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/
