Cost-Benefit Analysis Vague in Preventing-Global-Warming Policy?
Obviously global warming becomes quite a hot topic in the world nowadays. Struggling to get some knowledge about this, I cannot help thinking: while we draft those policies to prevent or slow down continued warming, do we really have clear ideas of the cost and benefit within? It seems to be very difficult to balance between the two, not to say how to maximizing the net benefit when making a counter-global-warming policy or strategy.
We certainly have become aware of the cost, say, cost of joining the Kyoto Protocol, but the benefit seems hard to defined – to ensure the temperature status quo or cooled down, and how much? And it has to wait years to be seen. What if the earth just continues warming regardless any possible efforts to restrict greenhouse gas emission?
So, I think, why don’t we try to change an angle to look at the global warming? Instead of fearing and fight to PREVENT the warming trend, why not just admit the fact and change our policy strategy on adapting to the consequence of a warming world? Wouldn’t it be more effective and economic to find out the problems of global warming and ways in adapting to it? We should try to do what we could on out understanding and at bearable cost, but it would be work of more than one generation. Like Ryan said in class, maybe we cannot care too much about the next generation. Maybe they can find another planet to live in? Who knows.
We certainly have become aware of the cost, say, cost of joining the Kyoto Protocol, but the benefit seems hard to defined – to ensure the temperature status quo or cooled down, and how much? And it has to wait years to be seen. What if the earth just continues warming regardless any possible efforts to restrict greenhouse gas emission?
So, I think, why don’t we try to change an angle to look at the global warming? Instead of fearing and fight to PREVENT the warming trend, why not just admit the fact and change our policy strategy on adapting to the consequence of a warming world? Wouldn’t it be more effective and economic to find out the problems of global warming and ways in adapting to it? We should try to do what we could on out understanding and at bearable cost, but it would be work of more than one generation. Like Ryan said in class, maybe we cannot care too much about the next generation. Maybe they can find another planet to live in? Who knows.
posted by Lihua at 12:28 AM
2 Comments:
I thought it was interesting to change the outlook on global warming, in changing the world, so to speak, to adapt to a warmer world rather than fight against it.
But I'm sure that politics has a lot to do with the fight against global warming, especially interest groups. As we have learned so far, the policies advocated are not always necessarily the best ones. They are sometimes simply the ones that were on the agenda at the time.
Even if preparing the world for a warmer world was a better policy, it does not help the politicians and therefore, will most likely not make it on the agenda.
When a problem is noted and seen as a threat to humnaity it is only natural to think about and initiate policies that could help treat the problem. HIV/AIDS for example, is a serious problem in countries in Africa and policies are made to battle the spread of the disease. If we were to change our agenda and try to adapt to a decrease in population because of the disease, or just see what happens if the disease were to go untreated, I believe we would be in some serious trouble down the line. In the same way I don't think we can just adapt to a warmer world. Eventually things will deteriorate. I also believe that although there are some things that our generation cannot prevent, I do think that we have to be cognizant of future generations and their survival.
Post a Comment
<< Home