The "Stone" on the NYT

Although not a regular follower, I enjoy reading the occasional entry of the "Stone" philosophy blog on the NYT website. A current entry dwells into the philosophy of science, specifically as regards the role of "experts"  in generating science-based policy. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) serves as a prime example.

Analogies are often great fun - especially strange ones. In the reader's commentaries following the "Stone" blog a lively discussion ensues when one reader compares the controversy surrounding AGW today to the application of lobotomy 60 years ago. Another reader jumps in and dismisses the comparison: the seriousness of the psychiatric conditions justified the use of lobotomy as an unquestionably effective - albeit drastic - technique, especially in the absence of a broadly available and humane alternative. But perhaps a better point can be made with the analogy: given our incurable reliance on greenhouse-gas generating energy sources, our industrialized economy may be in need of a "lobotomy".

Of course it is somewhat absurd to compare the scale of the risks and costs associated with psychiatric illnesses - affecting a narrow group of individuals - and global warming, a potential "global killer". But as an intellectual exercise, let's run a basic risk assessment of the two:

•  what is the evidence in support of the hypotheses justifying a course of action? (The hypotheses are: anthropogenic global warming is real / psychotic behavior is caused by a mental disorder)
• what are the costs or repercussions if the hypothesis is true and the problem is not addressed? ( Repercussions:  economic and environmental damage / antisocial behavior )
• what are the alternative courses of action available to solve the problem and what is their cost? ( Solutions: reduced greenhouse gas emissions / lobotomy )

The similarities between lobotomy and AGW are decidedly weak when we inspect the last two points - repercussions and solutions. Psychiatric conditions, their repercussions and their solution were comparatively well understood, even 50 years ago. Medical histories can be logged for a large body of patients from which to derive good statistics on appropriate courses of action. In the case of AGW we only have one patient - our planet - and little room for experimentation, and as a result extraordinarily sparse statistics. We are forced to make decisions based on the power of forecasting using the laws of nature and our understanding of climate in the past. But long-term climate forecasting - not to mention its repercussions - is unreliable. Any forecast includes a level of uncertainty which depends on the "boundary values" of the problem (in the case of climate all current factors that might impact future climate) as well as the accuracy of the mathematical models with which we generate the forecast. In the case of climate modeling, while the current data defining the "boundary conditions" is increasingly good, the mathematical models are famously sensitive to the mathematical details of the model and choice of boundary conditions. It is hard to beat mother nature at climate forecasting.

The key question, based on accumulated past climate data, has become not whether AGW is real but what future climate we can expect. Moreover, climate change does not necessarily represent the death knell of civilization, although it could prove catastrophically disruptive. Finally, there are many possible solutions to the potential problem, of varying cost and complexity in terms of implementation.

Are there better analogies to the policy discussion surrounding AGW, and generally speaking to how global policy and decision making should be pursued? Who should be in charge of making the ultimate decisions and what process should be followed to reach them? How does one protect the public interest in an extreme situation such as AGW?

I am reminded of the problem with the ozone hole in the 80s and 90s, which was equally preoccupying. A solution seemed far out of reach: we were either going to fry under excessive UV radiation, or lose our refrigerators. At least as a kid I certainly did not understand that other refrigerants might be available. The concern over the ozone hole problem, solved through a global phasing out of a family of chemicals (CFCs), now seems trivial. The nature of AGW is greatly more complicated. It is not limited in scope to a subset of human activity - refrigeration - but rather extends to any activity that involves energy consumption with consequent greenhouse gas emission. Thus AGW is of global character like the ozone hole problem in terms of its repercussions, but even greater in scope in terms of the complexity of its resolution. Other environmental problems like the plight of the bluefin tuna are difficult to solve for similar reasons: short-term economic interests stifle any international agreement on how to spread the costs of action. Part of the failure stems from a lack of consensus among authorities on the magnitude of the long-term risks, which as in the case of AGW require forecasting. Forecasting of fisheries is not particularly simple either. In this case both models and data lead to large uncertainties. Add to that an utter lack of political willpower in the face of a strong economic lobby and a deadlock is quickly reached. But while the fisheries problem could in principle be resolved with relatively little effort with some political willpower - fishing bans have certainly been imposed before - AGW is a problem comparatively humbling in magnitude.

(On a related topic, a major utility decided today to shelf plans for a large carbon-sequestration plan because the USA government  withdrew  incentives for the project due to the tight economic climate and GOP intervention.)

Decisions of varying degree of importance, with implications over varying time frames, and affecting groups of people of varying size are taken by either individuals or small groups of people all of the time. Ethical and democratic principles would ideally guide how political decisions are made and implemented. But how should leaders incorporate "expert" advice in the policy-making process when experts disagree over the extent and solution of a problem but its potential repercussions threaten civilization? How does one implement solutions when multipartisan commitment is impossible in a short-sighted political environment,  but absolutely essential, and the payoff itself is intangible given the uncertainties surrounding the magnitude of the problem ? If draconian measures are necessary, such as the central planning initiative that helped curb population growth in China, what choices are available to democratic governments? What degree of state intervention (taxation and enforcement of regulations) will capitalist economies need to incorporate? How will we punish cheaters? If a large economy goes "rogue" and ignores international regulations, will armed conflict ensue? In the case of AGW deeply unpopular policies need to be implemented which are detrimental to the economic outlook in the short and medium term. An analogy often employed to describe our reliance on energy sources that produce greenhouse gases is that of an addiction. Despite the weaknesses with that analogy, it does bring up one essential question: how does one protect the public from itself? 

The philosophical question surrounding decision-making and AGW is  largely ethical in nature: how do we make decisions that affect others, based on imperfect or incomplete information? Since all our eggs are in one basket, we have to hedge our bets. In practical terms, the sensible way to proceed would seem to be to apply risk management principles in real time, adopting an adjustable policy that responds to the latest available information. In reality the information is noisy. In the context of AGW, a good approach is to apply a policy that is an average of the available options and to adjust it slowly in response to (hopefully) slowly changing conditions. The key to a successful response is of course a timely response, but knowing what is timely requires accurate forecasting, more than we may be capable of at this time.