"How Lucky Do You Feel?" - A Game Theory Argument About Global Warming

I'm not always as convinced by game theory as most economists I've run across, but this guy lays out a cogent case for why acting on the very possibility of human-caused global warming is the only rational choice. In a nutshell, his argument is that - laying aside the question of global warming's verity - merely weighing the worst case scenarios of both action and inaction leaves concerted action as the safest of both "bets."

Personally, I understand why he's couching it this way, but his "action" column B looks even better when you factor in the fringe benefits of curbing global carbon emissions, regardless of any impact on global warming: lower pollution levels, a cleaner envronment, more efficient public transit, the remergence of walkable communities, shorter commutes, energy that is not dependent on an unstable supply (that, in an unrelated crisis, looks to be at the level of maximum production, and less than a decade away from actual contraction). Whereas even the best case "column A" inaction scenario leaves us with our current rates of pollution, suburban sprawl, dilapidated public transit, ever-lengthening commutes, and reliance on tenuous global oil reserves.

And then there's that other factor of global scientific consensus on the science of the matter in question. But even leaving that crushing climatological evidence aside, he makes a great argument.

Seems clear enough to me.

(h/t Demosthenes)

originally at surf putah

•  tip jar

  additionally, his point that half-measures, or sitting around thinking about whether to do anything are effectively choosing column B cannot be understated. i would count pretty much every presidential candidate currently running, as well as a supermajority in congress, in that column. changing lightbulbs and making new speculative carbon-trading markets for capital alone is not going to cut it.

  which is, of course, an argument for a certain former president (elected, never served), to jump into the race and start the conversation about what radical action the nation needs to start taking, ASAP.

  run, al, run.

  by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:13:17 PM PDT

  •  a request

    if you liked this video, and think others should see it, please a) pass it around, and b) if you're one of those diary rescue folks, consider rescuing it.

    thank'ee.

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:10:41 PM PDT

•  What's the worst thing that can happen?

  Profits will be lower at major corporations or others, who don't follow the rules, will have an unfair competitive advantage (at least that's the belief).

  Since corporations have the resources (money and media) to control the agenda, reasonable people with concerns about the future don't have a significant role in the decision.

  by Kayakbiker on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:26:49 PM PDT

  •  that's the weak point in his argument

    that well-meaning, informed, concerned citizens reaching critical mass is going to do it.

    it's the same dilemma that i'm bashing my head against with both impeachment and the war.

    but you gotta start somewhere, eh?

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:29:51 PM PDT

    •  at least we have a voice

      here on the web. We need to find a way to reach a larger group.  We need think tanks for this purpose in the same way corporations do to spread their message on TV and radio.

      by Kayakbiker on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:47:23 PM PDT

      •  that is the greatest potential for the internet

        the possibility of forming opinion horizontally. how to translate that into political action is the big roadblock, and not one we've worked out satisfactorally. we'll need to find a way, before we hit the tipping pint.

        by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:50:14 PM PDT

        •  You do a great service here

          spelling it out clearly and simply. If only someone would do that for the rest of the world to see!

          I'm coming around to Gore. He seems to be the only one who understands the magnitude of the risk.

          Thanks, wu ming.

          by cotterperson on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:18:27 PM PDT

          •  to be clear

            i'm not that guy in the video. thanks anyways, though.

            this issue alone - the need for rapid, radical change - is why i'm solidly behind gore, and beginning to despair of the current candidate set.

            if we don't get someone who truly gets the magnitude of this (and the way it dwarfs all other issues save perhaps the threat of nuclear winter) in the presidency, we're going to have to shift towards some intense local solutions aimed at much at adapting to as preventing the consequences of global warming.

            by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:52:01 PM PDT

    •  Chris Bowers has an interesting ...

      ...piece that makes a good sidebar to this comment of yours here.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:56:40 PM PDT

      •  Had to bring over this snip

        because wu ming spelled it out so clearly in this diary.

        I am going to place the lion's share of the blame on an overly wonky environmental movement.  .... the creativity behind this action is almost hopelessly compromised by the terrible, wonky slogan at its center: "cut carbon emissions by 80%." The slogan is actually worse than just wonky--it is overtly disemboweling. Calling on an abstract, powerful legislative body to engage in a wonky policy maneuver in order to affect change at a date when everyone hearing the slogan will be either dead or quite elderly doesn't exactly make my blood pump any faster.

        The media are bloviating and putting green banners on their screens, but they must learn to tell the story so that two-job, three-kid single mothers can understand it.

        Or perhaps it's absurd to think the corporate media even want to inform the electorate.

        by cotterperson on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:26:21 PM PDT

      •  he makes a good point

        except that he does not actually provide the easy, clear slogan that he correctly points out is lacking.

        since i'm now guilty of what i'm essentially accusing bowers of, i'll offer a slogan of my own.

        first point i'll point out something lakoff has been saying for a while, that effective slogans rest upon a huge unstated and often unconscious knowledge and value set; without the latter, no fantastic slogan will have the impact that a mediocre one with that background support will.

        "step up congress: help us get off oil before we burn the climate up"

        by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:48:25 PM PDT

    •  I believe that is because...

      ...the people have not been stressed enough - inconvenienced,yes - a little strapped for cash,yes - to much on the credit card, yes.  But turn on the tap and water comes out, flip the switch and light comes on and when it gets cold the heat comes on.
      But when the water is gone (like Atlanta might be), and people are shivering in the dark with no TV to watch the wildfires and the hurricanes, the brighter folks might see that there is something to this global climate change business.  Then we might see some concerted outrage toward the greedy fools that got us in the mess.

      by carver on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:17:45 PM PDT

      •  the role of a smart environmentalist movement

        is in connecting the disparate dots that people are picking up on, but might be writing off as freak one-off events.

        that's where a narrative comes in.

        by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:32:37 PM PDT

•  Excellent

  Exactly the way I look at it. The risk of inaction far outweighs the risk of action - so much so in fact that we cannot afford at all to do nothing even if we acknowledge just for the sake of the argument with the global warming deniers the possibility that the current scientific consensus on human-made climate change may be wrong.

  (Not being a specialist on game theory, I suspect if you wanted to poke a hole into the argument, your best bet would be to try and quantify the probability of catastrophic change occurring and map that against the probability of economic damage in case action is taken. If the latter were to be far more likely than the former, I can see how that might sort of undermine the effectiveness of the argument. But of course I don't buy that any damage to the economy needs to occur at all if action is taken smartly and people remain rational about it all...)

  by brainwave on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:33:06 PM PDT

  •  the real question is "whose economy?"

    the oil and related corps have been trying to conflate their profits with "the economy," but it's really a matter below the level of the economy, same as single-payer health insurance.

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:46:38 PM PDT

•  Game theory is way over my head,

  but even I understand the potential for national renewal that green industry presents. A concerted effort would transform America into a world leader in both renewable energy and pollution reduction and would entail a revolution in American industry, and for those so inclined it would be a very profitable revolution.

  Why is that so hard to understand for those who are supposed to be trained to see?

  by scoff0165 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:33:35 PM PDT

•  That's just

  an excellent video. Thanks.

  by GussieFN on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:40:40 PM PDT

•  Mmmmm raw sea slug.

  Oh, sorry. This is as valid as Pascal's Gambit, aka Pascal's Wager.

  by Jacques on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:10:50 PM PDT

  •  the hilarious thing is

    i was actually there when the initial sea slug dare came into play. i stumbled across his video totally serendipitiously. the sea slug was not as bad as imagined.

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:40:28 PM PDT

•  As a polisci major

  I just want to add my two cents.

  This guy presents what is known as a prisoner's dilemma and not only is global warming able to be explained in such quantifiable terms, but most policy exchanges can be subjected to the same treatment.

  Its rather obvious, but I want to make sure people understand the power of presenting arguments and problems in the form of a prisoner's dilemma. It helps when trying to defend fair trade policies, environmental policies and military action. But the end result is always the same. If the net costs outweigh the net benefits, then that particular policy will always be unfavorable.

  My only problem with game theory is that although it can be a powerful tool, it does not take into account every possibility and therefore cannot predict the future with accuracy. Sometimes there are solutions that we don't even take into account that could have avoided the problem altogether.

  But in this particular environmental case, the possible outcomes are so broad and generalized, it is definitely an accurate predictor. The only other variable that might skew the results one way or another is if an asteroid were to hit us and start a premature Armageddon.  

  by Porsche51688 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:34:04 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like we need....

    psychohistory.

    Any Harry Seldons in the house? We need you now.

    (Asimove reference)

    by arcana on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:23:19 PM PDT

•  Why is it we wouldn't think of letting anyone

  play with our car engine even just to see how it works, but most people make excuses out the wazoo when it comes to tinkering with the very atmosphere we need to survive.

  by arcana on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:20:13 PM PDT

  •  that al gore line in AIT says it all

    "without a healthy environment, there is no economy"

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:33:34 PM PDT

    •  even the word "environment" irks me somehow

      it's a distanced wonkish word. but otherwise the sentiment is spot on.

      without a healthy earth - there is no economy.

      my son has grown up more insulated from the natural world than I did. and I was probably more citified than my parents (well, my dad anyway, who grew up mostly on farms and in little teeny towns)

      our great success --our "mastery" over the natural elements is our great undoing. Its the Icarus story.

      so many of us dont realize our debt and interconnection with this planet - we are full of ourselves, and our pride that we are "self-made". and  as americans - so so much this way.
      well we are not "self-made" none of us. without
      the earth's atmosphere we wouldnt survive 5 minutes. Without the kind embrace of gaia, we are just dead specks of interplanetary dust.

      by biscobosco on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:57:29 PM PDT

      •  hell. yeah. [nt]

        by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:59:27 PM PDT

        •  gaia

          gaia what we be withour her?

          by arcana on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:19:37 PM PDT

          •  stardust, baby. stardust. [nt]

            by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:51:42 PM PDT

•  we need bruce willis

  in some kind of action movie were he helps the world take on global warming. filled with one liners and epic action sequences, it would motivate the world to do something about global warming just as it would motivate us to take care of, say, an incoming asteroid.

  by Dude1701 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:20:25 PM PDT

  •  i think they tried that w/ day after tomorror

    but i didn't see it.

    perhaps you could set it in a distopian globally warmed future, as our progeny tried to cope with the consequences of our inaction. but better than that madmax-in-boats waterworld movie.

    science fiction works best as a moral literature, IMO. not sure if bruce willis is up for it, though. perhaps a matt damon-george clooney feature?

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:35:38 PM PDT

•  This science teacher wonderingmind42

  has a whole bunch of videos on global warming where he build a detailed treatment. Useful to watch/bookmark/and spread the link to it.

  For those interested in understanding the science behind it, I have a compilation of (mostly) science-oriented links here, with links to many important and useful argument as well as freely downloadable/online books.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:07:37 PM PDT

  •  thanks a lot for the link [nt]

    by wu ming on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:59:35 PM PDT