Carbon control advocates admit that their tough new environmental regulations would be expensive and economically disruptive. To justify such disruption, the burden of proof rests with them, and all uncertainty supports the status quo. Proponents must do more than just cite scientifically plausible climate effects and then jump to draconian action. They need to connect all of the cost and benefit dots between the climate and their disruptive policy.
Furthermore, even if dots are connected to show that one policy has an advantage over doing nothing, there may yet be other effective policy alternatives that are less disruptive. Therefore, proponents of an economically disruptive policy should remain open to a lower-cost solution.
Please note: Rejecting a policy does not mean that one blindly or stupidly rejects any of the science. It merely means that we would probably be better off to cope with the problem at another time or in some other way.
Please read my whole list of questions (my "dots") and my comments afterward. I encourage you to think of more questions that I missed. I hope you will contemplate how the answer to each question fits into a chain of cost/benefit analysis, affecting the answers to the questions that follow. You will notice some recurring themes, such as uncertainty and time-value. In weighing your own decision on radical policy, remember that uncertain gains shouldn't weigh as much as certain costs, but immediate costs should weigh more than far future savings.
* How much is the climate warming?
* How uncertain is that?
* How much climate variation is natural?
* How uncertain is that?
* What's the chance that a volcano or solar fluctuation will cause more natural cooling in the next hundred years than man-made warming could possibly overcome?
* Of the recent man-made warming, how much has been caused by "greenhouse" gas emissions, and how much can be attributed to other human activity, such as reducing smog in the 1970s?
* If any numbers are synthetic (generated by a model), then whose model is it, and where can we see what assumptions went into the model, and what physics was left out?
* Of the numbers coming from measurements, were they corrected for urban "heat islands" building up around measuring sites over time?
* What damage will occur if we do nothing?
* What benefits will occur if we do nothing?
* When would these damages and benefits occur?
* How much would the damages cost?
* How much of that damage is unavoidable because it will be caused by CO2 already in the atmosphere?
* Given that we will need to pay some fixed costs to develop coping mechanisms regardless of policy, then how much more would it cost to simply cope with some additional warming that could have been prevented?
* How much of that cost can be dodged because the warning time exceeds the life cycle of vulnerable property?
* How much future marginal cost would we save by enacting stringent policy now?
* How much will the future benefits of warming be worth?
* How much could that value be maximized because of the long time we have to prepare?
* How much of the value of those benefits would be sacrificed if we enact stringent policy?
* How much is the expected future net gain (savings less lost benefits) of the policy?
* How uncertain (risky) is that net gain?
* How far in the future is that net gain?
* Consequently, what's the net present value of that uncertain, net future gain?
* How much will the policy cost now?
* Does the net present value of the policy's expected result exceed its certain, immediate cost?
* What technological breakthroughs could "change everything" soon enough to obsolesce investments in today's expensive energy alternatives?
* How likely is that technology if we avoid the cost of the policy proposal?
* How would that probability change, and how would that tech be delayed if we disrupt the economy now?
Some of the concepts in these questions deserve some elaboration...
Notice that I don't try to dismiss the science. However, I do suggest that predicted effects are often not quantified reliably, and those that have been may have large uncertainties. Before we assign weight to any evidence, we should discount it by its uncertainty (and realize that predictions with no admitted error bars are just guesswork, not science). Also realize that the scientific uncertainties will be multiplied when the science numbers are fed into economic calculations.
Be particularly skeptical of models. Models, even more than statistics, can be manufactured to show any desired result, pro or con. Without even consciously manipulating the result, a model designer with preconceived expectations will tend to think of more factors supporting the expectation than against. Therefore, no model should ever be accepted at face value no matter which side of the debate it favors. Don't cite any model without "looking under the hood". For example (I hope it's not a real one!), a model would be useless if the model designer remembered that cloud tops are cold (less IR), but conveniently forgot that cloud tops radiate from above some (and often most) of the atmosphere and its CO2.
Most people don't understand economics, and their eyes glaze over when one tries to explain. Consequently, most act-now arguments, even in respected publications, skip directly from climate change to draconian CO2 control proposals. Few even attempt to weigh cost versus benefit, and almost no publication (outside the economics profession itself) delves into such sleep-inducing economic esoterica as the time value of money. All short-circuited appeals for hasty, draconian action are fallacious and should be dismissed.
Since we're considering civilization-changing policies affecting trillions in commerce and billions of people, we can't afford to indulge laziness in our audience (or ourselves). If the phenomenon is important enough to motivate people to care at all, then it's also worth motivating people to learn at least the basics of some crucial economics as well. As an added benefit, wider public competence would translate into better decision making on many other issues.
To learn more about how economics should affect decisions about global warming, start by reading the abstract of Gary Becker's article at the Hoover Institute
Advancing technology weighs against expensive policy in several ways:
* A completely random advance can make a marginally advantageous decision look very bad very quickly. Though we can't predict the timing or full effects of such random technological breakthroughs, we know that they arise. Therefore, before choosing an expensive policy, its advantage should be sizable, not marginal.
* Economically disruptive policy such as stringent CO2 reductions will reduce the resources we have available for research.
* Economic disruption also means less capacity to roll out new tech that may arise.
* Some tech is not completely random; there is already news of research in progress. Therefore we can assign realistic probabilities to some near-future developments.
Perhaps the most promising of these is the new work on hydrogen fusion. Fusion research changed tracks a few years ago, abandoning the multi-billion dollar mega boondoggle approach in favor of a much more modest (yet energetic) concept. The new approach is much more promising than the earlier mega-science, and at a fraction of the research cost. See Polywell Wiki and follow the references.
I haven't seen enough answers to my questions (yet), so I remain opposed to tough new environmental regulations, at least for the time being. If you can't confidently (and honestly) answer all of these questions either, and if you can't find someone who has, then you too should oppose immediate and radical policy. Push for research, push for "low-hanging fruit" (policies that pay for themselves), but don't go radical, not yet.
Our grandchildren won't thank us for rash policy that puts them in a worse position than if we do nothing (or do something less costly). To the extent that climate responds to CO2, it appears to react on a time scale of 50-100 years. That gives us many election cycles gather more data, reduce uncertainties, and possibly develop new technologies to either live with warming comfortably or stop it sooner and more cheaply. Let's use that time wisely.