Add new comment

To say that AGW policy will "certainly" create a disaster is, I hope, supposed to be rhetorical hyperbole.  There are any of a number of policies that could be adopted, plus we don't know with "certainty" what the future of technological innovation will yield.  Perhaps with limited funding, motivated by a concern for AGW, we can stumble on carbon neutral energy sources that are even cheaper than the carbon producing alternatives.  You are stacking the deck here.  
My point was a formal one.  This IS a decision under uncertainty.  Of course, different beliefs about the percentages and costs will alter what policies you think we should adopt.  
My only point is that the 'purist" positions that say either we have to spend whatever is necessary to stop AGW or, we shouldn't spend anything on AGW motivated concerns, are irresponsible.  There will likely be promising "carbon reducing" research proposals which should be supported because they are good buys, even if one thinks, as you do, that the chance of catastrophe is very low.  Similarly there will likely be carbon reducing proposals that should be rejected because the cost is too high (outlawing driving, for instance).  The thought is that if we can at least agree on the form that the question is to take (a cost benefit analysis under uncertainty) we can cut through some of the more politically motivated chatter and get down to making a responsible decision.  (I should add that mere cost benefit analysis is just a starting point for setting policy.  There can also be questions of distributive justice, for instance, like when India claims that it is unfair for the US to restrict their economic development given that the US has already benefited from carbon intensive energy production.)