In the 8 December 2009 New York Times Tom Friedman presents a very good application of Dick Cheney's "one percent doctrine" to global warming.
You recall the one percent doctrine, right? Friedman gives a refresher:
In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”
As Friedman indicates, this is really the 'precautionary principle.' Reasonable, right?
But what I really like like about this article are the final three paragraphs:
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs;[emboldening mine] our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.[emboldening mine]
But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.
We take this same approach in floodplain zoning. A 100-year flood has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year, yet we restrict or proscribe building in the 100-year floodplain unless you purchase flood insurance. The 100-year flood is a low-probability, high-impact event.
I would like to see more people espouse this approach: mitigating global warming is ultimately good for the country, irrespective of the degree of certainty or magnitude of the warming phenomenon.
Heck, it's something Dick Cheney would do!
“According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change." -- Cass Sunstein, quoted in the article
Comments