Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Prisoner’s dilemma is a games theory scenario which explores cooperation in difficult circumstances. The classic description, there are two prisoners accused of a crime. Their options are:
- They both keep quiet, and when convicted they both receive moderate sentences.
- One prisoner rats on the other prisoner. The prisoner who betrays his fellow villain receives a light sentence, the other prisoner receives a heavy sentence.
- Both prisoners rat on each other – they both receive heavy sentences.
So how does the Prisoner’s dilemma apply to carbon dioxide mitigation?
The answer of course if that, if CO2 matters, it is a prisoner’s dilemma on a global scale.
Of course, if CO2 has minimal impact on global climate, then it makes no sense to reduce CO2 because it is a waste of resources. But lets consider the interesting scenario – what if CO2 is every bit as dangerous as the IPCC claims it is?
Consider two countries, country A and country B. Both countries have the following options:
- They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – both countries will accept moderate to severe economic damage.
- Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. Country B gets the advantage of an unencumbered economy, and the full benefits of industrialisation – they can afford to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather is too hot. Country A not only gets slammed with the costs of climate mitigation, and the economic damage of trying to compete with country B from a position of permanent structural disadvantage, but any benefit from reduced CO2 thanks to country A’s sacrifices are mostly enjoyed by country B.
- Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption, but with maximal economic development, both countries would be able to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather outside was too hot.
Of course, in the real world we’re dealing with more than two countries – there are hundreds of countries. If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.
In the paranoid swamp which is global politics, no serious attempt at altruism could survive the first economic recession it caused. Voters would quickly reject the pain, especially if they saw everyone else was accruing any benefit to be realised from their sacrifices.
So it never, under any circumstances, makes sense to be the sucker. Even if the IPCC is right about CO2, your sacrifices will mainly benefit the people who don’t make an effort.
It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximise economic growth, and use the full resources of your expanded industrial base to mitigate any problems which arise from the consequences of climate change.
And all the time that a country or group is making those sacrificies and watching others do nothing, there will be the nagging doubt that maybe cagw is bs that could have been ignored all along.
“Others doing nothing”. Makes me think of Algore. Any one know if he still has those big utility bills?
Ah yes, but the LiberalGreenMelon are all ready with that jeering tone…..! “how dare you blast away at full speed ahead….!!!!!!! Think of your grandchildren….!!!!!!”
Don’t forget the Polar Bears!
How woud you feel if you wer both a polar bear AND a grandfather
[You wood feel much better if you were a grandfather OR a polar bear, than if you wore a grandfather polar bare. (obviously, if you only wore a bare polar grandfather, you wood bee very cold.) .mod]
Yet, those self-same people think nothing of saddling their grandchildren with crushing debt. Amazing!
Wait a minute Eric.
Are you trying to inject common sense into the CAGW issue?
Isn’t it a bit late for that?
You are probably one of those people who brings up facts and observable data when others tout “climate change” and you make them look silly.
That would make you a, a, uh, “party pooper”, yeah, that’s it, a PARTY POOPER!
Geez.
Imagine this scenario. Somewhere around the middle of this century it is found that climate sensitivity is known to be low and there will only be mild and net beneficial warming. No worsening extreme weather. The UK, US and Germany had made heavy sacrifices while co2 is at say 450ppm. Imagine how angry voters will feel – pain and no gain.
A glimpse of this possible scenario is from the date of the setting up of the IPCC and its first surface temperature projections to the present. The writing is on the wall.
It has been found already, just not applied.
Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
Christopher Monckton • Willie W.-H. Soon • David R. Legates • William M. Briggs
Received: 27 August 2014 / Accepted: 12 November 2014 / Published online: 8 January 2015
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Why_models_run_hot__results_from_an_irreducibly_simple_climate_model_2_.pdf
The UK, US and Germany have made heavy sacrificies – and others like China and India have ignored the hoax and taken our places as industrial leaders.
Good news just in from Germany on wind turbines and solar.
Listen up chaps. I’m not saying that we should not look at alternative energy but this is ridiculous, and it’s making lots of money for a few people until the bubble bursts. It’s a sucker’s game. Good luck India and China, forge ahead with your development and lift your poor out of poverty, just like the USA, UK and Germany did.
This is called “adaptation”, what I’ve been preaching is the ONLY solution whether the IPCC is right or not!
Adaptation will not bring forth the 100 bilion dollars a year to the needy poor nations of the world. You must be afraid, very afraid, to pull such sums out of your wallet.
They really could not care less about the ‘needy nations’. All they see are the billions of dollaras in new carbon taxes — mitigating nothing — and flowing in to be spent by the same governments that publicly wring their hands over the ‘needy’.
dbstealey, Invoking Prisoner’s Dilemma is not caring less about the needy nations. In PD the winning strategy is to defect.
In PD the winning strategy is to defect.
Not if they both defect. That’s the dilemma.
IF, and a big IF, there was a breakthrough that made nuclear fusion viable and operative soon, would Warmists go silent over greenhouse gases? If not why not?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/15/encouraging-skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details/
James Hansen tried to push nuclear power a while ago, and that message disappeared without trace. Unless they start selling home fusion units in Walmart, I don’t think viable nuclear fusion will make that much difference to the push for “renewables”, unfortunately.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
Adaptation is what humans have been doing for the last 200,000 years.
http://www.english-online.at/art-architecture/houses-and-homes/stilt-houses-in-myanmar.jpg
http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/115086-004-E261ABCA.jpg
http://media0.faz.net/ppmedia/video/bildergalerie/3944759497/1.1996450/article_multimedia_overview/und-fertig-ist-das-iglu-hier-aber-nicht-im-frankfurter-stadtpark-sondern-irgendwo-wo-profis-am-werk-waren.jpg
(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Is this Easter Island? 😉
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/fate-of-easter-island.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/fate-of-easter-island/image-03-large.jpg
http://www.hilites.org.uk/easter-island/moai/anakena
http://www.hilites.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Palm-trees-0847.jpg
Here is another side to the Easter Island story. You have to wonder why any inhabited Polynesian islands have trees at all???
You have become a master of links and pictures to educate others. Your skill is impressive.
“If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.”
Not if you are paid by rich nation not to produce or manufacture any goods. Sort of like our government (U.S.) paying farmers not to grow certain foods.
Of course, a warmist would take issue with the three choices. They would portray them instead as:
1 – They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – this will cause little economic damage and will produce many jobs.
2 – Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. This will result in world disaster, which may be delayed for a while by the efforts of country A. However, if a tipping point is reached, all of country A’s efforts would be futile.
3 – Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Humanity would immediately become extinct.
It is interesting to consider the implications of this argument. As stated, it is a no-brainer – countries derive maximum benefit from action A, and no benefit at all from any other action. So we need to ask, why don’t countries all take action A, because it is so obviously correct. And the only answers can be:
1: Countries are too stupid to make correct decisions
2: There is something fundamentally wrong with the decisions tree.
Given that all countries have SOME intelligent people in them, I am inclined to the latter view…
Countries are too stupid to make correct decisions for themselves. That’s why God gave us environmental activists. (/s)
I thought the eco loons, sorry environmental activists, were there to either help countries make stupid decisions or to provide countries with stupid courses of action to choose from.
The three options are actually reasonable, but like almost all arguments they are over simplified. Option 1 is actually true, if all countries played by the same rules the net damage in terms of world-wide economic growth would be modest, and jobs in carbon-based energy would be replaced by jobs involving clean energy. But the damage to developing countries, as well as damage to lower income individuals in developed countries would be catastrophic. The short-term impact would be $7 gallon gas, and/or the need to buy a $30K hybird vehicle. Other energy costs, which are a disproportionate part of the lower income budget, would skyrocket. This would bankrupt about 1/3 of the families in the U.S., who depend on cheap fossil based energy just to get by. Of course we could just tell them all that it’s for their own good, I’m sure they would understand.
1 – They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – this will cause little economic damage and will produce many jobs.
So the left have been screaming from the rooftops for a decade.
But the western nations have spent close on a trillion dollars on CO2 reduction and the fact is it’s created a miniscule handful of jobs. And almost certainly destroyed a much larger number.
Exactly right, Mike. Any jobs created by “clean energy” have to be subsidized to succeed. So only the elites and the politically well-connected benefit from those jobs, and everyone else gets a double whammy. The greens are okay with that because they’re convinced that they are among the elites and the well-connected, so those jobs will go to them. Even in a terribly depressed economy like that of North Korea, the elites are taken care of. And if many of the common people starve, well that’s a win-win to the greens because it reduces the population and helps the environment.
” And almost certainly destroyed a much larger number.” Please cite your source for this.
You’ve got your finger on the pulse of the Warmists here.
DG,
It is interesting to consider the implications of this argument.
Consider that we are all already adapted to levels of 5000ppm CO2 in our N2/O2 atmosphere.
Consider that all plants flourish at higher CO2 levels.
Consider that cold weather induced hypothermia is a more lethal threat than a barefoot warm day in shorts.
Consider logic… and reason… and common sense.
As stated, it is a no-brainer….
I agree.
@nigelf February 8, 2015 at 6:41 am
This is called “adaptation”, what I’ve been preaching is the ONLY solution whether the IPCC is right or not!
Given that no AGW seems to be happening at all, ‘adaptation’ is only the correct solution so long as NO prior actions are taken, and the adaptation is only in response to things that have already happened. My assumption is that there will be no need for adaptation at all, because nothing will happen.
I should also note that cutting CO2 emissions in response to, say, sea level rise, can’t count as adaptation at all until there is a proven predictable link between the two…
This reminds me of the common sense from Willis a couple posts ago…
“The biggest threat to the environment is poverty.”
&
“Finally, since the biggest threat to the environment is poverty, that means that the biggest friend of the environment is development … strange, but true.”
All this is assuming that when I get out.
I don’t break your legs
There are 1.96 hundreds of countries.
While this is, indeed, an interesting mental exercise,
it has no relation to the real, observed, world.
“3.Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption,… .”
— all the evidence about CO2 (human and natural) says that this is false. Further, there is no evidence that it is true.
Premise 3 is False.
Thus,
there is no real dilemma.
There is NO evidence that CO2 mitigation is anything but worse than useless.
True dat!
I agree.
More CO2 is good for the environment. Once you know that fact, there is no real dilemma.
Yes, and at what point in history did CO2 threaten life? Probably at its lowest points of concentration.
I agree – but sometimes its fun to point out the inconsistencies in another person’s argument, even when arguing from their premises.
Eric: A good thought process. Wouldn’t the “Tragedy of the Commons” work as well.
Subsidies received to reduce CO2 will never make up for economic gains in developing countries who ignore CO2 limits. And those subsidies don’t earn themselves in debt-burdened developed nations, either. Finally any perceived benefit from CO2 reductions will not materialize, so the scenario we’re really looking at in the dilemma is that of both parties damaging themselves for no gain.
Countries with scientists not beholden to the tax motivated AGW political system, will quickly see the historical disconnect between CO2 and temperature – a steady 280ppm CO2 during both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Only the recent (likely human influenced) CO2 rise happens to coincide with a Little Ice Age exit. The recent 2 decade “stall” in temperature rise in the face of steadily increasing CO2 is the icing (PI) on the CO2 disconnect cake.
The wiser nations will leave economic dislocation to those headed by the dimmer bulbs. Unfortunately the United States is being led by one of them.
tomwys1 sez in part:
Not so! Just look at President Obama’s A+++ grades at Harvard. Didn’t he have a 5.6 GPA on a 4.0 scale?
.
.
Oh wait…..
Well, maybe after Obama’s grades are unsealed in 2100, we’ll have the definitive proof of his towering intellect, assuming his chooming buddies don’t misplace the records before then.
(P.S. Who in the sam-#@ur momisugly%!? has their grades sealed anyway?! Even John “Genius” Kerry ponied up during his Presidential run.)
OT but worth it. My spellchecker just came up with the funniest one ever! When I finished typing John “Genius” Kerry, “Genius” was red-squiggly underlined and the option was Delete Repeated Word. I re-re-rechecked my comment – no previous use – and then near busted a gut laughing. I have absolutely no clue why that happened but perhaps the Heinz fortune can buy more then we ever imagined.
This is interesting, but not what is really happening. The problem with your argument is that the Prisoners, in this case the Citizens are going to get the sentence. Yet for the people pushing this, the Scientists & Politicians, the CO2 reductions will have the opposite effect. They will get more money and use more CO2 because of it. If both the Citizens and Scientist/Politician groups suffered equally this analogy would hold true. The whole point of the CO2 is that the conspirators want more money so they can create more CO2.
Yes, the citizen prisoners face the potentially devastating consequences while the decision-making wardens continue to fly in private jets, live in multiple 10,000 square foot homes, and ride in 30 car motorcades … which adds a layer of complexity to the dilemma analysis.
To the extent CO2 is a problem, it is a so called problem of the Commons (the atmosphere, climate). The reason it is insoluble by mutual agreement is the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory. And that is why COP will fail although there are leaders like Obama who are apparently willing ro commit the equibalent of suicide.
You left out an important component: the warden of the prison (in this case the IPCC).
The more prisoners that the warden is responsible for, guilty or innocent, the more assured the warden is of being employed.
Actually, Countries A, B and others need to take a responsible position regarding climate change.
An appropriate legislative motion would read like this:
Whereas, Extent of global sea ice is at or above historical averages;
Whereas, Populations of polar bears are generally growing;
Whereas, Sea levels have been slowly rising at the same rate since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago;
Whereas, Oceans will not become acidic due to buffering from extensive mineral deposits and marine life is well adapted to pH fluctuations that do occur;
Whereas, Extreme weather events have not increased in recent decades and such events are more associated to periods of cooling rather than warming;
Whereas, Cold spells, not heat waves, are the greater threat to human life and prosperity;
Therefore, This chamber agrees that climate is variable and prudent public officials should plan for future periods both colder and warmer than the present. Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and cheap, reliable energy.
Excuse me, this makes too much sense. You are obviously not fit for employment in the public sector!
Quite, Mark, far too erudite !
Your argument assumes that “business as usual” AGW is something that can be readily mitigated with appropriate application of financial resources, and further that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be economically disastrous. The first assumption is far from proven, and a great number of scientists would suggest it’s wrong. The second assertion is also dubious, as countries like Norway are managing to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth. Since your basic premise is flawed, your conclusions must be also.
Sir Harry Flashman says “Since your basic premise is flawed, your conclusions must be also.”
Welcome to the Light, Sir Harry!
This quote by SHF is a perfect description for the whole mad CAGW scare-mongering crusade. Funny that he and the complete crowd of warmists are psychological unable to discover their own failure in spite of 18 years warming hiatus along with record high CO2 emissions…
I think the climate history of the planet is ample evidence that global warming (anthro or otherwise) will be successfully mitigated. Now how we will mitigate Global Cooling, that’s another and more difficult question…
And as for Norway, of course we can reduce emissions – the US is flat or down itself. The issue is the proposed draconian reduction scenarios . Minimum impact on climate, maximum (negative) impact on people’s lives.
Taylor
norway manages to reduce emmissions for its own population by shipping fossil fuel other places.
the same way the US reduces emissions by shipping them to China.
In the end Norway’s oil creates emissions. a proper accounting of who is responsible would take note of this.
…life produces emissions.
Unfortunately there are not many countries like Norway . which has a small population, very well educated and an abundant supply of hydro and hydrocarbon energy – not to mention capital reserves built up by selling gas and energy to the rest of the world to burn – increasing the customer’s CO2 emissions. Thus it enjoys the financial benefit of those emissions without apparently increasing its own.
You are in danger of arguing from the particular to the general.
SHF, you have just described the top right square of the prisoners dilemma.
Norway is “free” because they have gone full steam ahead, producing hydrocarbons for OTHERS to burn, while reaping the benefits of the economic growth. With their cash reserves, they are also much better prepared than the rest of the world to meet any calamity.
Regarding Norway:
Norway got prosperous and one might even say obscenely rich by exploiting oil and gas reserves in North Atlantic.
So all their “CO2 reductions” were made possible by fossil fuels being burned somewhere else.
That’s fair, Norway has some unique advantages. However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better, to the point where it’s likely that developing countries will be better served by building out distributed solar power (for example) rather than expensive fossil fueled infrastructure for electrical generation. Moreover, the price of fossil fuels is rarely calculated to include the enormous (non-AGW) costs borne by larger society, like illness from dirty air and commensurate social unrest in China, or fracking earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Another consideration is the outcome if the AGW turns out to actually be catastrophic (a possibility I understand is not accepted by anyone at WUWT, although it is by many others) – in that case, the analogy changes, in that if all the “prisoners” choose to do nothing, everybody dies. The stakes are pretty high.
Sir Harry Flashman February 8, 2015 at 12:36 pm
That’s fair, Norway has some unique advantages. However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better, to the point where it’s likely that developing countries will be better served by building out distributed solar power (for example) rather than expensive fossil fueled infrastructure for electrical generation. Moreover, the price of fossil fuels is rarely calculated to include the enormous (non-AGW) costs borne by larger society, like illness from dirty air and commensurate social unrest in China, or fracking earthquakes in Oklahoma.
——————————
Pretty sure the cost of earthquakes in Oklahoma is nil.
If developing countries want to go with solar and wind, good on ’em. I don’t see any that are doing that though. In fact, solar and wind only seem to prevalent in industrialized countries, and only because of significant subsidies.
Moreover, the benefits to society and the standard of living are rarely calculated into the equation either. How do you quantify these costs and benefits? At most it is a wild guess.
China’s pollution problems are due to a lack of environmental regulation and enforcement that is standard in Western countries, and on their heavy reliance on burning dirty, brown coal, largely from Australia.
Despite your adherence to the Green meme, the earthquakes in Oklahoma are NOT from fracing.
“However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better,”
The proponents of that claim typically don’t factor in costs of maintenance (cleaning), degradation of efficiency (often sooner than promised), hazards to fire-fighters, and costs of items other than the panels themselves. The real-world experience of Spain is an object lesson–and Germany and the UK are now discovering that green benefits-calculations have been over-hyped.
Norway is an oil-rich country with a small, largely homogenous population and a huge oil trust fund.
I think the reason Norway appears green is nothing to do with her oil industry, that is a completely different issue.
Norway has two natural resources for producing electricity for a small population. Hydro power in abundance and much of it pumped storage and free wind power from Denmark. It also exports electricity back to Denmark when there isn’t enough wind for Danes. Denmark pays for this electricity. For Norway it’s win, win, win, win. What’s not to like for the Norwegians?
Plus they get to export oil and gas from a holier than thou position.
Norway is Europe’s largest oil producing country and the world’s third largest gas exporter. Fossil fuels are approximately a quarter of their GDP and half of the exports.
The reason Norway can afford to “Go Green”, is due, in a large part, to fossil fuels. A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
SHF is wrong.
The U.S. has been reducing CO2 emissions without any new laws being necessary. Most other countries are increasing emissions. And look at China, the prisoner that is double-crossing everyone else.
Aside from that, as others have pointed out CO2 is very beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. As usual, governments, controlled by self-serving special interests, are on the wrong track.
CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past without causing runaway global warming [or any global warming, for that matter]. More is better at both current and projected concentrations, because the biosphere is starved of CO2.
Finally, CO2 is harmless, in that there has never been demonstrated any global harm due to the rise in CO2 from 0.00003 of the atmosphere, to 0.00004. The whole ‘carbon’ scare is a deliberately fabricated false alarm.
You say a great number of scientists suggest that the first assumption is wrong; but a great many other scientists say that it is right.
So, Sir Harry, which side are we to believe?
If you are referring to ‘climate scientists’ who are apparently the only people trained in the arcane art of climate prediction, then what makes them also qualified to comment in subjects such as economics, engineering and psychology (amongst others) which are required to convince the populace that mitigation is possible and necessary?
…. and a great number of scientists would suggest it’s wrong.
Ahhhhh, the power of ‘suggestion’, the refuge of cowards and pHr@uds.
Since they cannot muster a firm conclusion, because the evidence is weak and needs continual ‘adjustment’, their conclusions must be weak and pHr@udulent also.
And yet they remain the overwhelming majority, and the :”skeptics” are left grasping at conspiracy theories to explain why they are continually proved wrong.
I think the pause is significant.
It is had to blame a motive or a conspiracy theory ideation on the thermometers. They are inanimate.
Yet they keep on giving sceptical results when questioned about newsworthy Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Why trust the opinions of “experts” who can’t read a thermometer?
Golly – I don’t feel ‘overwhelmed’ by your ‘suggestions’.
Eighteen + years of no warming is the elephant in your climate extremest ward that continually proves you continually wrong. It leaves you grasping at straws to suggest otherwise.
Yeah, LOL, last time I looked it wasn’t Norway that was carrying the EU !
Saw this recently and I think it relates to this article by Eric.
“3 February 2015 – The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.””
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
So what? The industrial revolution – the last great restructuring – abandoned a paradigm that wasn’t working and brought the human race the greatest wealth and prosperity in history. Why would you be so terrified to do that again?
SHF,
Are you advocating for a particular “restructuring” plan? If so, let’s hear the plan, if not…
I’m recommending a non-Luddite response to the benefits of new ways of deriving and using energy. If you’re seriously asking me to propose a global plan for economic restructuring in the comments section of a blog, I’ll have to decline.
What game changing new ways of deriving and using energy do you see on the horizon, or already in play? The industrial revolution was brought about largely by access to cheap, reliable energy sources. Where’s our game- changing cheaper, more reliable alternative?
No one asked you to structure a plan. That’s your strawman. I asked what plan you have in mind, since you were quick to denigrate Nancy’s remarks. If you don’t already have a plan, or agree to someone else’ plan, then you were just sniping without merit, engaged in subtle ad hominem and disruption of the topic.
“No one asked you to structure a plan. That’s your strawman. I asked what plan you have in mind,” Sorry, that distinction was a little delicate for me.
I would suggest using renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal and tidal in lieu of fossil fuels for electrical generation. I would suggest filling the gaps with nuclear. I would advocate a new emphasis on conservation and efficiency in our use of energy. I would propose measures to reduce deforestation. I would suggest demanding as consumers that companies act sustainably, and as citizens that our governments behave responsibly and stop lining their pockets at the expense of future generations. Why people object to these ideas so strenuously is unclear, but I am always eager to be enlightened.
Because these ideas will not work. Cannot work in the real world of copper, water, steel, and concrete. Such a world is possible.
At the levels of life we had in 1750. With lives only 30 years long, in squalid poor and starvation (like 7/8 the world lives now). Now, I grant that nuclear will help . A little. Renewables? Add them and 100% hydro to the mix, and you allow 6/8 of the world to live better. (But the enviro’s oppose dams as well.)
SHF:
I notice there’s no economics in your response. No cost/benefit analysis. And what the hell do you mean by “sustainable”??
Cost/benefit is central to the whole debate, and it is the reason that alarmists and skeptics are so far apart. Skeptics want to know what these schemes will cost, so we can try to determine whether they are worth doing.
But alarmists? They want their often pie-in-the-sky ideas implemented now, and damn the expense. Most of them have no skin in the game, meaning they are not paying the freight. A very large percentage are tax collectors [on the take; on the dole], they are not tax payers. And of the ones who are tax payers, many of those are self-serving rent seekers, people like Gavin Schmidt, who would be out of a job if the carbon scare was ever fully debated. See, it’s people like Schmidt who are lining their pockets, and they are doing it with no credible product — unlike fossil fuel companies, which provide necessities.
So let’s put each proposal in turn in front of the taxpaying public, and each side can argue for or against it. Are you game? If we did that, you know what would happen: about 97% of the eco-proposals would go down in flames.
That’s a big reason why the alarmist crowd runs and hides out from any fair, moderated debates. What they really want is to back-door these mostly über-stupid ideas, and leave the taxpaying public holding the bag.
Pot, meet kettle. There’s not a single fact in that entire comment, just insult and opinion. If renewables weren’t economically feasible, implementation wouldn’t be growing globally faster than any other source of electricity. It’s called “capitalism”.http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/strong-growth-for-renewables-expected-through-to-2030/
SHF says:
If renewables weren’t economically feasible, implementation wouldn’t be growing globally faster…&blah, blah, etc.
It’s growing for one reason, and for one reason only: because of the massive taxpayer subsidies propping it up. If you had understood my comment above you would have seen that. You have a weird idea of what is “economically feasible”. Plenty of things are economically feasible if you shovel enough 3rd party money into them.
If you believe that’s “capitalism”, then you know nothing about the subject. Government support of industry is pretty damn close to fascism. That’s what is happening here.
There is nothing less expensive than fossil fuel power. Nothing. But if you give me enough money, I could hire millions of Chinese peons to peddle bicycles and provide power. Don’t mention the subsidies, and it will look cheap. That’s exactly what is happening here. There is no way in hell that windmills could compete on a level playing field with coal or natgas. Only the gullible and credulous believe that nonsense.
I’d love to know what you smoke, db. Grid parity without subsidies is here, and that doesn’t account for the tax breaks given to fossil fuels, or the damage to human health caused by sourcing, digging up, and burning them. . http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=494
SHF:
Of course there are fossil fuel subsidies. So what? That does nothing to negate the point that on a level playing field, your stupid windmills can’t compete with coal or natgas.
And you still didn’t explain “sustainable”.
“the tax breaks given to fossil fuels, or the damage to human health caused by sourcing, digging up, and burning them.”
The tax-breaks-for-fossil-fuels argument has been refuted in WUWT in detail many times.
The damage to human health caused by digging up and fabricating the rare earths and other poisons in whiligiggs and solar panels are worse.
Please document those claims.
Yo, Flash Harry … how’s Germany’s “Ernergiewende” working out for its people ?
Sehr gut.
Meinst du sehr gut so?
Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity! – http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.9AleWwmZ.dpuf
[Ouch. That is less than the usual 17% effectiveness. .mod]
Christiana Figueres
She’s quite wrong. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot each tried it in the 20th century.
Martin,
Since Christiana Figueres has praised China’s political system for its ability to implement policies without having to undergo legislative process and has also declared that the US Congress is detrimental to the UN’s efforts to “fight” climate change, one could easily conclude that you have drawn up a list of Figueres’ mentors and authors of her business plan to “fundamentally change the world’s economic development model”.
LOL, I see that China has just banned the Islamic call to prayers … Man. that’s going to explode a few progressive heads with acute cognitive dissonance.
And Obama did great damage in the 21st century
I don’t think this is a very good example of where we should go. Assuming that the IPCC is right, which we know they are not, then everyone going full steam ahead will bring on the climate disaster that the IPCC has proclaimed. Let’s look at a couple of simpler examples.
A few liars might get ahead in business deals, but if everyone is a liar society goes downhill.
A few bums that don’t work (rich and poor included) might get away with bumming society, but if everyone is a bum, who’s going to produce all the things to bum from?
Machiavellianism is a high point of climate warmists. I would not doubt the book is on everyone of their night stands. It is something that this blog and sceptics have been fighting.
The answer to the question in your third paragraph is: robots.
We’re not there yet and we have not idea how the economics is going to work if and when we get there.
Golden,
Niccolo Machiavelli was right on target. Did you mean Malthus? I could see Malthus being on warmists’ night stands. Lots of them would be very happy to starve people. They come right out and say it.
Machiavelli wrote, “All men are bad, unless compelled to be good.” Since no one compels the alarmist crowd to do anything, they have become unifomly bad.
Look at Greenpeace, which is apparently exempt from laws, and from taxes, and from ever being audited. So naturally, they have become thoroughly corrupt. Machiavelli could have predicted that outcome.
Who compels Greenpeace to have annual audits? No one. What compels them to be good citizens? Nothing. The directors live like kings on the dues of stupid people, who actually believe that by sending Greenpeace their money every month, they are helping to “Save The Planet”™. As if. They are only subsidizing a racket.
And who compels Obama? Anyone? I can’t think of any person, or any organization. He does whatever he wants, and it matters not what Congress or the courts say. Again, Machiavelli would know exactly what’s going on there, because he understood human nature very well.
If Obama had moral character, it would be one thing. But the ‘community organizer’ is completely character-free. Everything has been given to him his entire life, and he has failed upward. Now he is in an unassailable position — and the rest of us are the prisoners with the dilemma.
You have hit upon exactly the situation in the US. The “bums” are the 47% of wage earners who pay no federal tax, yet enjoy the benefits or living in this country.
Those wage earner “bums” are the result of reverse tax bracket creep, designed into the tax system, which is the prime indicator that their wages have not kept pace with inflation. The whole idea of wage taxes is to allow the masses just enough to survive after tax, to keep them from manning the battlements. In other words, wage taxes are designed to keep the little guy, little.
dbstealey,
What Machiavelli is best known for is The Prince where the author “seemed to be endorsing behavior often deemed as evil and immoral. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
The term used in this blog is Plato’s noble lie. I doubt warmists know much about Plato, but can probably recite Machiavelli’s political machinations by heart.
Old Construction Worker: “rich counties pay poor countries not to produce…”
Isn’t that what most NGO’s do already, in their own way, holding down local adaptation/mitigation on a host of topics, not just energy production? Such a shame, look at telephony – emerging nations went straight to wireless celluar, and skipped the copper infrastructure we’re maintaining. What if we helped them get clean(er) coal, gas and new gen nuclear? Instead we smugly suggest we’ll pay them not to get cheap energy, keeping them burning dung – crazy.
Taylor
This article misses an important elephant-in-the-room. Deploy renewables whilst your economy is stable or booming and reap the benefits of low polluting, cheap energy.
Acting to reduce CO2 could boost an economy.
LGM, that is plain wrong. Read Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”.
Just one problem – renewables are not cheap. You end up with expensive renewables and excessive power bills. We are finding this to our cost in Australia, and no doubt in other countries that have gone down the same road. It is alleged that wind power is getting cheaper, and that solar power cells are getting much cheaper. This may well be right, but the electricity produced is still well above the cost of coal.
Only way to make solar or wind power approach even a reasonable price level is to combine the generation with pumped storage, so that energy can be delivered when it is needed, when demand is high, so the price of energy is high. No good providing the energy outside the peaks, when the price is low.
Even Google has given up on current generation renewables as being remotely viable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
I mean, its always possible someone will create a marvellous game changing breakthrough, but with current technology the evidence is that subsidising renewables is a useless drain on the economy.
Eric Worrall,
Rests on the assumption that the near term economic damage of mitigation is greater than the long-term damage of not mitigating. I’d like to know how you know this.
Not necessarily because now you’re assuming that the “expanded industrial base” is capable of “mitigating” any future problems which arise. I’d sure like to know what economic model it is that inspires such confidence above and beyond what models of physics are saying.
Basically your dilemma identifies why doing unified global mitigation now will be difficult because yes, it’s pretty clear that achieving agreement and compliance from all or most parties is going to be difficult. The thing you might want to think about is that rolling back mitigation would probably be a lot easier than implementing it. As well, keep in mind that physical systems do not respond to the writing of policy; they respond to the actions of policy. Perhaps also see: tragedy of the commons, which also ties into game theory but is somewhat more applicable to the problem domain.
Pick your game theory – Prisoner or Tragedy of the Commons. It comes out the same:
The Ministries of Truth and Plenty will take you (oops – take care of you).
Not according to the theory of the games. They’re quite similar, but a properly constructed TC problem does not result in defection being the winning move.
Gates says:
I’d like to know how you know this.
I would like to know how he ‘knows’ that CO2 is any kind of a problem.
Because based on ALL available evidence, it isn’t.
That is an interesting assumption in his essay. Way I’m reading it he’s saying it doesn’t matter because it’s really not a problem to begin with.
That is the default assumption, because there is zero evidence to support the belief that CO2 is harmful.
But if we begin with your assuption: that CO2 is a problem, then we are back in witch doctor territory.
Brandon Gates;
I’d sure like to know what economic model it is that inspires such confidence above and beyond what models of physics are saying.
Those would be the same models that IPCC AR5 said are over estimating warming?
Brandon Gates;
Not necessarily because now you’re assuming that the “expanded industrial base” is capable of “mitigating” any future problems which arise. I’d sure like to know what economic model
How about the one in IPCC AR5? The one that wants us to spend 3% of GDP to mitigate 2% of negative economic impact? Let’s use that one?
As for your previous sentence, you don’t seem to understand that an expanded industrial base is the same thing as having money in your pocket. Money can’t solve ALL problems, but it can solve MOST problems. The less industrial base (money) you have, the fewer unforeseen problems you are in a position to solve. If you wish to make the argument that you KNOW what the outcomes of warming are, AND that they cannot be mitigated, you are free to make a fool of yourself.
davidmhoffer,
All models are wrong. Some are more wrong than others. Economic models are notoriously unreliable, if we must think in those terms, because human beings are singularly unpredictable. That’s one reason why there are four RCPs in AR5, not one.
I’m sorry but I don’t have AR5 memorized yet. I’m a bad warmist that way.
The market disagrees with you:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Sectors_of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png
I’ve argued many times here that I do NOT KNOW what the outcomes of warming are which is a risk in and of itself, and about as good an argument I can think of for mitigating emissions. I like building a lot of nuclear plants to replace coal, myself. Which sounds industrial-like to me. Think of the GDP boost from all that construction.
It doesn’t matter to my scenario if the ultimate result of not reducing CO2 emissions is human extinction, because the evidence for that outcome is not compelling enough, right now, to drive the required levels of cooperation. The temptation to betray the CO2 reduction efforts of others is overwhelming – that is the point I was making.
Eric,
I agree with you that getting it done cooperatively is going to be difficult. Where we disagree is on the “why”. For starters, the serious thinkers among the impact assessors are not fixated on “human extinction”. Next — this is a nitpick, but it drives me nuts — there is no such thing as “evidence” for a future outcome, there can only ever be estimates. Finally, humans fundamentally do not do well planning ahead in very large groups when there are many conflicting interests at stake. By our nature we think we’re going to beat the competition when push comes to shove, or die trying. See just about every war ever fought … one side tends to end up deeply being wrong about their actual chances.
So, I argue that the rational thing to do is play the safe route and give all of us a larger margin of error. I totally get it that not everyone reads history the same way that I do.
Gates says:
I argue that the rational thing to do is play the safe route and give all of us a larger margin of error.
That isn’t rational, because it ignores the critical factor: cost/benefit analysis. Which is really what the entire debate is about. “Safe”? “Margin of error”? What about the cost??
If taking a particular action costs little or nothing and might avoid problems, sure, why not? But if the action results in deconstructing Western civilization — as many alarmists seriously propose — then they had better have irrefutable evidence that such a course of action is necessary and unavoidable.
But in almost all cases where the argument is about CO2, there is zero scientific evidence showing that there is, or has been any harm at all from a rise in that beneficial trace gas.
Try telling that to any of the wild-eyed extremists who populate these threads. They don’t want to hear it. Their attitude is based on Noble Cause corruption: they know they’re right, so anyone arguing must be wrong, and let’s do it — damn the consequences. And if they have to do it by hook or by crook, fire away!
But if we did as they want, our society would come crashing down, and then they would be nowhere to be found: “Nobody here but us chickens.” They are nuts, that’s all. Disregard them.
dbstealey,
The cost of mitigation would be set by policy. The cost of not mitigating will be set by highly uncertain future events. You tell me which we have more control over, and therefore which represents the highest risk.
What a thoroughly stupid argument. If there was “irrefutable evidence” that Western civilization would be deconstructing by warming, you’d go along with a plan to deconstruct Western civilization. Fear really does make people stop thinking apparently. How does it feel to be an alarmist, DB? I’ve always been curious about that.
Gates, you must be looking in the mirror. The thoroughly stupid argument belongs to you alone. You own that kind of argument.
The answer for sensible people: we handle problems as they appear. But so far, there are NO problems with CO2 emission. Prove me wrong, and you win the argument. Fail, and you lose.
So show us those catastrophes, Gates. I’ll wait while you try to think up something scary…
The point you’re evidently not understanding is that if it’s catastrophe, by the time it’s crystal clear it will also be irreversible and unavoidable. Whereas the work to mitigate will have a cost,but a controllable one (ie one that will not result in the downfall of Western civilization, because noone is going to support such a path) and will spur the development of processes and technologies that will be enormously beneficial. There really is no downside, unless you own an oil company.
Here’s one for you DB.
http://mic.com/articles/110216/australia-saw-an-anomaly-that-should-occur-once-in-12-300-years-here-s-why-it-happened?utm_source=Mic+Check&utm_campaign=ee4f6c8bb9-Mic_Report_2_10_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f2320b33-ee4f6c8bb9-285324149
” …researchers were able to calculate likely temperatures in a “natural-only” environment — the earth’s climate without the effects of man-made greenhouse gases. They found that in the absence of human influence on the climate, the staggering temperatures Australia experienced in 2013 had a likelihood of happening just once in 12,300 years — a mere .00008% chance. ”
Those crazy Aussies and their wild imaginations.
dbstealey,
Another truthy nugget of wisdom which isn’t held by sensible people. I imagine, I hope, that you personally have the good sense to insure your house and automobile against wholly unforeseeable damage or destruction. Liability insurance is required by law for people who don’t have that kind of good sense, the reason being that’s how insurance companies keep the risk pool large enough to keep from getting wiped out by people who think they’re such careful drivers that they’ll never cause an accident they’d be held responsible for.
To extend that analogy a bit, imagine that you’re driving a car on a dark road in the fog. Every rational person on the planet slows down in such situations in the off chance that there’s some obstruction ahead that they’d rather not collide with. We do the same thing going around a blind turn on a narrow country road. We especially slow down going around blind corners on a foggy evening when the road we’re on is one we’ve never driven on. What’s the cost of that? We add a few minutes to our trip. On balance we might actually lose more time slowing down for poor driving conditions than we save in cost of accidents, but we also know that reckless drivers get into crackups more often and at higher rates of speed which causes more damage.
Risk management is about playing those kind of odds and balancing the controllable cost of insurance against the potentially uncontrollable cost of loss. I can’t give you “evidence of catastrophe” before it occurs. It’s idiotic to even phrase the question that way. All anyone can provide are estimates of future losses, which need not be catastrophic to warrant action today to mitigate. And for damn sure mitigation itself need not be presently catastrophic — it wouldn’t make any friggin’ sense to do such a nitwitted thing. The nightmares you manufacture about proposals to gently transition out of fossil fuels and into technologies like nuclear, solar and wind power are the alarmism here.
You demand evidence of things which have not occurred, and reject evidence of things which have. Reasonable thinking people see your panicky rhetoric exactly for what it is: illogical horseshit not to be taken seriously.
Your logic is impeccable, your conclusions irrefutable. And yet quite wasted, I fear.
Gates says:
I imagine, I hope, that you personally have the good sense to insure your house and automobile against wholly unforeseeable damage or destruction.
Yes, I do. But I don’t insure my house against an asteroid hit — and that is much more likely than CAGW.
The rest of your comment, including your analogy, is a bunch of nonsense. There is zero evidence showing that runaway global warming is happening, or ever will occur.
I’m sure some insurance company would be happy to take your money to insure against that — laughing all the way to the bank, as they recall a famous P.T. Barnum quote. ☺
SHF says:
Here’s one for you DB.
Then Flash quotes from his link:
…researchers were able to calculate likely temperatures in a “natural-only” environment — the earth’s climate without the effects of man-made greenhouse gases. They found…&blah, blah, etc.
How did they ‘find’ these “likely temperatures”? Here’s how:
Using climate model simulations…
You left that part out, Flash. I wonder why?
I thought it was self-evident. Researchers can’t actually create another Earth, so they use models.
Thanks Flashman. Mostly I write such things for me but with some faint hope that more neutral, silent, third parties may find them compelling. DB riffs off me in similar fashion, so as I see it one good turn deserves another.
Hey, it’s fun, no? But this is a political website (and a very strange one) dressed up in a rhinestone labcoat to look sciency.
Brandon, you and Flash need to get a room, you’re so much in love [not that there’s anything wrong with that☺]. But first, I should remind you that what I wrote was:
…so far, there are NO problems with CO2 emission. Prove me wrong, and you win the argument. Fail, and you lose.
I gave you a very fair chance to show me I’m wrong. Instead, you ignored it, and made a lame analogy that I showed did not apply. Insurance is for real threats, not for supremely unlikely events.
So now you’ve given up entirely on posting any solid evidence supporting your belief in runaway global warming, which, despite zero evidence, you seem to believe is sneaking up on us.
Once more: post evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is harmful. Or any kind of a problem. You would like to win an argument for once, wouldn’t you? Now is your chance.
And that is why Socialism does not work either.
Socialism is a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
The government structures the economy so, Ideally, all groups share burdens and profits — but that never happens. Everybody is soon gaming the system producing the worst possible consequences. Socialism destroys all that it touches because it makes wrong assumptions about basic human nature.
Capitalism demands that human nature structure the economy, not the government. It is not a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
Capitalism fails when it entwines itself with government becoming, well, socialism.
Government needs to regulate Capitalism not control it. Regulation comes after Capitalism acts. Control comes before Capitalism acts. A Socialist government controls while a Capitalist government regulates.
But regulation can quickly become control and socialism with all its terrible consequences will result. When regulations are used to “direct” Capitalism they have become controls.
Or so it seems to me.
This is so off topic that a sensible moderator would eliminate it.
Eugene WR Gallun
[But, the policy here is to “expose” it and “expand on it”, rather than “eliminate” such a topic. .mod]
I don’t think you are too far off topic Eugene because I think that the real objective of the global warming alarmist is to bring communism to all. Some may think that democratic socialism is what they want but tyrannical communism is what they will get. It is what happened to the Russian sailors in the early 1920s (see Kronstadt rebellian).
You’ve brought up the political aspect, not the scientific aspect of AGW. But it is the political aspect that has had a greater negative impact on people than any CO2 Man has ever emitted. That impact is scientifically next to immeasurable.
Socialism didn’t do much for East Germany either. Boy, were they keen to “tear down the wall” !
“Voters would quickly reject the pain ….. .”
Not much sign of this so far …… .
(Mainly because the MSM isn’t reporting things properly, of course.)
…unless they have something to gain. Obummer phones etc
It appears that most people will ignore this entire issue until it affects them personally.
For example, in Oz at the moment we have a Government keen to reduce our national debt and they were voted in quite strongly with this as their platform. Now that they are attempting to perform (what they consider) the necessary fiscal changes, the polls of the same people that voted them in but are going to have to pay for the changes have them as the bad guys and not as popular as during the elections.
At the moment, it appears very people who put us in the debt problem in the first place would win an election.