[FictiveEvan]

I read of an interesting thought experiment once - a way to take the moral judgment out of the anthropogenic global warming debate. Imagine that there were never fossil fuels or elevated CO2 levels. Now imagine that scientists have (somehow) determined that the sun has suddenly increased its energy output in such a way that would exactly mimic on this imaginary planet, the proposed effect of elevated CO2 on our planet (this turns out to be about a 0.3% increase in output).

Would this discovery warrant massively restructuring the world economy by central decree in an attempt to counteract the sun? The spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars? These are the decisions you are making when you err on the side of caution.

[thaumaturgy]

That doesn't make sense to me. It completely sidesteps both the questions of responsibility, as well as questions about our desired environment.

I am -- or was, before my "startup" days -- an avid hiker, backpacker, etc.; to me, your thought experiment translates this way: Imagine that I was out hiking, and that I see a bunch of trash on the trail. Now imagine that the trash doesn't belong to me. Should I pick it up?

It doesn't make sense to me that, as a species with the ability to dramatically affect our environment, we should choose to not take care of it. It doesn't make sense to me that we would spoil our own living conditions.

To get back to your thought experiment: if the causes behind global warming were out of our control, but if the global warming had the potential to create an environment which we didn't want to live in, and if we had the power to counteract the changes, then I think it makes sense to do so.

As a practical matter, "massively restructuring the world economy" is also known as progress. We're certainly not going to burn coal in space.

[eds]

"As a practical matter, 'massively restructuring the world economy' is also known as progress."

Except that the next three words were "by central decree."

[FictiveEvan]

I think your analogy is flawed, since it assumes that the trash was put there by another person (just like CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by other people). A better one would be if you came upon a barren, ugly landscape - would you be morally obligated to improve it?

That said, I see your point about us humans managing our environment and making it more to our liking. We've been doing it for thousands of years. I just don't understand what basis we have for making the sort of radical changes proposed by "climate change" alarmists. How do we know the outcome will be to our liking?

[Tichy]

I think your example is useless. Of course predicting any kind of calamity would warrant spending money to reduce the damage (in the larger context, ie considering where spending the money will have the most effect). If a meteor would be about to land on your hometown, would you scramble to get to the other side of the planet? Of course you would, no matter if the meteor falls down because of natural causes or because of a giant magnet somebody build to attract it.