Education environment: economics really bad analogies timescale
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 1, Day 29: Bad Cop. No Donut.
The Washington Post runs an article purporting to demonstrate strategic vision for the long term. It’s called “Global warming would harm the Earth, but some areas might find it beneficial.”
When you talk to climate scientists about winners and losers, a few words come up over and over again: could, might, maybe. According to University of Arizona environmental economist Derek Lemoine, local climate-change patterns are difficult to predict because uncertainties in the global model “are compounded when considering smaller scales.”
For this reason, it’s very hard to pin down climate scientists on local effects. Klaus Keller, an associate professor of geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University, is working to develop strategies to manage the effects of climate change. I posed a simple question to him: If the leaders of Russia or Norway asked whether their countries would be better off in 50 years if the temperature increased by a few degrees, what would you say?
Jeepers. I’m going to get out a package of “Seventh Generation” toilet paper and drown my sorrows. Sent January 23 (it’s a three-letter day for me!):
It’s hard to imagine positing winners and losers from a burgeoning greenhouse effect over a five-decade time scale, as suggested by Brian Palmer’s question to Professor Keller: “If the leaders of Russia or Norway asked whether their countries would be better off in 50 years if the temperature increased by a few degrees, what would you say?”
Fifty years is an infinitesimal span of geological time. In the context of global climate change, changes in national well-being after such an interval are analogous to the health impact of a cup of coffee and a cigarette in the next two minutes; the brief stimulation offered by these fast-acting drugs doesn’t translate into benefits in the long run.
Humanity’s near-universal incompetence at long term thinking will have catastrophic consequences for our survival. A climate-changed 2060 may well see some nations temporarily ascendant, but having the best seat on a sinking boat is no consolation.
Warren Senders