1. Kyoto restrictions on U.S. [or even heavier] would severely harm our economy to the point of costing MILLIONS of jobs, and give the benefits to red China to pick up and double or triple their production of CO2 [not limited by Kyoto]. So-no benefit, yet!

2. The Kyoto treaty can only reduce temperature by 0.05 degrees to 0.07 degrees C by 2050 per estimates of top environmental scientists, including S. Fred Singer. That’s less than a quarter of a degree by 2100, so it won’t help at all.

Thanks for your comments. I have not studied the topic of global warming extensively, so I reserve final judgment. But the arguments presented here (including, sadly, by the good judge) are just bogus. It amounts to nothing more than a global warming boogeyman–it could be really, really, really bad so let’s doing whatever we can despite our lack of knowledge and understanding. That’s scary and that’s a dangerous way for a government and a civilized people to act. We don’t know the effects of global warming, and we don’t know how much of global warming is attributable to mankind. Of course we can’t have a 100% level of certainty, but I don’t see anywhere even close to a 10% level of certainty among the scientific data.

As I said, as long as we can be confident that our actions aren’t counter-productive, then some action is permissable. I just don’t see the urgency justified by any real data or knowledge, it’s all worst-case scenario boogeyman baloney. Yes, we could be invaded by aliens, so why don’t we prepare for that while we’re at it? Our world is one of scarcity, we must make our priorities with that in mind. We can always make thing safer and better, but the most basic premise of economics says we cannot do that–we must allocate our scarce resources to accomplish finite objectives. We can’t prepare for every far-fetched contingency, and, yes, scenarios like the “Venusian hellhole with daytime highs above the melting point of lead” mentioned by someone responding here really are ridiculous. My point is we can’t go lashing out at every paranoid fantasy (e.g. Venusian hellholes).

BTW, to another reader, I never said that Judge Posner endorsed Kyoto, though I got that impression. I said to Judge that from my perspective Kyoto is unjustified.

Best to all,

Palooka

It’s not just a question of existence. We also have to figure out what the effects are. And those are not agreed upon. They range from “gee, the artic circle is quite pleasant now that the permafrost has melted!” to “drat, the planet can no longer sustain life.” In between there is a near-continuum. Then, as pointed out, there’s a set of possible responses which range from “Mary had a little lamb, I’m not listening!” to the introduction of an Energy Gestapo.

If we knew exactly what all these effects and responses were, and what the various (not necessarily quantifiable) costs were, we could figure out the optimum response. But we don’t, and we won’t, because despite all this argument, basically all we know with near-certainty is that the earth is a complex system with highly non-linear responses.

Ah well. We’ll have to muddle about instead. That’s okay; we’re good at muddling. We have a lot of experience.

The level of debate on this, even among this hyper-educated crowd, is amazing.

We’re not talking about a slow, linear heat increase across the globe. We’re talking about an increase in highly variable, severe weather systems. Floods. Droughts. Typhoons. Heat waves. These things are already upon us, and they’re only going to get more common.

And why this assumption that aggressive action on climate change will suppress innovation? What spurs more innovation than limits? (See: White Stripes) And why assume that all industrialization and innovation not only are, but must be, based on burning fossil fuels?

What about innovations in energy efficiency, housing density, new fuels, alternative energy? If we had anything resembling a genuinely free market in this country, we would already be seeing action in these areas. As it is now, other countries are leaving us in the dust, and once our current system of propping up outmoded energy sources and behavior patterns collapses, we will rue that we didn’t move more aggressively into these markets.

I can understand how tabacoo companies would lie about the dangers of smoking, and I can understand how oil companies want to keep getting a free ride, but I see no incentive for people to make up climate change science. I’ve never seen an explaination behind this “conspiracy.” Frankly, I think those who claim climate change isn’t a problem just have no concern for future generations, and when given the choice of making wise decisions versus making more money in the short-term, they’ll always pick the short-term gains.

That’s one good use of government, because, on ballance, the industry is basically set up to greatly reward short term thinking and discounts majorly the values from long-term planning.

Many people are concerned about the “exists/take action/doesn’t work” scenario. Could we have done something different that enhances our ability to survive the inevitable global warming, instead of wasting time trying to prevent it? (I’m not saying this is the right way to think about the problem, just pointing out a flaw in your decision matrix.)

Regarding Venusian disaster: where’s the science for that? Global flooding, extinction, changes in agricultural suitability–ok, I’ve seen that. Daytime highs over the melting point of lead, though? Isn’t this just another example of the pseudo-science people are throwing around just because it sounds good?

I quite doubt that any efforts to fix this problem globally are going to do more good than harm. We don’t know whether the best answer to global warming is “save money to build dikes later” or “seed the blue ocean to grow more plankton” or “raise taxes on industry until CO2 emissions are in the ‘right’ range”.

My guess is attempts to find a global political solution to this problem are going to be based on what makes the best headlines and appeases the most active interest groups, and not what provides the most benefit at the least cost. See Lomborg’s argument that Kyoto would have cost billions a year for almost no real reduction in global warming.

A policy like Kyoto would do more than just waste money to no effect; secondary effects in the developing world will mean more poverty, more misery, and at the margin, more death. To say that the stakes are apocalypse on one hand and a little wasted money on the other is to ignore the importance of technology and economic growth for the truly poor people of the world.

I always enjoy and respect your comments. I am not a trained economist or mathematician. Could you explain your comments using “six sigma”. I understand many companies use six sigma to reduce the probability of accidents or failures. For example, in the nuclear industry, calculations are performed on safety systems to determine the probability of core meltdown or release of radiation into the atmosphere in the next 500,000 or 1,000,000 millions. Why is that significant? Why do we concern ourselves with what could happen in 500,000 or 1,000,000 million years. I’d appreciate if you could help shed some light. Again, I really appreciate your comments, Judge Posner.

A.J.

Let’s see: damn the potential of industry and progress for mankind, or avoid maybe making the planet uninhabitable because we don’t know what we’re doing. Hmm, which would I choose?

You’re essentially making this decision into a neuvo Pascal’s wager, and I don’t think we want governments to function that way.

I can see it now…”Well, it’s ‘safer’ to believe in God, so weekly mandated Church service for everyone…well, unless they didn’t go to church much back in 1990…”

-kd