Global warming? Global warming!

Global warming is occurring- it's a fact. The argument was, and always has been, the extent of the human impact on global warming. Everyone is familiar with the An Inconvenient Truth version of the story: the human impact of (among other things) deforestation, emission of greenhouse gases and over-exploitation of natural resources is contributing to accelerating global warming. We, according to this argument, can reverse our input if proactive action is used. The consequences can be as drastic as a change in society as we know it.

The other side of the coin is the argument that global warming is a part of an natural oscillation in mean global temperature that can be seen in ice records- there's nothing humans can do to reverse it and the human impact on this process is negligible.

Most scientists (economists are not scientists!) are on board with the first half of the argument. They generally acknowledge the natural oscillations of mean global temperature but they stress the human impact in accelerating this process. This is the mainstream point of view.

Unfortunately, there are many people who completely reject the first and the popular opinions. One of these is the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. He's bought into the second opinion (humans have a negligible effect on global warming).

***

Okay, my turn to talk.

Let’s just think for a second. We can think of the costs and the benefits of acting and not acting against global warming- a cost-benefit analysis if you will. We have four possible outcomes of global warming generally speaking, two for the extent of the effects of global warming and two for the measures (the costs) against global warming. It's only worth looking at the best and worst case scenarios for both because everything else will be in-between.

For the effects of global warming, the best case scenario is nothing happens. Global warming was, was hysterical paranoia, nothing happens; the climate remains the same for the next 1000 years. We'll call this "minimal global warming."

The worst case scenario for the effects of global warming ends with the end of society as we know it. Increasing global temperatures lead to the melting of the ice caps, which, in-turn, leads to major flooding- perhaps as far as wiping islands (like Manhattan or Long Island) off the map altogether. These changes in turn affect climate and weather patters around the world, making traditional staple-grain producing plains unsuitable. These interact together killing off billions of people world wide from flooding and hunger leading to a massive crisis and fundamentally changes in how society is structured from then on. We'll call this "maximum global warming."

For measures taken against global warming, the minimum is not changing anything- the status quo. No extra costs for making America more 'green.' Will call this "minimum cost."

The worse case scenario for measures taken against global warming is a complete overhaul in making everything 'green.' Taxes go up, billions of dollars (say 15% of GDP) are redirected towards researching energy resources that do not contribute greenhouse gases (like renewable energy, 'clean' coal and nuclear), funding subsidies to help consumers ease the transitions (perhaps offering a very large tax deduction for installing personal solar panels or something), and provide aide funding and research to developing nations that contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases (like China and India). We'll call this "maximum cost."

The best case scenario in the end is “minimal global warming” with “minimum cost” – the status quo is maintained at no extra cost to anyone. The absolute worst case scenario is “maximum global warming” with “minimum cost” – here nothing is done as society itself may crumble as we know it.

The other two possible combinations of outcomes are not as undesirable as the absolute worst case scenario. If “maximum global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the hope is that minimizing of greenhouse gases and creating a more ‘green’ society assuaged some of the pressures of global warming – some changes would have occurred due to global warming, but the effects wouldn’t have been as bad had nothing been done - society can go on. If “minimal global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the only thing is lost money – this is not as bad as society as we know it crumbling.

Alright, so what’s my point? The extent of the true effects of global warming isn’t something anyone has real control over. What we do have control over is the cost against global warming. Both scenarios where there was a measure of cost against global warming were taken resulted in outcomes that weren’t the most undesirable outcomes. Yes, it was a “minimal cost” scenario that produced the best possible outcome, but it also had the worst possible outcome as well. By not even considering the mere possibility of the effects of global warming, you’re turning the entire thing into a coin flip between best and worst case scenarios. Wouldn’t it be better if you were guaranteed a scenario that didn’t end with the possible dissolution of society as we know it? The only part of this thought experiment we can actually control is the cost of taking measures against global warming.

The absolute worst things that will happen is that spending in the US will increase. It won’t be too much different from the Cold War if we end up spending about 15% of the GDP against climate change. The only difference will be that it’s against climate change instead if communism.

Plus at the very least, such spending should end US dependence on fossil fuels- something that needs to be either way. More on that another day…