Wagering on our environment

Using reasoning like Blaise Pascal’s famous ‘wager’ ( see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/), let’s use that approach in dealing with our environment, and global warming.

Starting with the observation that warming is occuring, there are two possibilities:

A: Human activity(production of carbon dioxide) is having an impact, or

B: It is not.

We have two alternatives:

1: We can reduce our carbon dioxide output by reducing our use of fossil fuels.

2: We can maintain our current policy of using oil and coal.

Arranging into a table:

A                                                B

1: Use non-fossil fuels:   Win& Win – see A1 below                  Win – see B1 below

2: Use fossil fuels              Lose & lose Lose- see A2 below    Lose  – see B2 below

A1: Win & Win: Not only do we protect the future of our species, but we improve sustainablity and reduce dependence on other countries.

A2: Win:  We improve sustainablity and reduce dependence on other countries.

B1: Lose & Lose: We have an unsubstainable economy, dependent on other countries, and the future of our species is threatened.

B2: Lose: We have an unstainable economy, dependent on other countries.

With these results, our decision must be to reduce the use of carbon fuels.  In addition, applying Occam’s razor: (see

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam’s+razor),

we don’t even need the supposition that global warm is occuring- it is still a benefit to convert to non-fossil fuels.  Q.E.D.

Elections matter!

With Obama in, we now have hope for international cooperation on global warming!

NY Times: “But within weeks of taking office, President Obama has radically shifted the global equation, placing the United States at the forefront of the international climate effort and raising hopes that an effective international accord might be possible. Mr. Obama’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern, said last week that the United States would be involved in the negotiation of a new treaty — to be signed in Copenhagen in December — “in a robust way.”

That treaty, officials and climate experts involved in the negotiations say, will significantly differ from the agreement of a decade ago, reaching beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions and including financial mechanisms and making good on longstanding promises to provide money and technical assistance to help developing countries cope with climate change.

Right on!  Lets be cool!

see:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/science/earth/01treaty.html?_r=1&hp