Yet another round on climate change, reason, sin, etc.

At the risk of wandering too far into the weeds on this one, a few quick thoughts in response to Eduardo's latest on climate change.  So, there's this statement of mine:

"[S]ound science and economics" must be brought to bear, at the outset, and followed where it leads, on questions of climate change's effects, extent, and causes.  It is a mistake -- that is, it is not consistent with "sound science and economics" -- to take as not-to-be-examined-ly given any particular scenario with respect to climate change's effects, causes, costs, extent, etc.

Eduardo writes, in response:

[The proposition that "anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects, not a liberal fairy tale"] has been "examined" and is now largely uncontested within the scientific community.  I'm not talking about the precise contours of the problem or precisely how to solve it, which remain subject to substantial, although certainly bounded, exploration.  I'm talking about the existence of the problem and its potential for catastrophic impact, both of which a great many people continue to deny.

I am talking about the "precise contours of the problem", not the basic fact of anthropogenic climate change.  These contours are quite contested (and, again, I understand, as well as most other law professors do, what is and is not "largely uncontested within the scientific community").  And, they should be.  It is unhelpful -- it is certainly not "Catholic" -- to suggest, as so many (not Eduardo) do, that to raise questions about the details of certain predicted scenarios (e.g., "the seas will rise ___ feet in ___ years causing ____ unless we ____") is to be anti-science, a capitalist tool, a Bush toady, etc.

Eduardo also writes:

I completely disagree that it is EQUALLY sinful to take preemptive action now that might turn out to be overkill in order to reduce the potential for a catastrophic result.  The two end-points are simply not symmetrical.  One (the overreaction) involves marginally lower standards of living in our lifetime and in the near future.  The other (the underreaction) involves the potential for the end of our civilization.

Certainly, these two end-points -- i.e., "marginal lower standards of living" and "the end of our civilization" are not symmetrical.  Put me (or any other sentient being) to the choice of these alternatives, and I will choose to avert the latter.  (I am happy to agree with Eduardo that I ought to choose to avert the latter.)  It is not the case, though -- at least, we are not even close to being confident that it is the case -- that these are the two end-points in question.  (An interesting read:  Gregg Easterbook's "Global Warming:  Who Loses, and Who Wins".  It should be noted that this piece was written after Easterbook abandoned his earlier doubts about the fact of climate change.)  It would be irresponsible to suggest (and I do not take Eduardo to be suggesting) that the costs to the poor of the likely outcomes of course A need not be compared with those of course B, with due allowance made for the probability of these outcomes.

Here's Easterbook, again:

As someone who has come to the view that greenhouse-effect science is now persuasive, I'm glad Gore made a movie that will help average voters understand the subject. . . .

This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity's proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!

On the question of the "relative importance" of the contraception question and the climate-change question, I think I'll just leave things where they are.  It is, I think, important to act responsibly, reasonably, and in a way consistent with our obligations toward the poor and vulnerable; and it is the case that we will be better equipped to act in this way if we have a correct understanding of the nature, destiny, . . . and sexuality of the human person.