Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Former Cato institute vice president Jerry Taylor thinks that we should act on climate change because, even if the science is far from certain, the downside risk of ignoring climate change is too great to accept.
What Changed My Mind About Climate Change?
Risk management is not a binary choice.by JERRY TAYLOR
MAY 21, 2019 5:56 AMI spent the better part of my professional life (1991-2014) working at a libertarian think tank—the Cato Institute—arguing against climate action. As Cato’s director of Natural Resource Studies (and later, as a senior fellow and eventually vice president), I maintained that, while climate change was real, the impacts would likely prove rather modest and that the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions would greatly exceed the benefits.
I changed my mind about that, however, because (among other things) I changed my mind about risk management.
If we think about climate risks in the same fashion we think about risks in other contexts, we should most certainly hedge—and hedge aggressively—by removing fossil fuels from the economy as quickly as possible.
…
When asked why I changed my mind about federal climate policy, this is a large part of my answer. Building an argument against climate action upon a forceful claim about the most likely outcome of greenhouse gas emissions is to build an argument upon analytic sand.
You don’t have to believe with all your heart that the worst-case scenario is sure to happen. You just have to understand that it is one possible outcome. And that we should not be making policy based on an assumption that we are certain of this or that outcome.
When it comes to managing large-scale risks, straight-forward economics suggests that we ought to take climate change very seriously.
…
Read more: https://thebulwark.com/what-changed-my-mind-about-climate-change/
The problem with Jerry’s argument is you could build a similar case for taking action against witches.
Consider the following false logic; Our understanding of the universe is imperfect, so we can’t categorically rule out the possibility of witchcraft. You don’t have to believe with all your heart that the worst case scenario – that witches exist and contribute mightily to human suffering – is sure to be the case. But it would be insane to ignore the risk that some of our fellow humans have sold their souls.
Why would you reject this argument for taking action against witchcraft? For the same reason you should reject taking worst case climate scenarios seriously.
There is no observational evidence that there is a real problem, nor is there any shred of paleo-climate evidence that moderately elevated CO2 levels are associated with major negative consequences.
Money spent “acting” on climate change cannot be spent on hospitals or schools or clean drinking water or food or helping poor people.
Given the vast cost of any meaningful CO2 reduction, it would be insane to commit such resources on the basis of the wild predictions of deeply flawed models, without the support of observational evidence which confirms that we do indeed have a problem.
The worst case scenario of following his advice is world-wide totalitarianism and a new dark age.
why do the pushers of applying the precautionary principle to fossil fuel only do a cost/benefit analysis of 1 alternative – totally ignoring the effects of the other choice or choices – in the CO2 debate – we should not just consider the (imagined) possibility of greenhoused earth – but evaluate and compare the very real consequences of cutting off cutting off such a potent source energy as fossil fuel
There are many problems with Jerry Taylor’s argument, and as usual, they begin with assumptions that aren’t true. He writes:
“Despite some technical ambiguity, scientists believe that the chance of a nasty surprise on the climate front is much larger than the chance of a pleasant surprise.”
Really!? The opposite appears to be true. To date, we have had no nasty surprises and a huge pleasant consequences. Plants are loving the increased CO2! The biosphere is healthier! Life is thriving! That is pretty damn BIG! The benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2 are incalculable. He continues…
“The second is that the risk of locking ourselves into a high-carbon, worse-than-expected climate world is larger than being locked into overly-expensive green energy. That is largely because once CO2 is in the atmosphere–where natural residence times are measured in centuries—it is very expensive to remove through technical means.”
This assumption is built on the first assumption that there is no upside to increasing CO2 and lots of potential downside…an assumption for which there is a lot of contradictory evidence and very little supporting evidence. Then the assumption is added that CO2 residence times are measured in Centuries, and that a technical means of removing CO2 would be required. This is stacking worst-case-scenarios on top of each other! Residence times of CO2 are highly debated, and technology tends to rise to the necessity. (it is the mother of invention, don’t ya know.) CO2 capture is largely not feasible because it is not necessary!
“Green energy boondoggles, on the other hand, can be reversed rather easily, and will at least deliver some health benefits from reduced air pollution, regardless of how climate change plays out.”
The fact that stupid practices can be easily reversed is a really stupid reason for practicing them! And the statement completely ignores the ill health that may result from green energy, especially where the materials are mined, the harm to animals by wind and solar, and the danger inherent in unreliable energy in the urban environments that run on them. It seems that Mr. Taylor likes to cherry-pick his costs and his benefits in this analysis.
“Lastly, societies have long demonstrated a willingness to pay in order to avoid prompting risks that are asymmetric, ambiguous, and irreversible. Global warming is all three.”
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is asymmetrically negative only if you refuse to acknowledge the positives. If you do acknowledge the positives, it is still asymmetric, but in a positive way. Asymmetry is not something that societies seek to avoid, nor should they. Ambiguity? That’s inherent in the system. It always will be. There is no reward in fighting ambiguity. It is the illusion of control that is the underlying theme of Jurassic Park. The way to deal with ambiguity is by strengthening ones adaptability. All attempts to remove ambiguity from life have failed or led to undesirable outcomes. Get over it, Mr. Taylor. Planning the next 100 years is not really an option. No one is that smart. Not even close. Finally, irreversible? Only inanimate things are reversible. Life is not. If society limited what they do to only things that can be undone, we would be extinct already!
The ideal condition is thriving, with awareness and vigilance. If it ain’t broke…don’t fix it, but occasional tune-ups are a good idea. There is no evidence that more atmospheric CO2 has broken or is breaking anything. Stop trying to fix what ain’t broken with something that is demonstrably and immediately worse!
You forgot to mention the fact that the claim that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for centuries has been completely refuted. Closer to a decade or so.
Any fool can invent worst case scenarios, and most fools do.
What seems to be missing from Jerry Taylor’s assessment of risk management is: opportunity lost costs. That is, when you spend your money on Plan A, doing something where the likelihood of a terrible outcome is quite low yet the consequences can be quite harsh, one doesn’t have that money (because it is already spent) for Plan B to address the more likely outcome. You loose the opportunity to address subsequent issues.
The entire argument is one of mitigation vs adaptation. He chooses mitigation. Not me.
Once again, an alarmist confuses possibility with probability!
The “worst case scenario” has a probability. It’s the undesirable tail of a probability distribution.
In resource and reserve estimation, the worst case scenario is “P99“… There’s a 99% probability that a well will produce more oil & gas than the P99 scenario… 😉
“I changed my mind about risk management”. How about this risk- we know that axial inclination is going to favor a cooling at the poles into the future. Meridional winds will increase causing more deep water upwelling and lower cloud formation. The earth will start cooling into the next ice age. The associated buildup of ice\snow in the far north (increasing albedo) will make life in the northern regions Very difficult.
If I was the Canadian Prime Minister (WHICH OBVIOUSLY I’m not) I would be selling/burning as much fossel fuels as possible to (1) pay for a stockpile of thorium or any nuclear fuel available
(2) help plant based food production
(3) Maybe raise global temperatures a little?
These guys are morons if they think we can have a major affect on the natural cycles of the earth.
As I see it–bruce
Earthling 2 put it very well. Reminds me of the very old TV show with Sgt. Friday ,
“Give me the facts Madnm””
MJE VK5ELL
Personally, I am not buying for a second the assertion that this author is knowledgeable on the subject, nor the claim that he used to be a skeptic but is now a card carrying alarmist.
He sounds like just anther climate liar to me, just making stuff up and pretending it is true and telling everyone we gotta believe him.
I, for one, do not.
At all.
When they went to the low fat diet one of the arguments was the precautionary principal. Surely this can do no harm. People went low fat and food stopped tasting as good. So they upped both sugar and highly refined Starch. This of course leads to obesity and diabetes.
In this case with their illogical insistence on wind and solar, that leads high prices which will lead to rebellion by the lower middle class. You can fool the middle class for awhile with the talk that intermittent power is cheaper. But as it is implemented and the prices of power go up they will stop believing the lies. The funny thing is these progressives believe their own lies about the cheapness of renewable power.
In isolation renewable power appears cheap, but when you factor in the cost of providing power when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, the total cost goes up by at least a factor of 2.
If Jerry wants to hedge his bets he should be preaching ‘Resilience’ not just putting his eggs all in the extremist ‘were all going to die’ heat scenario. He is not even making sense from his own point of view.
If the shaky projected downside of climate change is too great to dismiss, what about the past-tense actual fact upside: 11% more planetary greenery and food for about 600 million people.
This guy was in a Think Tank?
When performing Risk Analysis you have to consider more than just worst case – there is likelihood and cost as well. Resources are limited, so spending resources on one unlikely future event can divert precious time and resources from many likely future events.
In the case of AGW, one would also have to accept that prevention is impossible, and therefore any resources directed at avoiding the event is wasteful – assign this a probability. What’s the likelihood of the event? (each scenario would get a probability) What’s the likely cost? (and this would be huge)
Now compare against mitigation – simply adapt to events as they come, *if* they occur at all.
A reasoned analysis will lead to the conclusion that mitigation is a far more practical and less risky policy. Unless of course you already 100% for sure KNOW that it will occur (which all alarmists seem to know) and then the case becomes…oh, wait, mitigation is still the least costly, least risky choice.
This person (Jerry Taylor) does not understand either the climate change debate nor risk analysis. So…why was he in a Think Tank?
If a cost benefit analysis is not possible your only alternative is to react and do random things out of fear. This is also called ‘the precautionary principle’.
The fallacy actually isn’t that you are seeking to eliminate the risk by taking action the fallacy is that the action you take is actually accepted as being futile. It therefore is not action to protect against the risk of something happening but merely a gesture which won’t reduce global temperatures. Its like spending millions on the local church and praying every day and thinking that will prevent your house from burning down. Whilst I personally believe in God and recognise the benefit that prayer plays in society I’m not going to rely on that power or my donations to my religion as protection against my house burning down.
The futility of doing something on climate change is made clearer when one realises how few countries are bothering to do anything. In Australia spending even 1 cent trying to change the climate is a waste of money.
The rationale offered by the former Cato Institute head is circular nonsense. Tis lack of good thinking is likely what led to his being ousted from the Cato Institute in the first place.
With the level of thinking of the subject in this article, we should ban all travel because of the worst case scenario of being killed in a crash. We should embark on a crusade to eliminate all asteroids in the solar system because of the remote possibility that one might hit the earth and wipe out all life. We should prohibit children from going outside alone because of the remote possibility that they might be abducted. We should all stop having children because the world economy might collapse and we’ll all starve. THE SKY IS FALLING!! PANIC!
President Donald Trump’s unexpected election and the surge of populist nationalism across Europe revealed flagging faith in liberal-democratic government and grave vulnerabilities in political systems. The Niskanen Center responded swiftly to the alarm, launching the Open Society Project in November 2016 to analyze the deteriorating political situation and mount an intellectual and political defense of the open society. Since then, Niskanen has produced a stream of research and analysis illuminating the principles, values, norms, and institutions of liberal democracy, supplying a rigorous intellectual basis for their protection.
https://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-Niskanen-Annual-Report-v2.pdf
If you peruse Niskanen’s website, it becomes abundantly clear that Mr Taylor will say anything for a paycheck. Zero principles.
The problem with Jerry’s argument is you could build a similar case for taking action against witches.
Yes. Its the same problem as with the related argument in more sophisticated form, Pascal’s Wager. Consider:
Believing in Catholicism costs very little. If right, it secures us against eternal damnation. Disbelief on the other hand, if wrong, has an almost infinite cost, eternal damnation.
Therefore, no matter how low the probability that Catholicism is true, it is rational to believe. Even at low probabilities of truth, the expected value is positive. Hugely so.
And what, asks the intelligent skeptic, about Islam? Doesn’t the argument show I should believe in that too? But I cannot believe in both since they are incompatible…
At which point the furious opponent resorts to violence.
The same argument is often used about global warming.
If catastrophic warming happens, civilization becomes over. This is a huge cost. Therefore no matter how low the chance is, the expected value is so high that we should behave as if it were true and take action to avert the possibility.
To which the intelligent skeptic replies, and what about global cooling? The exact same argument applies, but it would prescribe the opposite course of action.
At which point the forum moderator bans the intelligent skeptic and deletes his/her posts.
These arguments are strictly for the logically challenged. Which, since the Parisian nonsense factory infected higher education in America, is most people.
Michel, Blaise Pascals wager –
https://www.google.com/search?q=Blaise+Pascals+wager+-&oq=Blaise+Pascals+wager+-&aqs=chrome.
Inventor of the first computing machine :
https://www.google.com/search?q=pascal%27s+computing+machine&oq=Pascal+computing&aqs=chrome.
How about the risk of a large asteroid hit? Science says it will happen in the future.
Much more sudden and devastating than than any CO2 bomb.
We should spend a few trillion dollars on that Extinction risk.
16-year-old activists can not know about modern wine growing on the Yangtze River.
https://www.google.com/search?q=modern+wineries+on+yangtse+river&oq=modern+wineries+on+yangtse+river&aqs=chrome.
Nature can hardly be bent. better make use of.