[Global Change: 889] Re: Is (climate) change bad?

[Andrew Feeney]

Although I generall am against change, especially change brought about by what seem to me to be chaotic and uncontrolled market forces, I think this post raises a good post.  But when we ask whether change per se is good or bad, we're probably asking too big a question to get a very good answer. 

 

I think the devil's in the details on this one.  I also think there are certain conditions under which "change" occurs that are likely to make it negative overall -- even granting James Annan's point.

 

1.  Change on a global level is almost certain to benefit some people and harm others.  Is there likely to be any mechanism in place that ensures that the winners will compensate the losers?  If not, "change" per se raises obvious distributional questions and ethical questions.  It departs from what capitalist economists call "Pareto optimal exchange" conditions and starts to look a little like robbery, which in a sense is merely forced change in the ownership of property.

 

2.  There's also a question whether human societies, on the whole, will be prepared to adapt to change constructively.  If they're not prepared to take advantage of the good things that change offers, or to mitigate the bad things that change causes, then the net effect of change could be really costly. 

 

An obvious example involves the possible and/or likely effects of global climate change on global agriculture.  Possibly, a warmer climate and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 may benefit agriculture in some important parts of the world.  But if climate change introduces uncertainties into agriculture that many farmers do not adapt to very skillfully - if growing seasons are longer, but people continue trying to grow wheat or maize or rice for many years in places that have become suitable for these crops, so that global food output suffers -- the negative effects of change could well outweigh the positive ones.

 

3.  To the extent that global climate changes trigger increases in average sea levels around the planet, at the high end of what's been expected, so that oceans rise to the point that they flood large numbers of densely populated coastal cities, I think that's likely to have a strongely negative net effect. Do other people agree or disagree?

James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I spotted an interesting comment on RC, in the thread following the
recent post "How much CO2 emission is too much?":



especially




and a few subsequent replies to me

My comment on the comments on the comment on the comment on the comment
got longer and longer and I repost it here as a more suitable forum for
discussion:


Re 34, 35, 37, 39:

Even if one assumes the premise that we are "optimally adapted" to the
present climate (which I think would be difficult to rationally defend),
it does not follow that changes to the climate would result in net costs.

In fact, our adaptation to the current climate (eg in agriculture and
infrastructure, as have been mentioned) is also a matter of economics,
technology and politics, and we can guarantee that these will continue
to change at quite a rate.

Of course we can all agree that a drought in an area that is already
somewhat short of water is a bad thing that will likely cost money,
compared to exactly the same situation without the extra drought.
However, an increase in rainfall in such an area is likely to be
beneficial (so long as it is not excessive and leads to flooding), even
if society is well adapted to the status quo. The opening of the
Northwest Passage is likely to bring significant economic benefits by
reducing transport costs, even though (of course) we are currently
adapted to its impassability. Warmer winters will reduce the winter
death rate in the UK for sure, and this vastly outweighs any plausible
estimate of heatwave deaths, at least for a range of modest warmings,
even before we start to consider any adaptation to the summer heat. We
could of course achieve a similar effect by insulating homes and
reducing poverty, of course, but we are already "optimally adapted", right?

To boldly assert as axiomatic that "change = bad" is, I think, rather
naive and simplistic. All sorts of (social, economic, technological)
changes are inevitable, and the latter two at least have a strong record
of bringing substantial (no, massive) benefits. Would anyone be silly
enough to argue that these changes are bad because we are adapted to the
status quo? While I am sure that some climate changes will increase
pressure on some ecosystems and human societies, it seems to me to be a
rather more nuanced situation than some of the comments above would
indicate. Indeed, if the climate changes are slow and modest enough
compared to the other changes, it might be hard to detect their overall
effect at all (on human health, wealth and happiness, I mean - of course
I'm sure it will be easy to measure environmental parameters that
document the climate change itself, indeed this is already clear
enough). I'm sure UK residents will have noticed the substantial
northward march of maize as a crop in recent years (for cattle fodder).
I'm not sure to what extent this is due to politics (subsidies),
economics, climate change, breeding of better-adapted varieties, or even
just farmers gradually realising that it grows better than they had
thought possible. Even if climate change is the largest factor (which I
doubt, but it's possible), it is not clear who lost out here, other than
perhaps the bugs that prefer to live on kale (or whatever the displaced
crop was).

Living as I do in a country where houses are expected to last about 30
years, I find it hard to take seriously any worry that they might not be
optimally adapted to the climate 100 years hence (let alone the sea
level a few centuries later). Note also that a change in fuel prices
would change the optimal amount of insulation irrespective of climate
change. Likewise, advances in building materials will likely render
current designs somewhat redundant.

Extropians would assert that "change = good" and that we should
encourage change unless it is proven harmful. Just to be clear on this,
I do not endorse this point of view 100% but the difference in opinion
seems as much philosophical as scientific. I think that understanding
this POV goes a long way to explaining the differences between the
environmentalists and the sceptics (even if it does not excuse the
dishonesty of the denialist wing).

I hope this doesn't sound too much like a septic handwave, expecting
techology to magically save the day. To the extent that climate change
is rapid or substantial (which I will deliberately leave undefined
here!), of course it's a threat that should be taken seriously. It is a
little scary to think about how dominant the human influence can be, and
perhaps a mental model of some hypothetical stasis is a comforting
thought in which to ground our personal philosophies. But it would be a
mistake to let one's comfort zone unduly colour one's perceptions of
reality (or at least, such effects need to be openly considered and one
should be prepared to see them challenged).

James




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to globalchange@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---