Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - How Should We Deal With Climate Change?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - How Should We Deal With Climate Change?

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside.

----------------------------------------------
HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE?

INTRODUCTION:

In this meetup, we'll address climate change from an interdisciplinary perspective. We'll start by looking at how climate scientists use climate models to project the levels of warming caused by different levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and how economists have worked with climate scientists to estimate the economic damages that various levels of warming could cause. These estimates can suggest the depth of the cuts in emissions & the level of government spending we should be prepared to make in order to avert those damages, but as we'll see this method has aroused considerable controversy on both the political left & right.

In the second section, we'll look at what scientists, engineers & economists think about how we should rapidly transition to low-carbon energy production, and how this compares with some policies proposed by various political factions, namely James Baker & George Scultz's "carbon tax & dividends" plan (backed by several economists like Janet Yellen & Larry Summers), the progressive Democrats' "Green New Deal" (backed by several economists like Robert Reich & Robert Pollin), and the more radical "de-growth" policies proposed by ecological economists.

In the third & fourth sections, we'll look at how political scientists & international relations scholars have analyzed the conflicting interests & political gridlock on both the domestic & international level that have made it so difficult to take comprehensive action to mitigate climate change.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

The 1st & 2nd sections of this discussion draw upon polls that indicate the expert consensus in science & economics, and this begs the question of whether or not laypeople should defer to the expert consensus. In previous meetups, we've explored the idea that laypeople should defer to the expert consensus on issues that are empirical. Note that they can also check the validity of the expert consensus in several ways, like looking for effects from political bias, checking to see what experts in adjacent fields think & comparing expert polls to meta-analyses.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/jlzgxlyvpbqb/
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/jlzgxlyvpbjc/

We had a past meetup entitled "How Should We Think About Climate Change?" where looked at the way social psychology has found that motivated reasoning polarizes the debate around "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW), leading people to become MORE divided on the issue as they learn more about it. It looks as if more informed people don't update their opinion based on the facts, but rather get better at cherry picking the facts to fit their preexisting opinion. (Luckily, as we'll see in this discussion, there isn't usually the same polarization among scientists & economists, who tend to converge around a unique set of views that mix policies favored on the political left with those favored on the political right.)
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywnbmc/

We had a past meetup where we discussed the moral philosophy, economics, psychology & political science research on taxation. While there's a moral & economic case for a Pigouvian tax on "negative externalities" like carbon emissions, the public's psychological motives & the political incentives for lawmakers make this sort of sacrifice for a long-term public benefit very difficult.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/259946508/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the way scientists, economists & other scholars approach the problems posed by climate change. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion.

The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 54 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to provoke discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. WHAT CAN SCIENTISTS & ECONOMISTS TELL US ABOUT CLIMATE TRENDS, THE "SOCIAL COST OF CARBON" & THE OPTIMAL CARBON TAX?

  • HOW ACCURATE HAVE CLIMATE MODELS BEEN IN RECENT YEARS IN TERMS OF ESTIMATING TEMPERATURE RISES, PRECIPITATION PATTERNS, GLACIER & ICE CAP MELTING, SEA LEVEL RISE, ETC?

  • HOW MUCH UNCERTAINTY IS BAKED INTO CLIMATE MODELS, AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT CALCULATION ON THE "SOCIAL COST OF CARBON"? WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE HITTING A TIPPING POINT THAT COULD RESULT IN CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES, AND HOW MUCH SHOULD WE PAY TO AVOID THAT?

  • SHOULD WE CALCULATE THE "SOCIAL COST OF CARBON" IN A WAY THAT MERELY ENSURES ECONOMIC GROWTH EXCEEDS THE ECONOMIC LOSSES FROM CLIMATE CHANGE? OR SHOULD WE SET A HARD LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF CLIMATE CHANGE WE CAN ACCEPT (E.G. 1.5° OR 2°C) THEN CALCULATE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL?

  • HOW MUCH DOES WILLIAM NORDHAUS'S "SOCIAL COST OF CARBON" DIVERGE FROM THE IPCC'S RECOMMENDATIONS? SHOULD WE ACCEPT SOME WARMING BEYOND 2°C SINCE STUDIES SHOW NO EVIDENCE OF "TIPPING POINTS" THAT COULD PRODUCE A GLOBAL CATASTROPHE?

1a) Tamsin Edwards, "How to love uncertainty in climate science" (video - 13:17 min, start at 0:19 & stop at 10:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5nhmp06xs&t=19s

1b) The Real News Network w/ James Boyce, "What is the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions?" (video - 6:20 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rcxngFS1Y0

.
II. WHAT CAN SCIENTISTS & ECONOMISTS TELL US ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & ECONOMIC GROWTH?

  • WHICH ALIGNS BETTER WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCIENTISTS & ECONOMISTS: THE BAKER-SCHULTZ "CARBON DIVIDEND" PLAN OR THE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS' "GREEN NEW DEAL"? WHICH IS MORE POLITICALLY FEASIBLE IN LIGHT OF HOW VOTERS REACT TO TAXES & GOV'T SPENDING?

  • IS A BUG OR FEATURE OF THE BAKER-SCHULTZ PLAN THAT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHERE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SHOULD COME FROM & LETS THE MARKET DECIDE?

  • HOW SHOULD WE VIEW THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS' "GREEN NEW DEAL" FOCUSES ON SOLAR & WIND POWER & LEAVES OUT NUCLEAR POWER, WHEREAS POLLS OF SCIENTISTS SHOW MOST FAVOR EXPANDING NUCLEAR POWER?

  • CAN OBAMA'S "GREEN STIMULUS" GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO HOW THE "GREEN NEW DEAL" MIGHT WORK? IF SO, WAS THE GREEN STIMULUS SUCCESSFUL IN PROMOTING RENEWABLE ENERGY, OR WAS IT MOSTLY JUST "PORKBARREL" SPENDING?

  • HOW COMMON WERE "GREEN STIMULUS" FAILURES LIKE SOLYNDRA? SINCE MOST ECONOMISTS FAVOR INCREASED INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING DESPITE EXPECTING SOME LOW/NEGATIVE RETURNS, DOES THIS SUGGEST THEY'D THINK SOME GREEN ENERGY DUDS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE?

  • DOES GOV'T STIMULUS SPENDING ONLY MAKE SENSE DURING A RECESSION? WOULD IT RESULT IN TOO MUCH "CROWDING OUT" DURING A BOOMING ECONOMY?

  • WOULD THE DEMOCRATS' "GREEN NEW DEAL" REALLY COST $93 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS? IF NOT, WHAT IS A MORE REALISTIC ESTIMATE? COULD RAISING THE TOP MARGINAL PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATE, RAISING THE CORPORATE TAX RATE & ENACTING A WEALTH TAX FUND IT - OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE PARTLY FUNDED BY DEBT?

  • IS THE "GREEN GROWTH" THE GREEN NEW DEAL IMAGINES EVEN POSSIBLE - I.E. CAN AN ECONOMY GROW WHILE CUTTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & MAKING EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES MORE SUSTAINABLE? OR SHOULD WE FOCUS ON "DE-GROWTH" - I.E. MAINTAINING BASIC GOV'T SERVICES & QUALITY OF LIFE WHILE REDUCING UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION?

2a) Bloomberg w/ Lawrence Summers, "How Carbon Dividends Work" (video - 2:55 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJw4mtnu_I4

2b) Real News Network w/ Robert Pollin, "Towards a Green Economy: Green Growth or No Growth?" (video - 10:52 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIE9klWvA4g

.
III. WHAT CAN POLITICAL SCIENTISTS CAN TELL US ABOUT THE PROSPECTS FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISES ON CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION?

  • WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PASSAGE OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN THE 20th CENTURY? WERE THEY ONLY POSSIBLE DUE TO LOWER POLITICAL POLARIZATION, OR WAS IT BECAUSE THE COST WAS MUCH LESS?

  • IS TED NORDHAUS RIGHT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT FAILED TO GET CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION PASSED DUE TO OVERRELYING ON A SCARY "POLITICS OF LIMITS"? WOULD A MORE OPTIMISTIC "POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY" WIN OVER MORE VOTERS?

  • DID AL GORE POLITICIZE CLIMATE CHANGE WITH HIS "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" DOCUMENTARY IN 2006? IF SO, WOULDN'T THAT CONFLICT WITH PREVIOUS RESEARCH THAT SHOWS LITTLE TO NO EFFECT FROM PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES & CAMPAIGN ADS?

  • WHY DID THE GOP HARDEN AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION OVER THE LAST DECADE? WAS IT MORE DUE TO GRASSROOTS POPULISM OR CLIMATE SKEPTICISM AT CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS?

  • SINCE MOST POLITICAL SCIENTISTS ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT BIG EFFECTS ON VOTING PATTERNS FROM DONORS & LOBBYISTS, SHOULD WE DISCOUNT THE BELIEF THAT "BIG OIL" IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF GOP OPPOSITION TO A CARBON TAX?

  • DOES SUBSTANTIAL POLITICAL ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE REQUIRE THE GOP TO SHIFT ON THE ISSUE & SEEK BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE, OR COULD THE DEMOCRATS TAKE & HOLD THE WHITE HOUSE & CONGRESS & DO IT UNILATERALLY?

  • SINCE YOUNGER REPUBLICANS SHOW MORE CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN POLLS, DOES THIS MEAN THE GRIDLOCK WILL BE BROKEN IN THE NEXT 10-20 YEARS AS BOOMERS DIE OFF?

  • WHILE ECONOMISTS OFTEN WANT A CARBON TAX TO FUND MITIGATION, WOULD IT HAVE TO BE REVENUE NEUTRAL TO MAKE IT POLITICALLY PALATABLE TO VOTERS? WOULD THE CARBON TAX BE POPULAR IF IT FUNDED "GREEN JOBS" THAT BENEFITTED A SIGNIFIGANT FRACTION OF VOTERS?

  • COULD THE GREEN NEW DEAL ENERGIZE THE DEMOCRATIC BASE ENOUGH TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020, OR WILL IT LIKELY BACKFIRE & DISCREDIT THEM WITH MODERATE DEMOCRATS?

3a) AEI, "Climate change and political polarization" (video - 1:22 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz9zRWZyJIk

3b) AEI, "Green New Deal: public opinions" (video - 1:23 min.)
https://youtu.be/TWpp4Qup7tQ

3c) PBS, "Paying for carbon pollution? Why some environmentalists don’t support this state tax" (video - 9:26 min.)
https://youtu.be/ShsZ3E2K8-Q

.
IV. WHAT CAN I.R. SCHOLARS TELL US ABOUT CLIMATE AGREEMENTS & OVERCOMING THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS"?

  • IS THE "ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE" EMPIRICALLY VALID? IS IT UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO SWITCH TO CLEAN ENERGY BEFORE THEY GET RICH, OR CAN THEY "LEAPFROG" US?

  • DOES THE PRISONER'S DILEMMA APPROXIMATE THE PROBLEM WITH GETTING COUNTRIES TO AGREE TO CUT GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS? IF SO, ARE THERE GAME THEORY STRATEGIES THAT CAN ENCOURAGE COOPERATION?

  • IS CAP & TRADE BETTER FROM AN I.R. PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO MONITOR THAN A CARBON TAX?

  • DOES SOCIAL PRESSURE ("SOFT POWER") HELP COMPEL NATIONS TO ABIDE BY CLIMATE AGREEMENTS? IF NOT, ARE TARIFFS & TRADE SANCTIONS SUFFICIENT, OR WILL MILITARY FORCE HAVE TO BE USED TO ENFORCE CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENTS? IN THE LATTER CASE, HOW WOULD THIS WORK IF THE OFFENDER HAS WMDs?

  • DID THE U.S. FAIL TO RATIFY THE 1997 KYOTO PROTOCOL BECAUSE IT WAS TOO HARD ON THE U.S. & TOO EASY ON DEVELOPING NATIONS LIKE INDIA & CHINA? DID IT STILL HELP LOWER CARBON EMISSIONS AMONG NATIONS THAT SIGNED IT?

  • HOW MUCH OF THE UNWILLINGNESS TO CUT CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE U.S. IS DRIVEN BY THE COMPETITION WITH A RISING CHINA?

  • WAS THE 2015 PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT USELESS BECAUSE ITS MILD CUTS WOULDN'T LOWER CO2 LEVELS ENOUGH TO STAY BELOW THE IPCC'S 2°C LIMIT? DOES THE FACT THAT IT'S NON-BINDING LIMIT ITS EFFECTIVENESS?

4a) Pew Research Center, "What does the world think about climate change?" (video - 1:12 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VbgNKlUxUw

4b) Steve Rayner, "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward" (video - 8:00 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw

4c) NY Times, "Fact Check: President Trump’s Exit From The Paris Climate Accord" (video - 3:01 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5xTaS6VWqk

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group