The trouble with assuming we won't cause a collapse of the ecosystem is that there's quite a lot to suggest we might do just that. Even setting aside the history of various civilisations trashed by minor climate tweaks, and the extinction of prior forms of the Homo genus caused by slightly larger climate swings, we've still got quite a lot to think about.
Apologies for banging on about the paleo record again, but its highly relevant. There isn't a historical precedent for taking all the fossil carbon you can find and shoving it in the atmosphere. The paleocene eocene thermal maximum took about 50k yrs to play out, and we are repeating this warming on a centurial timescale. The only credible paleo analogue (of which I'm aware) for the current fossil fuel frenzy is the permian triassic extinction event, which apparently started when the siberian coal measures burned. As this caused an ocean anoxic event, a hydrogen sulfide atmosphere and the removal of the ozone layer, It's a bit rash to "assume" anything less dramatic will happen when we recreate it. All talk of economics seems a bit silly when you try to cost the worst ever mass extinction into the equation. Cutting down all the trees on Easter island gives a historic analogue, if one is needed, to help illustrate the point. To calculate the consequences of such gross stupidity accurately, you'd have to sum the whole global economic output after extinction, then discount to net present value. You'd the need to multiply it by a risk factor. It would still be a largely meaningless exercise. The simple fact is that going anywhere near these risk thresholds is a folly of the highest order. A On Feb 26, 2012 12:11 AM, "David Appell" <david.app...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 8:38 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote: > > On the other hand, if the Romans had discovered fossil fuels and had a > > fossil-fueled industrial revolution, they would have maximized their net > > present value and we would be here two millennia later with rising seas, > > acidified oceans, melting ice caps, diminished biodiversity, etc, finding > > little solace in the fact that they followed the path their economists > told > > them was economically optimal. > > Perhaps. But we would have built on that wealth and be even wealthier > than we are now, and so better able to deal with the altered climate, > oceans, and biosphere that they caused (assuming they didn't cause a > complete collapse of the ecosystem). Maybe we would have already > perfected fusion by now. > > One of the economists in Bjorn Lomberg's Copenhagen Consensus group > pointed out that someone in our future, say 100 years from now and > several times wealthier than we are, will be puzzled if he looks back > on us and wonders why we decided not to pursue our own best economic > interest on his behalf. > > I grew up in a house with a coal furnace. Should my parents -- who > were not even middle class then and struggled to get by -- not have > burned coal, which was the cheapest option for them where I lived > (western PA), because it would alter the climate and oceans? I don't > know what else they would have done for heat. Eventually my father did > better and we bought an oil furnace and then a nicer house, and then > an even nicer house (but still middle class) with gas heat and A/C. I > have to admit Lomborg's economist makes a lot of sense -- today I > would have been puzzled if my parents had not heated with coal, but > had taken out a loan to buy an oil furnace. (They couldn't even afford > a proper bathroom, but had a toilet in a closet and a shower in the > basement.) And now today we have all kinds of technologies to employ > on the energy/climate problem that they did not have, and on living > overall -- we can build seawalls if we have to. The future will have > even cheaper options. > > David > St Helens, OR > http://www.davidappell.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
