Climate Treaty Negotiators Are Taking the Wrong Approach, Say Game Theorists 227
An anonymous reader writes "Climate treaty negotiators would do well to have a little chat with some game theorists, according to this article. The fundamental approach they've been taking for the last several years is flawed, these researchers say, and they can prove it. From the article: 'The scientists gave members of a 10-member group their country’s “treasure”: a 20-euro national savings account, plus a fund for spending on emissions reductions that consisted of 10 black chips worth 10 cents apiece and 10 red chips worth one euro apiece. Each person could then contribute any number of these chips to a common pool. The contributed chips represented greenhouse gas reduction strategies that were relatively inexpensive (black) or expensive (red). Players could communicate freely about their plans for how many chips they intended to contribute.'"
Enough Gaming (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is already quite enough gaming in the Climate Treaty discussion.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's developing countries that say no, and China, who looks at their allocated 10 red and 10 black chips, and says, "Give us 275 more chips or g'bye", and negotiators give it to them.
chaotic simulation vs real life (Score:2)
Much simpler generalizations are pimped for all manner of ideology in philosophy, politics, economics, education, ...
For important issues, apparently, we just have to choose the right mission statement and let the divine hand of providence guide us to safety.
Re:Enough Gaming (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. The problem is that the game they play has nothing to do with fixing the climate.
It's all about ass-covering and not appearing 'weak' in front of your peers. The same game that governs high schools, street gangs, prisons and, to a lesser extent, chimpanzee groups.
Re: (Score:2)
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese argument is that their CO2 emission per capita is still less than of most developed countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Largely irrelevant. If the Chinese won't play till their per capita CO2 emissions are comparable to EU/US levels, then CO2 emissions worldwide will continue to increase till then even if the EU and US reduce our emissions to ZERO.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There is not? Then look up the distribution of enery usage in the EU and the one in the USA. ...
The lowest EU consumer and the highest US consumer are easy far more than a factor of ten appart.
The highest EU consumers and the lowest US consumers are about a factor of two apart.
Five is somewhere in the middle
I use 1700 kWh a year, the AVERAGE US citicen uses 14000 kWh a year. That is rougly a factor of ten.
Re: (Score:3)
Living like that, you will sooner or later.
Later may be your descendants though.
Re:All well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All well and good... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you actually did pay for yours, then no one would complain. The problem is when you dump all of your externalities on everyone else and expect them to pay for yours too.
What you just recommended is for him to minimize his externalities while letting everyone else dump theirs on him. While you are at it, why not ask him to bend over and let people repeatedly stick it in him?
You are proving his point. Imagine a 20-player version of prisoners dilemma with an asymmetric payoff table that allows coalitions. There will undoubtedly be at least one player whos dominant strategy (always derives greater benefit) is to make the move that incidentally hurts other players the most. The only way to convince these player(s) to cooperate is to pay them off an amount equal to or greater than what they have to sacrifice in order to cooperate.
Outside of game theory, this phenomena is called tragedy of the commons.
In general for all 3 or more player games, unless the game is carefully crafted to disallow it, the best move is to seek to form a coalition that puts you in a group that has a dominant strategy position and then work to undermine competing groups that also have dominant strategy positions. The only way this doesnt go tragedy-of-the-commons is when everyone benefits whenever the strongest group benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
I think that what he's actually saying is that ALL externalities should be added to the cost for everyone. If it were possible, this would be a reasonable approach. Attempting to do it would be a more reasonable approach than ANYTHING that I have heard proposed by ANY government.
If this were done as proposed, then the "Tragedy of the Commons" would not apply. I have doubts that it can be done. If this were approached, then the effect of the "Tragedy of the Commons" would be minimized. Nobody powerful s
Re:All well and good... (Score:5, Informative)
lol, there is no factor of 5 to 10.
There is a factor of 5, and there is a factor of 10.
Huge difference between the two, which is it?
According to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint [guardian.co.uk]
Per capita emissions for the EU/China are about the same at just over 7 tons per capita while that for the US is just over 17 tons. That's a factor of c.a. 2,3. I don't know how accurate these figures are but the proportions sound about right (in the sense that they match other reports that I have heard previously).
Wikipedia has:
China (ex.Macau, Hong Kong) at 7,031,916 thousand metric tons which is 23.53% of world total
United States at 5,461,014 thousand metric tons which is 18.27% of world total
The European Union (all 27 countries) at 4,177,817 thousand metric tons which is 13.98% of world total
India at 1,742,698 thousand metric tons which is 5.83% of world total
Keep in mind that China has a population of 1,35 Biliion, India 1,2 Billion, the EU has about 0.503 Billion inhabitants and there are 0.314 Billion of our US American cousins. I know these figures don't quite match the per capita ones I cited from the Guardian article (which are probably newer than the ones on Wikipedia anyway) but it's the proportions that are interesting. Some 300 million US Americans manage to generate the carbon footprint of a Billion Chinese, while 500 million Europeans can hardly hold a candle to the US in terms of carbon emissions.
Re:All well and good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some 300 million US Americans manage to generate the carbon footprint of a Billion Chinese, while 500 million Europeans can hardly hold a candle to the US in terms of carbon emissions.
Well the reality is that 200 million Chinese manage to generate the carbon footprint of 300 million US Americans while the other 1.1 billion Chinese generate very little. Both the US and China need to get their shit together, while India should be commended for being able to ramp up their economy without generating so many greenhouse gases. For bargaining purposes, a more fair arrangement is to agree to a limit of X tons/person + Y tons/GDP.
The other thing to keep in mind is CO2 Consumption (Score:3)
The CO2 per capita is a completely specious argument. The only question is your net CO2 consumption, but all the figures thrown about are the gross production. According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bottomless-Well-Twilight-Virtue-Energy/dp/046503117X [amazon.com] , North America is the only continent which consumes more CO2 than it produces. It can do this largely because it is sparsely populated, and has a large amount of forests and vegetation compared to its population. It should be self evident that a gi
Re: (Score:3)
It's irrelevant to the control of global warming, but it *is* relevant to the fairness of the regulations. There are, however, other factors. Enough other factors, that I'm dubious that people could come to an agreement on what was fair even in the absence of strong economic incentives to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the hell does per-capita mean in this situation? Is it even sensible? I suspect it is not. How about measuring it against units of productivity?
If a place has an output of 10 gigatons of carbon and has only 500 people in it but is producing stuff for 2 billion people, then shouldn't the measure of pollution be against the 2 billion rather than the 500? (Numbers pulled purely from rectal regions).
Re: (Score:3)
Does the CO2 calculation only take new CO2 emissions into account, IE burning fossil fuels? That
why is human density important. (Score:2)
Mind the pun, but I am curious. The oil company in charge of Canada for the last while keeps pushing this bizarre (to me, at least) idea that because we have so much land, it doesnâ(TM)t matter that we are the worst per capita greenhouse gas emitters.
Clearly, it is self serving. Did they just settle on the population density because it is convenient and sounds vaguely valid? The footprint already accounts for the carbon sink of all that vegetation...
Re: (Score:2)
Spread out populations require a lot more fuel for transportation, and for the vast majority of the country, public transit that moves many more people per unit of fuel is not a viable option.
Re:why is human density important. (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada will never have a low per capita rate of energy usage. Firstly, it's cold here. Heating energy use is related to population density and average temperature. Canada has a low population density, and with exceptions like Toronto and Vancouver, will likely always have that population distributed over a large area. This means we will always have a high energy use per person, simply because of heat and transportation costs.
Secondly, Canada has a great deal of economic activity per person (farming, heavy industry, mining.) Europe does not grow enough food to feed itself. Canada one farmer may have several thousand acres of land to farm. It takes a significant amount of energy (fertilizer) and fuel to run a 1000 acre farm. With 2% of Canada's population in farming, Canada will have a rotten per capita energy score. The same logic applies to any kind of heavy industry. Heavy industry is energy intensive. Many industries exist in Canada because we have cheap energy. 30% of Canada's population is tied to manufacturing, and that 30% will use a huge amount of energy per capita.
Unless the entire population of India moves to Canada, Canada is never going to score well on any per capita energy consumption index. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the US. It's heavy industry and farming sectors are on the same scale as China's, however the US population is a fraction of China's. Even if the US consumer stopped using SUVs, the US would still use a great deal of energy per person. The most popular vehicles in Canada are one full vehicle size smaller than the most popular vehicles in the US, and our gas prices are almost as high as Europes. Canada's per capita energy consumption and CO2 numbers are remain high.
Per capita metrics only make sense when comparing between countries with similar industrial outputs and economies. Europe will have declining CO2 output levels, because they have light industry and a declining population. China, US, Canada will have huge and increasing energy and CO2 numbers, because we have growing economies and huge heavy industry. Per capita, China will look a lot better than the US and Canada, because of the population difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada will never have a low per capita rate of energy usage. Firstly, it's cold here. Heating energy use is related to population density and average temperature. Canada has a low population density, and with exceptions like Toronto and Vancouver, will likely always have that population distributed over a large area.
That's a lot of "never"s.
Urbanization is still progressing in Canada, and the dying off of our smaller communities, while a concern to some, is likely to mean that by 2050 or so we'll be one of the most highly concentrated peoples on Earth, with large even more empty hinterlands between our isolated city-states.
Furthermore, we have the potential for redeveloping our nuclear resources and continuing to run all that heavy industry with a fraction of our current carbon emissions.
Likewise, better insulation and
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries [wikipedia.org]
would disagree with your "99% percent of oil is refined in the US" claim
Re: (Score:2)
99% sounds suspicious to me, too. But it's definitely true that a LOT of oil is refiend in the US. I don't have any reliable facts to back this up, though. (And I suspect that the figures change a lot from decade to decade...not quite from year to year, as new plants aren't built that often, but when the changes come, they come as sudden large jumps.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner we impose heavy tariffs on goods from countries that do not meet certain requirements for human rights and environmental policy, the better. We could do it now. It will hurt, but we could manage. If we wait a few decades, it will be too late.
Re:All well and good... (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed, we should restrict imports from the biggest polluters, especially America.
Re: (Score:2)
Treasuries are something.
Re:All well and good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhm, China has been quite willing over the past two decades. Especially in the period 1990 - 2005 China was open for serious reductions. It was the stubborn asshole-ness of Australia, USA and Canada that eventually made China turn around. If you want to play the blame game I suggest you start with Team USA.
(posting as anonymous as I don't want my account linked to this comment, I work on this for the Canadian government)
Re: (Score:2)
More cynical people might view this as an attempt to use emission regulations as a weapon to harm their competitors's economies, and stopping that when their own industry grew to the point where it would start seriously affecting them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to play the blame game I suggest you start with Team USA.
Yes, always blame the USA. It is impossible to miss a target that big and it just seems so very right. There are no other forces in this world other than America.
Re:All well and good... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/ [forbes.com]
Climate Treaty Negotiation Must Fail (Score:4, Interesting)
The negotiations must fail, because they're all based on blame and negativity. Fingerpointing between the first world and the developing world is not at all useful. Every premise we've seen so far has been based on the lose-lose more strategy of negotiating.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and it will be too late to do something about it.
Heh, I was just going to post that somebody was going to say that. :)
The irony here is that if we do something meaningful about it now with the technology we have, it'll take so much of the world's 'GDP' that there won't be anything left for developing real solutions (next-gen power generation devices, e.g. integral fast reactors, fusion reactors, space-based power perhaps). So we'll wind up with an economy in 'heat death' rather than one that can outgr
Summary: (Score:4, Insightful)
We're fucked.
Re:Summary: (Score:5, Insightful)
We're fucked.
Indeed. The ultimate answer to the Fermi Paradox is too obvious to ignore: Greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a bit of that happening. Luxury companies offering the wealthy protection against extreme weather events already exist (for example a company that promises hurricane evacuation on first class travel systems).
Other companies are investing heavily in tools to profit from climate disasters - particularly where those are expected to hit poor regions/countries, there is a fortune to be made out of the suffering of those people who are displaced, killed etc.
Make no mistake - when you're rich, there is no
Re:Summary: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The data is unsourced but the analysis of the data is correct. Look at the bar graphs and you see that the top 1% and the bottom 80% have both lost a little bit of ground to the next 19%. The 90s were hard on this upper-middle/lower-upper class, but in 2001 they grew quite a bit and have largely held on to that growth.
I don't know how much of that 19% is Federal employees and those who benefit from government wealth distribution but it seems plausible that they're related.
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically, the parent post started talking about income inequality, and _you_ linked to a page that said...'Wait, it's not income inequality that's the issue...it's _wealth_ inequality. That's the actual problem, and it's worse than income inequality!'.
That is probably a valid point, or at least a reasonable argument, but it has fuck-all to do with 'Federal employees' taking all the money, you idiot.
The real problem here is, people, the one I don't see anyone addressing, is that this tmosley can proba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money also has value culturally, e.g., status. There are certain clubs and institutions where having a minimum amount allows consideration for admission,
There's also the matter about their kids -- not all of the brood are as driven or ambitious as the parents. How much do you need to make sure Jr III doesn't blow it all? It may be important if the little nipper has no skills and the parenting philosophy is the kids get used to living it up.
And yes, I do know rich families who intentionally raise their kids
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're fucked.
#define SARCASM
You must be either from outside the USA or a blatant commie!
The PC correct way to comment is: "When we're fucked we'll at least have a huge stash of cash hidden away for bad times. And we'll be needing it dearly to pay our way out of the disaster." PC but not really smart reasoning.
#undef SARCASM
Forget the "bad" things the USA gave us. These things would have come around regardless. Instead consider that Nash gave us game theory which holds keys to solving many problems where egoism i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, the sky is falling, it always has been, and it always will be.
We coped with far wilder climate change when we had nothing better than smelly furs, sharpened sticks and "Fire bad, tree pretty" to work with. I'm pretty sure that many of us will muddle through somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
We're fucked because we are too stupid to choose the right decision, however evident it is.
Some say humans are the smartest animals out there, but the reality (and soon history) is humans are as dumbfuck as every other species of the little muddy rock, they grow until they overshoot and then disappear.
Didn't Ecconomists..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They did and it worked as predicted. There is nothing wrong with game theory when applied accordingly. Game theorists pointed out that by present and past regulations short time gains can be increased by the risk of losses later. And they predicted that those who are able to stay ahead would not suffer losses. And that is exactly what happened. They played hot potato with a lot of hot potato. And someone burned their fingers. It is a pyramid-like game. They always fail in the end. But while normally the las
Game Theory? LOL... (Score:5, Funny)
-Economists
-Psychopaths
I'm planning on watching this BBC Documentary [wikipedia.org] this weekend; it looks like the first segment discusses game theory.
small difference (Score:3)
In my experience the difference between psychopaths and the rest of us is not in how we behave, but in how we feel afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame math for the people misusing it.
Re: (Score:2)
If model and reality disagree then reality must be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Math is not a model of anything. You should learn game theory before bashing it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've phrased that incorrectly, because all people can "behave according" to game theory, but they may not be aware or else each be playing at a different game. In their example, they demonstrate incetive based reasoning with clear short term and long term benefits. They found that most people chose the short term benefit because they couldn't justify the value of their contribution to the more intangible long term benefit. So they took their chances on being able to weather what they considered a lesser l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm planning on watching this BBC Documentary [wikipedia.org] this weekend; it looks like the first segment discusses game theory.
I'm planning on watching it, too. For anyone else who wants to make plans to watch BBC's The Trap:
https://torrents.thepiratebay.se/3795702/The_Trap__What_Happened_To_Our_Dream_Of_Freedom__(Adam_Curtis.3795702.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.se]
Re: (Score:2)
But in academics there is an alternate view about game theory, that says the best approach is to cooperate rather than to compete.
Cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. We call them coalitions.
I did this in school once (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a geography class and we were supposed to be countries working together. ... Kind of sad that international politics is often so similar.
I did a model UN in high school once (no experience necessary, just sign up) and a friend and I represented Qatar (pre-US involvement) because we only got to pick from the smallest countries. Most of the delegates were highly-studied polisci geeks and they represented the Security Council nations and others of global import.
Our strategy was we only cared about oi
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is rather incomplete. (Score:2)
You can't just take a paragraph at random from the article and throw it up onto the screen. I mean, you can, but it's not useful. Having read the article it's an interesting experiment, but the summary gives me no information about the other important piece: when the number of chips to avert disaster is set at 150 and known, the players cooperate; while when that number is unknown except for "between 100 and 200" everybody skimps on contributions and loses 15 euros plus whatever they contributed.
On the ot
Poor Summary (Score:5, Informative)
In frustration, I read the linked article, because I couldn't tell what the actual was about, from the Slashdot summary. Here's a better summary:
Researchers gave each person a national treasury of €20. In order to avert catastrophe, a minimum of €150 in the main pool had to be collected total. If catastrophe is not averted, each player's account is depleted by €15. Players got to keep any remaining money in their national treasury. In almost every game, people contributed enough money to avert catastrophe. It was only when the catastrophe was made more unpredictable that the game collapsed. Instead of requiring €150 to completely avert disaster, the catastrophe had a chance of happening based on how much money was allocated. In the second scenario, people promised enough money to minimize the risk, yet they did not allocate it, thinking that the odds would not be significantly increased if they underfunded the mitigation. Because so many people "embezzled", the odds were significantly affected and the catastrophe invariably occurred.
Basically, the players should have studied their Kant [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Significant changes in climate we observe since roughly 1985.
If CO 2 output would be stopped right now, then on the first glance nothing would be changed. It would take centuries to get rid of the current CO 2 level back to a niveau from - lets say 1980.
However a fix will of course only work if we can stop a runnaway climate catastrophe. Greenlands Ice should not melt e.g. Alaska and Sibirian perma frost is not allowed to melt e.g.
Looking at the current rate of acceleration in increased CO2 output I guess w
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that was the whole point of the game. Since nobody can be certain if a particular fix will or won't work, negotiations are hampered as risk is a continual slide and spending too much is a "waste." If you think that there is no climate change risk then any amount is too much, and if you think it is likely then no amount is too much, and then you have every position in-between. Any which way you benefit from anything others spend, so you have incentive to try to get others to fix the problem for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually 150 chips not 150 euros (otherwise why bother to contribute at all, the cost will be the same either way).
Re: (Score:2)
In frustration, I read the linked article, because I couldn't tell what the actual was about, from the Slashdot summary.
The question I would ask is whether or not the players in these games are drawn from the same culture, political system, and so on.
In other worlds, whether they share the same values.
The same understanding of the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between this model and reality is basically the difference between the prisoner's dilemma and its iterated version. IRL it's possible to react to parties not keeping their promises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep being astounded that environmental protection and polluter pays principle are somehow considered "leftist" ideas. They would seem to me to be a perfect fit for both conservativism and market libertarianism. Not that I am either.
But then again, I guess the ideological "right" in many countries now belong to more of a pillage and plunder ideology than either of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Especially for the former. Perhaps someone should remind them what the verb "to conserve" means ...
Simpler than that (Score:4, Informative)
Example from the Wiki: "Consider a dental patient (the principal) wondering whether his dentist (the agent) is recommending expensive treatment because it is truly necessary for the patient's dental health, or because it will generate income for the dentist."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
The people telling us that we're heading for disaster are the ones with financial stake in it. The larger their possible financial gain, the louder they make the noise. You've gone on and taken what you've heard for granted without bothering to check the sources, telling yourself "He works in a dentist office and wears a doctor's coat. He must know teeth better than anyone. As long as I pay him enough to avoid dentures in my near future, we all win!"
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting argument, but flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
The given scenario states, that we are all doomed, because there is no fixed point of disaster. However, they missed one thing. If if we had a fixed point. The point is outside of our lifespan. The effect of our doing will hit our children children. Therefore, the game has to be changed. You get the money and can spend it on green stuff. And when enough of the others do the same, the next group of people who plays the game gets the money.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm about to become 46 this year. ... but I guess in 50 years oil production will be at 5% or less what we produce / use today.
Neither the point where the oil is gone nor the point where certain areas of earth suffer harshly from climate chane is beyond my expected rest live span.
Sure, regarding oil you will always find another tar or oil sand pit somewhere
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting argument, but flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
Make it a bit more realistic :P
A few nations are wealthier than the majority, the people playing those nations get booze and a blowjob every night.
Those who are poorest have to give the blowjobs to the wealthiest. Now commit the money. You have to convince the wealthiest to give up their margin of comfort and all its rewards so that the poorest nations can get enough wealth to join the wealthy ones. The only way to do this is for everyone to commit to sharing their wealth equally.
The end result is no one gets booze and blowjobs, but also no one is forced to give head. Good luck convincing the rich to give up their advantage, and good luck convincing the poor that they don't need all the wealth of the richest ones so they can get the same lifestyle.
Lastly, whether you win or lose, your children and your grandchildren will be playing the same game when they grow up.
Ok, its very tasteless as an example, but I can't foresee any circumstances in which the rich and powerful will be willing to part with their riches and power (obtained at the expense of the poor people they walked all over to obtain it), or which will convince those who live in poverty that they don't deserve better treatment and a better level of living - which they can't get if they are required to spend too much of their money and effort on being ecologically responsible, particularly if the rich nations are trying to buy their way out of being equally responsible - in proportion to their contribution to the problem.
Our problem boils down to human selfishness and greed. Those will kill millions in the end if we don't do something. No politician wants to be the one that tells their electorate "Sorry but you have to reduce your quality of life", because they won't be reelected. Few wealthy and powerful people are going to give up what they have for the sake of making others more rich and more in control of their own destinies etc. Some humans are altruistic but not enough of us.
Climate Game Strategy (Score:2)
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Prisoner's Dilemma? (Score:2)
Sounds like a multiplayer version of this. Cooperate and receive a payoff, don't and you all lose.
One problem is: he current models don't make useful predictions and so the contribution necessary to avert future 'disaster' or how that contribution is to be spent isn't certain. Or even if the results of that spending might make things worse rather than better.
The other problem: The outcome is in the future and is uncertain. Prisoner's dilemma only really works if the game is trusted. That is; if it is know
There is already a game on this: (Score:2)
The game theorists are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Game Theory is wrong (Score:2)
Game Theory is wrong. Has always been wrong and that is not going to change. It is best ignored and avoided in all cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is your math flawed, because it doesn't lead to "30% effective", but you draw the exact wrong conclusion.
If it were true that only 30% of the money went to the intended purpose, and that costs of operations weren't factored in in the first place, the obvious choice is not to not pitch in, but to pitch in 3.33 times as much, in order to meet the goal. Then seek to recuperate the extra costs in a way that does not affect the goal itself.
Otherwise, you effectively have decided that the goal affecting
Re: (Score:2)
Are you assuming we have to stop global warming no matter what the cost? If fighting it ends up being 3.33 times more expensive than we thought why couldn't that tip the balance into a wait-see-mitigate strategy?
I suspect the 30% figure has already been accounted for in the cost of the carbon credits, but I agree with the op that it is disturbing that there could be so much overhead simply for facilitating carbon credits. Seems ripe for corruption and abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For another set of graphics see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, It is true that is "Hard to know whom to believe" if you can choose the graphics and facts to support your "gut feeling".
I agree completely. For example, most people would panic less if they knew that those graphs you linked to combine some of highest quality measurements we know how to make today, with other data points that are not really measurements of temperature at all, but merely a product of highly uncertain conjecture. Some of that content is practically useless as a presentation of scientific knowledge; but if it showed error estimates, then it would become useless as a tool to promote climate hysteria. And we ca
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hard to know whom to believe (Score:4, Informative)
It is a trashy tabloid that styles pretends it is a serious broadsheet. Pretty much a joke to most people in the UK.
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/ [mailwatch.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)