Morton Winston's Open Salon Blog

The Symbolism of the Titanic Disaster

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:04:57 -0400

On April 15, 1912 the ocean liner Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, drowning 1517 passengers. On this centenary of the disaster there are memorials taking place in Belfast where the supposedly “unsinkable” steamship was built, in Southhampton England, its port of departure, and in New York, its intended destination. Church bells are also ringing in Halifax Nova Scotia from whence ships sailed to recover bodies from the icy waters of the North Atlantic and where 150 of those who perished were laid to rest.

The Titanic went down on its maiden voyage. Its passengers were a cross-section of humanity. There were the poor who booked third class tickets dreaming of making a new life for themselves in America, as well as the rich who booked the luxury cabins and were taking a holiday cruise. When the ship struck the iceberg in the early morning hours panic ensued. There were not enough lifeboats for all of the passengers. The best of human nature came fully into view as some brave men and women decided to remain on board the sinking vessel to allow others to board the lifeboats. The worst was also evident, as some of the richest passengers, including the ship’s owner, J. Bruce Ismay, left the sinking ship in partially loaded lifeboats. The ship’s wireless telegraph operator, Jack Philips, stayed at his post in the “Marconi Room” until the end, tapping out the distress signal at that time “C, Q, D,: Calling all ships. Distress, We have struck an iceberg.” And the ship’s band, led by Wallace Hartley, continued to play the song “Nearer, My God to Thee” as the great vessel sank into the depths of North Atlantic.

News of the Titanic disaster was broadcast nearly globally in less than two days, and is one of the earliest example of a “viral” global news event. It also sparked a regulatory revolution that has led to many improvements in safety on board ships, though they did not prevent the Costa Concordia from running aground on January 13, 2012 killing 30 people, due to human error. In the past 100 years, the Titanic has spawned hundred of books, thousands of articles, and a “block buster” 1998 movie by James Cameron that made the tragedy real to a new generation of people.

Our fascination with the Titanic derives in part from its serving as a metaphor and symbol; it is an icon for a ship on a different voyage, one that we now are all passengers on. The Titanic symbolizes human civilization since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-17th century. The voyage began with philosophers, such as Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon heralding the dawning of a New Age in which the secrets of Nature would be unlocked by science and technology, allowing us to exert our control over the natural world, to better satisfy human needs and desires. Their faith in the capacity of human reason to discover the Laws of Nature in order to Subdue Nature to our Will, turned out, as we all know, to be well-founded.

The Enlightenment’s faith in scientific reason brought us Issac Newton, the steam engine, constitutional democracy, international trade, factories and mass production, bicycles, electricity, corporations, railroads, cotton gins, the end of slavery, telegraph, photography, internal combustion engines, airplanes, motion pictures, automobiles, radios, telephones, plastic, refrigerators, submarines, vacuum tubes, oral contraception, transistors, helicopters, computers, fax machines, audio tape recording, nylon, nuclear weapons, Space Shuttles, DVDs, and IPads. Those of us fortunate enough to have been born in the latter part of the 20th century into one of the more prosperous and developed countries, have enjoyed benefits, comforts, and capacities that far exceed those available a century ago to even the wealthiest passengers aboard the Titanic. These benefits and new capacities came about largely because of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, and our belief in Reason’s power to discover the Laws of Nature. But the fruits of Reason were widely diffused in society by Corporations operating within a Capitalist Economic System. The industrial civilization which has been created by this combination of factors, is mighty and impressive, so much so, that many believe it is “unsinkable.” Some of the passengers expect that this voyage of discovery and invention will continue to lift humanity, and when they peer into the far future, see that we will one day have the ability to leave the Earth in Space Ships and become Wayfarers in the Universe, going where no one has gone before.

But there are also some passengers, among whom I count myself, who fear that we are at the present time heading towards a catastrophe. There are icebergs on the horizon whose shapes are beginning to become visible through the fog and dark of night: global climate disruption, species extinction, terrorism, deforestation, drought, famine, economic collapse, global epidemic, mass starvation, genocide, conflict over diminishing land and water resources, ecosystem collapse, over population, peak oil, and nuclear war. Those of us who see these ominous shapes on the horizon are trying to urgently warn to other passengers of the danger of our situation by pointing to these looming shapes on the horizon.

But most of the other passengers are not paying much attention to us. They are going about their businesses on the ship, working to make money so that they can acquire more of the gadgets and goodies that the ship’s shopping mall deck has on offer. Down below, the passengers in third class are trying to make their way to the upper decks to join in the conspicuous consumption carnival. Up on the bridge, the captain seems to be vaguely apprehensive about what dangers may lie ahead, but he is skinny and kind of weak and does not have the power steer the ship onto a new course, especially given that there is a group of lunatics on the bridge who seem intent on grabbing the wheel and turning the ship directly into the path of the icebergs. Other passengers are sleeping, or drinking, or having sex; just enjoying themselves.

There are also some people in the ship’s chapel. Some are praying for a Savior to arrive, while others are talking about the possibility of a “paradigm shift” to a new global consciousness. These latter folks see the dangers that lie ahead if we continue on our present course. They try to practice living in a more sustainable fashion by planting urban gardens, and bringing canvas bags to the local farmer’s market, which they go to on their bicycles or in their new hybrid vehicles. They host “webinars” and organize conferences in which they discuss finding “inner peace” through yoga and meditation, and then spread the gospel of the New Earth that is possible through sales of books and DVDs. It is comforting to be around these types because they remain optimistic that a New Age of global peace, justice, and abundance is still possible if we only “Occupy Ourselves.”

Other passengers, aware of the impending calamity, are already heading towards the lifeboats. They are moving out of the cities, creating sustainable communities, and re-learning the skills necessary to live off of the land, the skills that our ancestors once had, but which Modern Humans, have forgotten. When the catastrophe hits, these people think they will have their own arks, and will be counted among the survivors.

Some other passengers are trying to do science and to invent new technologies that will help us avert disaster. They are making packaging out of mushrooms, cooking food on solar ovens, erecting windmills, and building baby incubators out of spare automobile parts. It is not clear that any of these inventions will actually avert the Collapse of Industrial Civilization, but at least they are doing some practical things that may one day change the ways we relate to human society and to the natural environment. They are not willing to abandon their faith in Human Progress through Science and Technology; they are trying to apply scientific reason to the problems and threats that we are now facing. But even as they work, the ship sails on; the bridge controls are dysfunctional, there are not enough lifeboats, and the icebergs are still floating on the horizon.

Still others are sending messages over the Internet (like this one) out to anyone who might happen to be listening for a distress signal: "C, Q, D, ....C, Q, D,.....C, Q, D,.....”

But no one is out there listening who is coming to rescue us;

We are the ones we are waiting for;

And many of us will be going down with the ship.....

Scott Roeder and the Bush Doctrine

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:01:53 -0500

Scott Roeder's justification for killing Dr. George Tiller is the same as the one that George W. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In law, in order for a defense of necessity (voluntary manslaughter) to apply, there must be an imminent lethal threat to oneself or others that a person honestly believes can only be thwarted by using deadly force. But the judge ruled that this defense was not open to Roeder because Dr. Tiller was not threatening him or anyone else when Roeder cold-bloodedly murdered him.

By similarly strained reasoning George W. Bush attacked Iraq on the theory that Saddam Hussien had done bad things in the past and that he might sometime in the future threaten us or his neighbors with WMDs. There was no imminent threat that could only be thwarted by invasion. As it turned out there were no WMD's either.

Both Roeder and Bush conveniently forgot that the threat must be imminent and that use of force must be the only way to thwart it. The main difference is that for killing one person using this absurd moral theory Scott Roeder will likely go to prison, while for killing thousands George W. Bush goes free.

New Rules

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:12:57 -0500

Because the alleged Christmas Day bomber concealed explosives in his underwear, henceforth passengers who are wearing underwear will not be permitted to board international flights bound for the USA.

Because the suspected Undie-bomber tried to detonate his explosive device on Christmas Day, henceforth there will no longer be any international flights on Christmas.

Because the Undie-bomber went to private schools, henceforth all private school students and graduates will have their names put on the terrorism watch list.

Because the Undie-bomber was the son of a wealthy banker, henceforth all sons of bankers will be placed on the terrorism watch list.

Because this douche bag studied engineering, and also because a paper by two sociologists shows that a disproportionate number of terrorists have backgrounds in engineering, henceforth all individuals who have studied engineering will be placed on the terrorism watch list.

Because this fucktard was named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, henceforth there should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed. -- (Thanks to Mike Gallagher for this brilliant idea.)

Because convicted shoe-bomber Richard Reid also tried to set off explosives on a plane, henceforth there should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Richard.

Because the alleged terrorist miscreant received his training in Yemen, henceforth the United States should go to war with Yemen. (Thanks to Joe Lieberman for this one.)

Just because Abdulmutallab is reportedly cooperating fully with investigators does not mean that he gets out of being tortured. (Kudos to Pat Buchanan for recommending this policy.)

Because the Undie-bomber went to the bathroom in the last hour of the flight, henceforth no one will be allowed to go the bathroom during the last hour of the flight.

Because the Undie-bomber removed something from the overhead bin, henceforth no one will be permitted to remove items from the overhead bins during flights.

Because the Undie-bomber concealed the syringe containing chemicals that he allegedly used to try to detonate the explosives hidden in his underwear under a blanket on his lap. henceforth no one will be allowed to have anything on his or her lap during the last hour of international flights to the USA.

Right-wing Ragers and Other Holiday Cheer

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:12:08 -0500

On Christmas Eve a woman named Bunny from Kansas called C-Span to say that she was so disappointed and mad over the Senate passing the health insurance reform bill that she had taken down her Christmas tree. When asked about her reasons she explained that the America is supposed to be one nation under God, but it isn't; that the bill would pit young people against seniors; and something about how the government supporting nonprofit hospices (or hospitals) is tantamount to "genocide against seniors".

I probably would have missed this news item had it not been reposted on the Huffington Post website along with a video of the actual call. The story garnered comments from HP readers who thought that Bunny was stupid, silly, ignorant, ungrateful, misinformed, muddled, insane, and other not-so-nice adjectives that filled 37 pages. Liberals and progressive seem to find cheer in making fun of representatives of the "crazy right".

As a progressive news addict, the condescending comments about Bunny's moral outrage reminded me of Paul Krugman's remark that among those who are opposed to this legislation are members of, "the crazy right, the tea party and death panel people — a lunatic fringe that is no longer a fringe but has moved into the heart of the Republican Party". It seems that liberals and progressives are prepared to use ad hominem arguments against their political adversaries no less than those on the right. It is comforting for people on both wings to believe that one can dismiss certain political opinions by simply calling those who hold them bad names.

Many liberals and progressives are also mad and disappointed about the Senate bill, but for different reasons. I am myself outraged about it because I see it as another capitulation to corporate interests. But, in the end, I agree with Krugman and would vote for the bill, bad as it is, because it is better in certain respects than the status quo. Liberals and progressives, you see, are trained to respect rational argument and will generally go with the heads rather than with their guts, even though their guts are screaming "This thing is total fucking bullshit!"

Still, it is rather perplexing why Bunny reacted in the way that she did. There have been several interesting studies of the human moral response in recent years done by moral psychologists, experimental moral philosophers, cognitive scientists and other researchers who have been trying to understand why people respond to moral issues in the ways that they do. One of the most interesting of these studies is by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt who argues that human beings are innately predisposed to judge moral questions in terms of five distinct value foundations:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). (www.moral foundations.org)

Haidt hypothesizes that liberals tend to use the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity scale mostly, while conservatives place greater emphasis on ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. So rather than simply dismissing people whose basic moral values differ from your own as people who "just don't get it", a more scientific approach is to recognize that liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral values, and this explains their differing moral responses.

Appealing as this theory is, I do not think it explains Bunny's reaction to the Senate passing the health care reform bill. First of all, if Bunny's reaction was based on loyalty and respect for authority she should have simply accepted the outcome as the flawed result of our democratic institutions. Perhaps we don't agree with everything our government does, but it is our government after all, and we should respect its authority and our traditions, including majority rule. If Haidt is right, why weren't Bunny, or Fox News, or conservative bloggers saying things like this?

Second, when asked why she disliked the Senate bill, Bunny said that she thought it was divisive between the young and the old and that it was tantamount to genocide against seniors. This sounds a lot like saying she thought it would be unfair to young people and that it would be harmful to old people; invoking both the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations thought to be used primarily by liberals.

Third, if Bunny really had a lot of respect for religious traditions, she would not have let national political news ruin her Christmas observance, would she? Wouldn't a real Christian conservative carry on with her Kansas holiday plans despite what was going on in Washington? What does this political nonsense matter next to the birth of Our Savior?

Perhaps Bunny is just a nut, after all. But, on the other hand, perhaps something else is going on that Haidt's theory does not explain. One possible explanation is that Bunny is just very misinformed about what the bill says. But is she? The bill (if it ever passes) will require young people who have not purchased private health insurance to buy it or pay a penalty. Seniors with Medicare would be exempt from this requirement, so it does impose different burdens and costs on the young and the old. Young adults who are employed are also paying for Medicare and Social Security, while not deriving any benefits from these programs, and they are in effect now being told that they must pay for their grandparents' government-provided medical care and also contribute to the profit margins of private health insurance companies. If you think about it, this does seems rather unfair, particularly if one expects that the Medicare trust fund will run out of money before one gets to age 66.

But "genocide against seniors"? This does sound like Bunny has been misled by the government death panels campaign that was recently awarded the "Whopper for 2009" prize. This Big Whopper was the result of a carefully constructed media campaign intended to misinform the segment of the American electorate who think that Sarah Palin is a saint and believe that Fox News really is "fair and balanced" into believing that health care reform will result on government-mandated euthanasia for seniors. Rubbish, of course, but why do so many people seem to believe it even though it has been thoroughly exposed and debunked as the big lie that it is? Well maybe it is because a lot of people fear totalitarian governments like those in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Maoist China that actually did murder millions of their own citizens in the name of social progress. Many people fear big governments more than they fear big businesses because the history books reveal that the former have murdered more people than the latter.

So maybe Bunny and the people she represents are not so crazy after all. Bunny cares about justice and harm to the vulnerable, but she has her own analysis of what is most likely to produce injustice and harm. Perhaps her analysis of this legislation is based on some factual misinformation, and perhaps her reading of history is selectively biased, but she is not a lunatic. Nor is she operating with a value system that is very different from yours and mine.

One hard case does not, of course, disprove Haidt's theory, which does help to explain some kinds of variations among moral responses:

While the five foundations are universal, cultures build upon each to varying degrees. Imagine five adjustable slides on a stereo equalizer that can be turned up or down to produce different balances of sound. An equalizer preset like 'Show Tunes' will turn down the bass and 'Hip Hop' will turn it up, but neither turns it off. Similarly, societies modulate the dimension of moral emotions differently, creating a distinctive cultural profile of moral feeling, judgment and justification. If you're a sharia devotee ready to stone adulterers and slaughter infidels, you have purity and in-group pushed up to 11. PETA members, who vibrate to the pain of other species, have turned in-group way down and harm way up.

[Quoted by Jacobs, Tom (2009). "Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe – And Here‘s Why It Matters."– http://www.alternet.org/story/138303, April 25 2009].

Perhaps Haidt is right that some people have some of the values on these moral scales tuned differently than others, rather like the slides on an equalizer. But we are still listening to the same music. It is just that some of us like it. Others don't.

So the next time someone expresses his or her moral outrage over something that you find benign or even agreeable, think about it a little. Avoid name-calling as a substitute for understanding what they are trying to say. You still might end up disagreeing with them, but at least you won't end up thinking that they come from another planet or are deluded miscreants who "just don't get it".

Instead, try asking them, "What's the it?"

Pascal's Wager and Climate Change

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:12:59 -0500

     Current climate science suggests that the Earth's temperature has been steadily rising due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by our use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, and that the rate at which are pumping CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere exceeds the ability of the oceans and the plants to absorb them. If GHG emissions continue unabated then, scientists predict that the Earth's average temperature will continue to rise, and this may cause some potentially very serious climatic changes such as melting glaciers and icecaps, rise in sea levels, species displacement and extinction, spread of tropical diseases, refugee flows, droughts, floods, increasingly powerful cyclones, and so forth.

   While there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that the theory of anthropocentric (human-induced) global warming is true with a high degree of certainty, a great many people still refuse to believe it. Some of these skeptics are suspicious of the explanation that humans burning fossil fuels is the cause of the warming trend and point out the existence of some studies that cast doubt on the consensus view (Alexander Cockburn claims the theory is a farce) . The recent release of "climate gate" emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit suggesting that they had tailored some data to fit this theory fueled climate change skeptics and deniers. Recent Polls show that the percentage of Americans who believe in anthropogenic global warming has declined. Some climate skeptics believe that the whole story is a hoax concocted by a vast left-wing conspiracy. Many of these climate skeptics are also vehemently opposed to the world's nations taking any serious steps to reduce GHG emissions in order to mitigate the threats predicted to arise due to global warming by reducing the use of fossil fuels and moving rapidly to a carbon-neutral energy economy.

   But the question about whether or not we should now take serious steps to reduce GHG emissions is a classic case of decision-making under uncertainty. The question whether we should believe or disbelieve in current climate science is analogous to Pascal's Wager, named for the mathematician and philosopherBlaise Pascal (1623-1662) whose Pensées contained the following intriguing paragraph:

“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

In this argument Pascal portrays the decision about whether to believe in God or not as a wager made under conditions of uncertainty. In modern decision theory the logic of his argument is represented by a decision matrix such as the following:

God exists (G) God does not exist (~G)

Believe in God (B) eternal bliss -N (none)

Not Believe in God (~B) eternal damnation +N (none

This argument suggests that if God exists, the reward for believing that God exists is very high, whereas the cost of not believing in God (if indeed He does exist) is very great --- eternal damnation. Therefore, it is a good bet to believe in God. If, on the other hand, it turns out that God does not exist, then the benefits as well as the costs are negligible (perhaps some Sunday mornings wasted going to Church), and perhaps, if God does not exist, we will never really know anyway whether our bet paid off.

Philosophers have found various reasons to object to this argument as providing a good basis for theism. But I leave these philosophical niceties aside, interested readers might want to consult the article on Pascal's Wager in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. My intention here is to suggest that there is a similar (and much better) argument to be made about the uncertainty of catastrophic climate change due to anthropogenic (human-induced) changes in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the Earth' atmosphere.

There will be a big payoff if we believe in current climate science and take steps to reduce carbon emissions, and it turns out the theory was correct. And there will also be a big loss if we do not believe in current climate science, when it turns out that the theory was correct -- oops, we cooked the planet. Assuming that there is a greater than zero chance that current climate science is correct, then the rational wager would be to accept it and act so as to gain the best outcome and avoid the worst one, even if there remain some doubts about whether the current science is indeed correct. As a decision matrix this set of choices would be represented like this:

C ~C

B F1 F2

~B F3 F4

[Where C = Current climate science is correct, ~C = Current climate science is not correct, b = We believe in climate science and act, and ~B = We do not believe in climate science and do not act.]

What are the relative values of F1...F4 in this payoff matrix? In order to make the answers more concrete suppose that you will be able to experience the planet Earth as it will exist 100 years from now. Perhaps you will still be alive because of miraculous new lifespan enhancing medical technologies. Or if you prefer a more supernatural possibility, suppose that you do die but will be reincarnated as one of your own great great grandchildren, or as another member of their generation.

    Let's first examine the value of F3. If we do not believe in current climate science and act (~B) to mitigate its predicted catastrophic effects by rapidly transforming our energy economy so as to radically reduceGHG emissions, and it turns out that the current science is correct (C) in predicting catastrophic climate changes 100 years from now if we do not act, then you or your great great grandchildren will be very unhappy campers on Planet Earth. The payoff value of F3 (~B & C) is strongly negative. How would you feel about F3? Well probably a lot like an atheist who dies and meets St. Peter at the Pearly Gates --"Oops, I guess I was wrong, Gulp!"

   What then is the value of F1? In this case, we decided to believe in current climate science and acted in order to mitigate its worst predicted effects, and it turned out that our current theories were indeed correct (B & C). The payoff for F1 is then very high indeed. F1 is analogous to the situation of the faithful religious believers who discover that the God they accepted does indeed exist, except that their reward is an earthly one, a planet whose climate is not greatly altered and disrupted by human activities.

   So, just looking at these two values F1 and F3, we can say that F1 dominates F3, that is, that the expected utility of believing in climate change is far greater than the expected utility of not believing in it. Therefore, even with uncertainty about C, it is rational to bet that current climate science is correct and take steps now to significantly reduce ourGHG emissions.

   But we must also consider the costs and benefits of F2 and F4, the cases where current climate science is not correct. Suppose that in 100 years we learn that the climate science of the early 21st century was wrong in predicting catastrophic climatic changes due to anthropogenicGHG emissions (~C), but because people in the early 21st century believed in it (B) they spent a lot of money and effort on energy efficiency, electric cars, windmills, solar panels, and hydrogen fuels cells, and all that green stuff. How would you feel about that? I guess you would probably feel pretty okay about it; it would be kind of like learning that you had already been saved through God's grace, and it really didn't matter whether you went to church or not, even though you did. But your ancestors did make a big effort to "Go Green" for nothing, so let's say that F2 is marginally negative.

   Now, finally, for F4 suppose that at the present we do nothing to prevent further increases in global temperature by altering our current fossil fuel energy economy (the so-called "business as usual" scenario), but that it turns out that current climate science is wrong, and nothing very bad happens. This is like finding one has a "Get into Heaven Free" card even though one lived a life of sin. One can imagine this would make one pretty happy. So let's say F4 is marginally positive.

    Since F1 and F2 together still yield a strongly positive payoff, while F3 and F4 still yield a strongly negative one, it is still rational to bet that current climate science is correct and act on that belief.

    Critics of this argument may want to quibble with my estimate of the cost of F2. Climate skeptics are likely to argue that the cost of mitigating global warming is going to be greater than marginally negative. We will have to make some real sacrifices in order to reduce ourGHG emissions to safe levels by mid-century. Let's assume this is correct. Even so, it is worth it because the expected loss if we do nothing is too great. As the authors of a recent report on the economics of climate change argue, it is also possible to think of the choice we face as analogous to the decision to buy fire insurance:

The reason people buy fire insurance is not because they are certain that their house will burn down; rather it is because they cannot be sufficiently certain that it will not burn down. Likewise, the projections of dangerous climate risk if the world exceeds 350 ppm CO2 in the long run are not certainties; they are, on the contrary, necessarily uncertain. If the worst happens our grandchildren will inherit a degraded Earth that will not support anything like the life that we have enjoyed. On the other hand, if we prepare for the worst, but it does not happen, we will have invested more than, in perfect hindsight, was necessary in clean energy, conservation, and carbon-free technologies. How would we feel about discovering we had done too much about climate change, compared to discovering that we had done too little? (DeCario, S.J., Norgaard, R .B, Norman, C. S., and Sheeran, K.A. "The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization." Economics for Equity and Environment. www.e3network.org. October 2009, p. 6.)

So how much is catastrophic climate change insurance going to cost? According to this study, which is based on a comparable analysis of several economic projections done both by business-sponsored groups, and nongovernmental and academic groups, it is estimated that climate insurance would cost between 1% and 3% of global GDP in order to reach the lowest carbon target currently being discussed, 350 ppm. As the authors of this report reckon:

Suppose the cost of climate protection turns out to be 2.5% of global GDP, toward the high end of the global scenarios just discussed. In an economy that is growing at 2.5% per year, a rate that is common for developed countries, spending 2.5% of GDP on climate protection each year would be equivalent to skipping one year's growth, and then resuming. Average incomes would take 29 years to double from today's level, compared to 28 in the absence of climate costs. In an economy experiencing 10 percent annual growth, as China has in many recent years, imposing a cost of 2.5% per year is equivalent to skipping 3 months of growth; if 10% growth is sustained, average incomes would reach twice the current level in 86 months, compared to 83 months in the absence of climate costs.

   In fact, these authors argue that at the early stages of a climate mitigation program we might actually save money because we are reaping the benefits of greater energy efficiencies. But the bottom line conclusion derived from this study is that, "There are no reasonable studies that say that a 350 ppm stabilization target will destroy the economy; there are no studies that claim that it is desirable to wait before taking action on climate protection" If this is correct, then buying climate insurance is a good investment because we can easily afford it and with a relatively modest cost we can avert a disaster in the making.

   On the other hand, if we disbelieve in current climate science and do nothing now to reduce our carbon emissions, then either we discover that we spent 1%-3% of global GDP converting to a carbon-neutral energy earlier than we had to, or we find that we overheated the Earth and our house burned down.

   So you climate change skeptics and deniers out there, which risk would you rather take? Would you rather that we now take steps to prevent catastrophic climate change when we can easily afford climate insurance, or do you want to go on with business as usual without spending anything on insurance and risk the catastrophic climate changes that current science is predicting? You must choose. Choose wisely.