandalizers, or animal rights activists. The reason I, and many other environmentalists, advocate things like responsible fishery management is not because I think fish are cute or have equal rights as humans; it’s because I like to eat fish and don’t want to see their population destroyed.
There are certainly environmentalists out there who are extreme. Some environmentalists do push for broad animal rights. Some believe we should protect the Earth for the Earth’s sake, rather than humans. But I am certain this is a miniscule minority view.
Protecting the environment makes sense. We rely on the Earth for our food, fuel, air, water, and more. If we ignore the fact that there are limits to our consumption and activities, it will hurt us in the end.
Environmentalism does not have to be about tree hugging, hippies, or hybrid cars. Environmentalism, for most people, is about maximizing the environment’s benefit for human beings. So the next time a famous political figure ask you whether you’d like to have a healthy economy or a clean environment, remind that politician that in the long run, they go hand in hand.
