This is an interesting Pascal’s Wager type of bet. So instead of saying if Global Warming is true or not, he’s saying let’s make a bet on how we should act. In fact, the truth about Global Warming becomes moot. It’s an interesting argument and it’s hit over a 750,000 hits on youtube that he wrote a book about it expanding the argument. He even wants people to challenge him so that he can improve his argument. I’ve got some replies, but I have to admit, it’s a pretty ingenious argument.
The speaker is a high school science teacher and he just simply uses pure logic.
Here’s the video to check out:
There’s also some stuff I want to add from Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat, and Crowded:
- If Global Warming is a Hoax, then it’s the most wonderful hoax there is. It makes us healthier, we have more efficient energy, and it innovates new green ideas.
- In terms of globalization, if we’re not going to be the leader in this “green” technology, you can bet that China will. In fact, they’re already starting and within 10 years, they’ll be the number one in solar cells and they’ll have a leg up in the “green” technology. Indeed, Friedman sees the 20th century as the globalization century. The 21st century will probably be known as the climate-control century.
- Perhaps this is the one that should really grab people. Right now, we’re fighting this War on Terror. If you look at the world closely, the Taliban are being funded through Saudi Arabian people. They’re rich and so they can throw their money at anything they want. But here’s the dumb part, guess how they’re getting their money? People are buying their oil. And who are the number one consumers of oil? AMERICA. Thus, we are fighting and supporting the War on Terror simultaneously. That is just plain stupid. If we focused our energies on not using oil products like more efficient cars, or ever using full electric cars, the Saudi’s will be worried and they can no longer support the Taliban.
- Along with this, we have been very lack with Saudi Arabia’s lack of human rights. It’s because we turn a blind eye to a country if we need a resource from it. But if we no longer need oil, then we begin criticizing Saudi Arabia and since our policies have a lot global influence (especially after going green), they’ll have to be influenced by us. Sure, it’s not logic or reason they’re listening to, but when it comes to politics, we must be pragmatic. This is probably the most pragmatic argument I’ve heard that requires us to go green. Indeed, we owe it to the world.
- With this new innovation, there aren’t going to be a few losers and a few winners. Because the world is so globalized, EVERYONE is going to win or EVERYONE is going to lose.
In other news, Fareed Zakaria weighs in on his views about it and I think it’s spot on by comparing with insurance. He also invites two people to discuss global warming and how much cost we should implement:Bjorn Lomborg and Paul Krugman. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum but very intelligent folks and the argue their side really well. Check it out here. (Note: stop it at 12:35.)