AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism

"Better Act Now" Than Being Sorry Later? or The Economist vs. The Titanic

Insuring against catastrophe“, proclaims The Economist after publishing an article that just a few weeks ago would have been at the receiving end of sorts of insults by climate talibans:

Plenty of uncertainty remains; but that argues for, not against, action. If it were known that global warming would be limited to 2°C, the world might decide to live with that. But the range of possible outcomes is huge, with catastrophe one possibility, and the costs of averting climate change are comparatively small. Just as a householder pays a small premium to protect himself against disaster, the world should do the same.

The Economist is wrong.

If you want to insure yourself against catastrophe, surely the very first thing you want to do is to make sure that the end result won’t be worse than the catastrophe you’re trying to avoid.

Take for example what happened with the unsinkable Titanic. It is very likely that, had the crew just slowed down the ship without trying to turn it to avoid the iceberg, four or fewer compartments would have been flooded, and the whole sinking avoided with everybody on board surviving the accident. First Officer Murdoch simply didn’t think about the consequences of some of his actions. The cost of trying to avert the iceberg was as high as losing more the fifteen hundred lives.

And so just like with the famous liner, even if we believe he environment is soon going to crush against some disaster of an iceberg, still we can’t simply decide to do something for the sake of doing something. Uncertainty doesn’t necessarily argue for action.

Now, if only we could get the climate debate to a reasonable level, things would be a tad simpler than they are.

0 replies on “"Better Act Now" Than Being Sorry Later? or The Economist vs. The Titanic”

My house got hit by lightening last year and I lost my TV and garage door opener to the surge. Would I have bought insurance for this if it was $10,000/yr? I think not, but that is how the “precautionary principle” is being used.

Personally I’d just appreciate some number crunchers to make sense, and a few things add up, when they come out with the next ‘we’re all doomed if we don’t DO… er… stuff’ pronouncement.

Folk like the UN, the PM, Ed Miliband, Copenhagen, the BBC, etc, and now… The Economist.

I just need it, whatever ‘it’ is, properly vetted and costed, for ROI, enviROI, such that, for the sake of my kids, and their futures, the immense amounts of money being demanded for, er, ‘green things’, are not mainly going down big green holes organised by the likes of Byers, Hewitt and Hoon to tick boxes, meet a target, shunt money around, and score a bonus, but will actually do very little to reduce actual GHGs short, middle or past their pension payout terms.

So if that makes me a sceptic, flat-earth, unsure-very-much-is-yet-settled-at-all…. er, so be it.

I have questions. And so far the answers I am getting are either defensive, or plain daft. Or insulting.

And when they are, the credibility of those coming out with them is shot. Trust is a hard thing to regain.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.