You’ve probably already heard more about this than you want to regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, but I want to present what I think is a relatively novel argument. The gist is that dealing with global warming as if it was caused by man is sensible based on a risk analysis using a sort of Dutch Books style argument.

1. Oil and all “locked carbon” resources are exhaustible (degree of belief q)

While this is widely accepted by nearly all scientists and politicians it has been proposed by some that oil results from natural processes within the core and it is actually derived from mineral sources rather than from flora or fauna, and because of this the production of oil is not limited by solar sources. This might mean that oil fields would be replenished. There is however lots of evidence that oil fields are not replenished.

2. Because oil is an exhaustible resource we need to start using alternative sources

Given 1, this fact follows directly so there is no need to assign a degree of belief. We must ask instead, if it should be sooner rather than later. We will call the cost of switching S.

3 Global warming exists. (degree of belief e)

I think its safe to say that almost all experts, even those that deny a human cause agree that there is a warming trend. We will call the cost of global warming D.

4. Global warming is caused by humans. (degree of belief p)

i. Since global warming is caused by humans it actions taken to avert it are effective. (degree of belief o)

The cost of implementation of alternative sources is a neccessary cost provided that:

5. Alternatives to “locked carbon” resources are neccessarily lower in carbon emmisions. (degree of belief c)

Alcohol, vegetable oil and other plant derived sources are essentially solar power and provide a closed carbon cycle giving off no net carbon dioxide (since plant carbon is derived from CO2). These are not “locked carbon” and can not contribute to global warming by way of greenhouse gases.

Now for fun, let us look at our risk analysis and try assigning some values. I’m going to lay down how I would bet if we were talking about my own pocket money.

q = .95
e = .99 (I grew up in Alaska where it’s pretty hard to deny)
p = .50 (sure, go ahead, call me a fence sitter…)
o = .15
c = .90

The numbers below are fairly fluid, but we must remember that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, so 1 trillion for a switch from oil would not be an unreasonable goal. The cost due to global warming causing precipitous rises in sea level is hard to overestimate. The vast majority of the worlds population and therefor infrastructure lies on the coasts.
S = 1 trillion
D = 10 trillion

If we decide not to find alternative fuel sources now, and thereby make 4i impossible to achieve then our expected total cost will be:

q (S + e D) = 10.355 trillion

If we decide to try to find alternative fuel sources now we get

q (S + e ( (1 - p) D + c p (1 - o) D)) = 10.274249 trillion, 80 billion smaller expected cost.

I appreciate any feedback on the model.