Given that there are still some uncertainties, the question of whether we should act on climate change came up during a dinner. Instead of spending time and resources on future impacts, why not address current problems in places with famine, water shortages, and genocides? It’s a valid question and interesting point to discuss (and perhaps those with knowledge in inter-generational equity can comment too.)
My dad gave me a simple yet illustrative analogy for discussing climate change. He told me to imagine that I visited my doctor. What would I do if my doctor informed me that, given my lifestyle, there is a high likelihood that I may have a heart attack or dangerous disease if I continue this way? (In effect, some scientists believe there is a high likelihood that earth may have a climatic change if we continue this way.)
I could rationalize the issue. Diseases are natural, should I even bother with prevention? Sure perhaps I played a role by consuming greasy foods and not exercising much, but I have limited time and resources, I currently enjoy my quality of life, and drastic changes might be difficult and expensive to handle. Moreover, the doctor said there was likelihood, but it was not certain. Should I get a second opinion?
How would you act?
What level of certainty is required to draw action?
The issue of climate change has been framed by some as low probability but high impact, where the cost of inaction is greater than that of action. At an individual level, like the medical analogy, a person gambles their own life but at a global level, inaction gambles many current and future lives. This is why there is a strong call for action now, before reaching a tipping point where negative impacts may become irreversible.
Written by ANJULI JAIN.
Climate Blue 
I dispute climate change being “low probability, high impact”. I think it is reasonable to think of the effects of putting CO2 up in the air as a probability density function. There are low probabilities at the tails – at one tail is “Global Armageddon” and at the other is “No Noticeable Effect”.
The interesting space on this one is the middle where there is a reasonable range of effects. Will this cost me tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands? Will I lose my Michigan snows? Will my wheat field become a cornfield or an orange grove or a desert? How many refugees will end up in my country and will their arrival strengthen communities or polarize them. Can I as an individual even make a noticeable difference? What if I join an an advocacy group or a political party? Can my country make a difference? Can a coalition of many countries make a difference?
Whether or not it is happening is no question in my mind. Whether or not I am part of the solution and what part I am to play is where I am still waiting to be engaged.
LikeLike