Desertification will outstrip any greening. Any rocking of the ecological boat during the degree of species collapse which is already happening will just result in dramatic falls in food yields globally,(among other things), alongside increased war and civil unrest. How many crops are grown in war zones? What happens to food prices in war zones?

Of course, plant fertilization couldn't possibly be a good thing.

Deserts disagree:

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

Temperature is completely out of control:

I am glad this thread got posted.
I think this is a much better narrative than denial in the context of climate change debate.

Your friend has zero reasons to be confident in his economic predictions for 60-100 years hence. I know nothing about your friend; he might be a genius, but he still doesn't know what is going to happen economically in 100 years. Nobody else does either. I personally would not bank on such advice — Bitter Crank

If it's futile to try to predict the future and all we really can know is what will happen right now, then it seems the proper decision would be to ignore the possible negative distant future consequences of global warming and simply do what will right now result in positive consequences. That is, maybe ignoring global warming will result in a thriving 2116 economy, but, then again, maybe it will result in its collapse. We just don't know. On the other hand, we do know that a continuation of use of fossil fuels will continue to lead us to a predictably thriving economy in the near future, so let's do that.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource though.
As the supply dwindles the cost of doing modern business will increase.
I think it is good to develop more sustainable alternatives now while our current modes of energy consumption are relatively cheap, rather than put it off.

The reason that neither side presents a tempered response to the climate issue is because neither side is terribly concerned with the truth (we live in a post-truth world after all). Each side is more interested in pushing forth their political agenda (which tends to break down into pro-corporate big business vs. anti-corporate big business) than in simply arriving at the academic truth. That is to say, if I am an oil company executive, I want there to be more drilling and higher profits, and if I can achieve that goal by making arguments that there is no climate change, then I'm likely going to make that argument. The other side, of course, will make more cataclysmic arguments in order to shut big oil down.

Your suggestion that what big oil ought to do is to concede certain points to the climate control group in order to gain credibility, but then to argue that a certain amount of global warming is tolerable in order to protect big oil's ability to continue drilling is a strategy decision that may or may not work. Sure, your approach shows a fidelity to truth, but the oil company isn't looking for integrity (and I'd submit that the other side to this debate isn't either); it's looking for an advancement of its interests however that might be best achieved.

Consider the used car lot scenario. The car's worth $10,000. The sticker says $15,000. I offer $5,000. If we're both equally good negotiators, we end up at $10,000. Sometimes the better negotiator gets a better deal. Regardless, when they said $15,000, they didn't think it was really worth that, and I didn't really think it was worth $5,000. Whether I should have just said $10,000 take it or leave it from the get go is a strategy question. Maybe it've worked, or maybe I'd have ended up paying $12,500.

I agree with that, but that's not a climate issue. If what you're saying is that fossil fuels should continue to be used at will as long as there's some plan for a future solution when they run out, then I don't think you're siding with the climate change folks.

First of all, climate change has become a religion. It is full of left wing bias.

But let's assume that it is true for the moment.

Like Hans Rosling said somewhere, there is a painful trade-off between regulations, to fight climate change, and saving human lives.

Carbon tax, for example, is regressive (in the economic sense of the word). This means that it will hurt the people with lower income substantially more than those with a higher income.

There are about seven billion people in the world. The rich west accounts for about one billion, and the rest are quickly emerging. They will emit more carbon, and taxing that will reduce their big climb out of poverty.

China is presently building about 20 nuclear power plants to go with the 35 they already have. And anybody else who needs fossil fuel to climb out of poverty will sink right back into it when the fossil fuel runs out (per David Archer, some time in the 22nd Century... so not long.)

I always find it interesting that the assumption seems to be scientists don't know what they're doing and haven't looked at global warming in different ways. This is then done by referring to scientific work done by fringe scientists.

Either the scientific work done by the majority of scientists can be trusted but if you're arguing it cannot then doing so by referring to other scientific work is then completely arbitrary. If you're going to choose one scientist's results over another, you're going to have to go into the scientific methods used, the theories tested and the data collected. Anything else is just trying to find justifications of beliefs that don't seem to be currently supported by the majority of climate change scientists. And claims that "it's become a religion" or "full of left wing bias" are simple assertions and speak of your own personal bias and says zero about the science behind climate change.

There are about seven billion people in the world. The rich west accounts for about one billion, and the rest are quickly emerging. They will emit more carbon, and taxing that will reduce their big climb out of poverty. — Emptyheady

Alternatively that's proof that the West didn't pay enough for the pollution it caused. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

Tragedy of the commons — Benkei

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/43543 :-}

Wrong.

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system (clean air) where individual users (countries) acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good (fucking pollution) of all users (everybody) by depleting that resource through their collective action.

EDIT: 2 secs of Wiki and some editing since that was quicker than dregging up what I learned 15 years ago.

EDIT 2: A well-know method of adjusting that individual behaviour is transferring the costs to those actually using the shared-resources. E.g. the West didn't pay enough for the pollution because it externalised those costs to the rest of the world.

*sighs* It is really time that most of you open a book about economics...

"The tragedy of the commons is a very real economic issue where individuals tend to exploit shared resources so the demand greatly outweighs supply, and the resource becomes unavailable for the whole. "

"The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action."

"In 1833, the English economist William Forster Lloyd published a pamphlet which included a hypothetical example of over-use of a common resource."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

----

edit: it is derived from the game theoretical idea where the equilibrium is tragic -- i.e. self-defeating economic behaviour that is unique to common resources.

Tragedy of commons is a fundamental problem of non-private property -- it is a tragedy of communal ownership you dips. — Emptyheady

edit2: privatisation was a solution to correct this self-defeating economic behaviour.

edit3: do not conflate externalities with tragedy of the commons. This is just bad-economics.

The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals; the tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system (clean air) where individual users (countries) acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good (fucking pollution) of all users (everybody) by depleting that resource through their collective action. — Benkei

Honestly, take 10 minutes -- it is not hard to understand its workings -- to read it up and then come back and have a proper laugh at yourself.

It has been argued that the very term 'tragedy of the commons' is a misnomer per se, since 'the commons' originally referred to a resource owned by a community, and no individual outside the community had any access to the resource. However, the term is presently used when describing a problem where all individuals have equal and open access to a resource. Hence, 'tragedy of open access regimes' or simply 'the open access problem' are more apt terms.[3]:171

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

There are more solutions to the tragedy of the commons than just Hardin proposed. The problem is set out by him first but the assumption that only private ownership is a solution is false. Which you would've known if you weren't still stuck in 1968.

Edit: Carbon tax for instance.

Edit 2: Also, aside from the economic discussion, how about getting back to the other points I made?

The problem is set out by him first but the assumption that only private ownership is a solution is false. — Benkei

Now this is funny, in order to safe face, you are straw-manning me?

privatisation was a solution to correct this self-defeating economic behaviour. — Emptyheady

Where did I say it was the only one? "a solution" and somehow you pretended I said the 'only solution'. Like I said earlier, the tragedy of the commons is a unique phenomenon of non-private property systems.

Now, you could also interpret it as a coordination problem, but privatising is probably the best solution, generally speaking. You already have a hard time to even understand the basics, let alone granting an authoritarian politician the power to regulate such a complex system.

Tragedy of commons is a fundamental problem of non-private property -- it is a tragedy of communal ownership you dips. — Emptyheady

I'm not sure how else I was to interpret this as private ownership as the only solution but my bad. I do note that I merely raised this issue as an example of the tragedy of the commons (which it is) and I received the above as a reply against my suggestion that the West apparently didn't pay enough for the use of certain resources.

I also fail to see how the tragedy of the commons and the externalisation of costs are unrelated. To me it seems quite obvious that certain costs (pollution) are borne by people who didn't cause and aren't causing them. That means that producers in the past and now haven't paid and aren't paying the correct price for the use of resources. Since I'm not keen on having the air I breath privatised and also fail to see the practical possibility of doing so, there are other solutions more appropriate to tackle this problem.

Actually that is kind of the point, privatization does not work with common resources as people will act in their own individual self interest which has a net negative effect for all agents.

A common resource is a resource, such as water or pasture, that provides users with tangible benefits. A major concern with common resources is overuse,especially when there are poor social-management systems in place to protect the core resource.

Like I said earlier, the tragedy of the commons is a unique phenomenon of non-private property systems. — Emptyheady

Is it? In a centrally planned economy without private ownership this problem probably wouldn't occur either. So it seems a unique phenomenon to any mixed system.

I also fail to see how the tragedy of the commons and the externalisation of costs are unrelated. — Benkei

Yeah I never said that...They are not unrelated, what I said is, 'do not conflate them'. You tend to project things on me that I never said.

I'm not sure how else I was to interpret this as private ownership as the only solution but my bad. I do note that I merely raised this issue as an example of the tragedy of the commons (which it is) and I received the above as a reply against my suggestion that the West apparently didn't pay enough for the use of certain resources. — Benkei

The possible solutions are (i) privatisation, (ii) coordination or (iii) internal regulations.

(i) The best solution is obviously privatisation, because private property would abolish issues you addressed completely -- you conflate national property (sovereign country) with private property (individual) -- but privatisation requires a sovereign entity enforcing its rules and recognition, but there is none beyond a sovereign country. For example, there is no legal recognition of private ownership in space, hence there is barely any private investment into space exploration.

(ii) The alternative is coordination, like putting quotas on fishing for example. But no one is surprised if you see a headline that an Asian fishing ship ignored the quotas. Who is going to force China to back off?

(iii) Another one is regulation, but that is only possible within a sovereign country, so it does nothing to address the examples you issued.

edit: so to provide an answer for your issues, if you can't privatise it, try to coordinate and hope for the best -- which is exactly what we do now.

Yeah, same goes for you what I said to Benkei.

Yes. It is the tragedy of communal/common ownership of resources. That is pretty much the definition of it.

The best result is not always privatization because we are dealing with a problem of accesss.

Take over fishing for example.
Privately owned business harvest from the fish population and each compete with one another.
Because everybody has equal access to the resources and because all agents will act in accordance with their own individual self interest the problem of tragedy of the commons will occur.
To solve the problem requires a social solution, where the community devises regulations to prevent the issue from occurring.

You thought the problem was common ownership, when in fact it was a problem of access and self interest.
The problem occurs when all agents
a) act in their own self interest
b) have equal access to the resource
c) and the demand increases beyond supply

It is not clear what you think privatization accomplishes.

The solutions are
a) agents must act with a social interest
b) the access must be limited
c) the demand/supply must be supplemented
or some combination of these things

Either the scientific work done by the majority of scientists can be trusted but if you're arguing it cannot then doing so by referring to other scientific work is then completely arbitrary. If you're going to choose one scientist's results over another, you're going to have to go into the scientific methods used, the theories tested and the data collected. Anything else is just trying to find justifications of beliefs that don't seem to be currently supported by the majority of climate change scientists. — Benkei

The position of the anti-climate change folks is one of both intentional and unintentional worldview bias on the part of the scientists. Their belief is that the there is either an intentional anti-business effort on the part of the scientists or that the scientists are so indoctrinated to a liberal point of view that they will inevitably produce results supportive of their position. The vast majority of scientists do not consider themselves Republican (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html).

Since climate change deniers believe there is inherent bias running throughout the supposedly objective scientific process, and the climate change deniers lack the expertise to conduct the experiments themselves, they either reject or are very skeptical of the climate change conclusions.

My point here is that it is rational and not at all arbitrary to reject the conclusions of someone you find lacking credibility. What would be irrational would be to fully accept the credibility of the scientists but to simply refuse to accept their inconvenient conclusions. I don't think that is at all what is happening. I think what is really happening is that the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid. If tomorrow they report they were wrong, I suspect you'd change your mind. Whether placing trust in the consensus of the experts is reasonable and rational is debatable because polling scientists is a not a scientific act. It's a political one.

You thought the problem was common ownership — m-theory

It is by definition...

"In Hardin's classic piece "The Tragedy of the Commons," a commons is a natural resource shared by many individuals. In this context, "shared" means that each individual does not have a claim to any part of the resource, but rather, to the use of a portion of it for his/her own benefit."

That is the definition of a non-private ownership, isn't dear?

Just have a look at what you wrote:

Privately owned business harvest from the fish population and each compete with one another. — m-theory

Private property would entail private ownership of the fishing population, hence rejecting it as a communal resource.

Now do some rethinking. The ball should start rolling as soon as you get this.