Pascal’s [Climate] Wager
Because by the time you know the answer, it will be too late
In theological circles, Pascal’s Wager reflects a kind of cheerful cynicism. It doesn’t approach faith as a spiritual doctrine, rather it looks at it more like a weary gambler with a few chips left on the table, clinging to last hopes. The 17th century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal devised the Wager shortly before he died, and in short, it goes like this:
There either is or is not a God; by being alive, you must flip a coin as to whether you believe in God or not, and must then live your life accordingly; if you win the coin toss, then God is real and your reward is an eternity of heavenly bliss; if you lose the coin toss, then you face either eternal oblivion or eternal torment; the best bet, then, is to believe in God and live accordingly, because the reward-to-risk factor is significantly more in your favor.
Of course one does eventually learn the truth of the either/or God mystery, but by that point, it’s too late to do anything about it. That’s why, although numerous attacks have been made on the Wager as a theological question, it continues to intrigue us. (Our decision to believe in the merits of Pascal’s Wager is itself a version of Pascal’s Wager.) And as a model for our approach to climate change, it’s even more compelling. Because there really is a practical, binary question in front of us: either a changing climate will wreak massive deadly havoc or it won’t. And by the time the skeptics have been given sufficient proof that catastrophic climate change is real, it will be too late.
Surely, then, the safe bet is to assume that climate havoc is a real problem, and to set our shoulders to practical solutions to that problem. I’m hardly the first person to propose the Wager as a model for approaching the belief-in-climate change problem (it’s been dealt with right here on Medium, to pick just one example), but given recent news reports, there’s a new urgency to our efforts to push the train up the hill.
The current GOP administration, for instance, has clearly made its bet in the Climate Wager. As the Washington Post reported late last month, the administration has adopted a draft environmental impact statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), accepting the conclusion that the planet will warm by four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. (Scientists are desperately urging us to avoid a two-degree increase. Four would be very very bad.) But the administration’s response to this is utterly cynical: since the increase is so great, and no single change can make much difference, then they’re not going to do anything at all. From the NHTSA report:
The emissions reductions necessary to keep global emissions within this carbon budget could not be achieved solely with drastic reductions in emissions from the U.S. passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet but would also require drastic reductions in all U.S. sectors and from the rest of the developed and developing world. In addition, achieving GHG reductions from the passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet to the same degree that emissions reductions will be needed globally to avoid using all of the carbon budget would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today's levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to substantially move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically practicable.But moving away from fossil-fuel vehicles is both technologically feasible and economically practicable. I’m shopping for an electric vehicle right now, and finding several options at very affordable lease prices. And of course the larger argument is, scientists have been telling us for decades that no single solution will solve the larger problem. By isolating the discussion to one aspect as this report does, and by jerry-rigging the numbers so it seems that vehicle-fleet emissions reductions won’t accomplish much, the administration is then able to make the staggering claim that since nothing we can do will change anything, we won’t do anything. They have placed the entire nation squarely on one side of the Climate Wager, and it’s the side that says, essentially, “Eh. Whatever. Let’s make money now. We’ll be dead before anything gets really bad.”
But if they’re wrong (and scientists are screaming that they are), then the entire planet is doomed to ever-increasing misery and torment and death. If they’re wrong (and they are), then this administration is murdering your grandchildren.
By contrast, if we take the other side of the Climate Wager, and become the Greatest Generation of our time, then we choose life. Cleaner cars, better air, fish-running rivers, all of it. For generations to come. Heavy carbon emissions are a phase, and in the grand scheme of human existence, a short-lived phase at that, rather like that brief period when I thought that Barry Manilow was awesome. Entrenched interests are making money now and don’t want that to change, but the maddening thing is that we’re already seeing how renewable energy can be very profitable and can create far more jobs than dirty-industry coal ever will again. There’s no downside to tackling climate change. None.
As far as wagers go, this one is an easy bet.
