global warming stuff
Hey, I just finished my global warming debate. Andrew, I used some of your old arguments about bias in academia to show how a consensus among scientists doesn't neccesarily mean they're right, so thanks for the help!
My conclusion after the whole thing...human-induced global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions is probably part of the reason that temperatures are increasing, but not all or even most of it. The consequences are really hard to predict, but will probably be some degree of rise in sea levels, obviously increased temperatures, and generally increased rainfall. If people can continue to develop better technologies, we very well may be able to adapt to the worst of it. Some species of plants and animals will suffer a lot, and some will migrate to better climates, and some we might be able to help with the aforementioned technologies.
Because the system is so complex and hard to predict, though, it may be much, much worse. So, the question is, which scenario should we use for policy decisions. The worst case, the best case, or something in-between? I think it may be wiser to make policy based on the worst case scenario, especially if this involves investments in alternative energy, which would have lots of other benefits too.
1 comment:
One of the more important things I've learned in my time at school this year has been the concept of "market failure" and "externalities." These are fairly obvious concepts, but they're also pretty powerful. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels creates externalities (i.e., pollution, health problems, etc) that the market does not take into account.
So, I generally agree that markets are the best allocator, but I think that they need to be tweeked to account for negative (or positive) externalities. I.e., fossil fuels should be taxed more than they are. Higher prices will create the "natural" incentives for private industry to pursue alternative energies.
Post a Comment