« Article about GMU Economics | Main | Tyler and I Have a New Business »
Moral puzzles about collective action
If I don’t fly from London to my sister’s wedding in New Zealand she will be upset, I will cause her pain and so that’s morally bad. If I do fly to my sister’s wedding in New Zealand I will put about four tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which will contribute to climate change, which, according to the World Health Organisation, already causes about 150,000 deaths every year. Clearly that’s also morally bad. Which is the morally correct thing to do?
That question is considered by Will Wilkinson. Don't argue the facts of carbon emissions (you can choose another scenario if you wish), focus on the moral dilemma. Will says fly, the plane is going anyway. That makes my brain hurt with game theory and the probability of threshold effects and triggers. (Isn't there some chance that your patronage, eventually, sets another flight in motion, if only stochastically?) Under an alternative approach, say you are allowed some quota of carbon emissions; otherwise suicide or residence in Iceland as a pedestrian would be required.
Your net carbon impact depends far more on the number of children you will have than any other variable; remember good environmentalism uses a zero rate of discount. So people with no biological children should be allowed to fly a lot and people with lots of biological children should not get to fly so much at all. Is that so far from the reality we observe?
Here is a good new piece on our carbon footprints.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 27, 2008 at 05:57 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
Actually, that's exactly the reality I observe:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.
"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population."
Posted by: Mark Westling at Feb 27, 2008 6:43:02 AM
We are in danger here, as in many other situations, of letting a statistic of dubious provenance, accuracy and relevance become written
in stone. Fly.
Posted by: Critic at Feb 27, 2008 6:44:29 AM
You picked an awfully cold day to post about global warming. A trip to New Zealand is expensive; also we should be investing more in things that will help us in case of climate change. Buy her shares in such a company as a wedding present instead of going. He can add extra for guilt.
Posted by: Jason at Feb 27, 2008 6:56:19 AM
[remember good environmentalism uses a zero rate of discount]
try again.
Posted by: dsquared at Feb 27, 2008 6:59:28 AM
So not going to your sister's wedding is morally bad because it causes her pain? In that case, wouldn't
not paying for malaria prevention be morally bad because it causes people pain? Wouldn't it be morally
wrong to go to your sister's wedding instead of using the money to prevent malaria, since the pain of
having malaria, or having your child die of it, is worse than the pain of not having your brother at your
wedding? It seems that once you decide that not preventing pain is morally wrong, you're going to have a
hard time staying moral. Maybe the easiest option would be for this person to change their concept of
morality, a process that emits very little CO2 in most cases.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Feb 27, 2008 7:27:50 AM
The reductio ad absurdum of this line of reasoning would be Jain ascetisism.
These are ascetics would sooner die than to harm an insect. There are actually people who do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Customs_and_practices
Posted by: Tim at Feb 27, 2008 7:33:13 AM
Just offset your emissions. There are better and worse ways of doing this, but the reputable companies will offset that flight for no more than $120.
Posted by: Anonoy at Feb 27, 2008 8:22:00 AM
(in the below XeY == X * 10^Y)
The mass of the atmosphere = 5.148e18 kg (wikipedia)
Percent CO2 = 0.038% (wikipedia)
CO2 by Aeroplane London <-> New Zeland = 4e3 kg (prompt)
Deaths by Global Warming = 150,000/year (prompt - arguendo, and I totally dispute)
Average lifespan in poor country (most likely to be impacted by global warming) = 60 years (guess, and a generous one)
so:
(4e3 / (5.148e18 * 0.038)) * 150,000 * 60 = 1.84e-7 years
365.25 days per year * 24 hr/day * 60 min/hr * 60 sec/min * 1.84e-7 years =
5.8 seconds of life negatively affected by the trip.
Your sister is going to impact you (and vice versa) more than 5.8 seconds. That doesn't count the numerous relatives that have to listen to her complain about your absence.
Take the trip.
Posted by: hmmm at Feb 27, 2008 9:12:18 AM
Also, please note, that even with the most generous assumptions on the part of the global warming side, the 5.8 seconds I show is a vast overestimation, as I assume that each of the 150,000 deaths has their lives shortened by 60 years. In reality, their lives are shortened by some function, but on average will be closer to their expected lifespan anyway.
If you want to stop 150,000 deaths per year effectively, invest in foreign economies or donate to (effective) charities. You'll have much more positive an impact, as poverty is the primary factor in the short lifespan of most of the world's population, not carbon.
Posted by: hmmm at Feb 27, 2008 9:24:28 AM
Tyler, I guess it's back to the drawing board for you and Derek. Daniel Davies says try again, so what choice do you have?
Posted by: Thomas at Feb 27, 2008 9:32:09 AM
Agreed w/ Anony: this is not a decision made in a vacuum, but in a larger context. It is not a dilemma, as stated. Will can go to the wedding, and "pay" for it by taking public transportation for a few months, thereby achieving both his objectives. The real dilemma is whether attending his sister's wedding is worth what it would take for him to feel good about it.
Posted by: Dolohov at Feb 27, 2008 9:38:14 AM
What about the pain caused by having a sister move to New Zealand? Isn't she responsible for all the carbon, because she's moved herself far away? Unless he moved from NZ to UK. In which case, he'll eventually go back to visit. If he goes once a year, for instance, and travels twice this year, he can not visit next year.
Or he could make an animal sacrifice, such as a cow, to offset his emissions.
Posted by: 8 at Feb 27, 2008 10:07:51 AM
I see at least five lines of argumentation that can be used to justify flying:
1) Questioning the fact of unsustainability
2) Restricting the scope of whose utility matters
3) Stressing the limitations of individuals
4) Utilitarian arguments
5) Competing duties (the argument about duties to family, etc)
I have spelled them out much more comprehensively here.
Posted by: Milan at Feb 27, 2008 10:10:50 AM
Your net carbon impact depends far more on the number of children you will have than any other variable; remember good environmentalism uses a zero rate of discount.
This assumes that the best way to view a person is as a stomach rather than a brain. I am pretty cocky and feel that one of my grandchildren will invent an economic substitute for fossil fuels.
I now have to read the Cowen and Parfit paper linked in the post, but I will be very surprised if they convince me to use a zero discount rate, at least if human happiness is the criterion. Why make investments in climate (i.e. by reducing emissions and consumption today) that accrue at 0%, rather than in factories that accrue at, say, 4%? If we're doing it for our heirs, they are missing out on a warmer and wealthier life that they would consider better than the one we're bequeathing, if we make climate decisions based on a zero discount rate.
But as I say, I am sure that Cowen and Parfit address this objection in their paper...
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Feb 27, 2008 10:41:25 AM
Tyler, thanks for making the point about children. I hope Bryan Caplan points out this environmental cost of having more children (an externality) in the book he is currently working on.
Posted by: samson at Feb 27, 2008 11:02:45 AM
hmmm is thinking in the correct way here in my opinion and it is a slam dunk to fly, especially in a free rider world.
As an aside since it is against the rules of the puzzle, for what it's worth, the world has gotten colder in the past ten years. Does ten years qualify as climate, or is it still weather? Or is it only climate when it is bad, and weather when it is good?
By the way, global cooling would be unequivocally worse than global warming, witness the witch hunts of the Little Ice Age that tried to root out those responsible for the cold climate that created famines.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 27, 2008 12:03:58 PM
Find someone in NZ with a sister getting married in the UK and exchange invitations. Gains from trade, voila!
Posted by: David Zetland at Feb 27, 2008 12:53:58 PM
Maybe he should become vegetarian and pack to NZ without guilt
http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
Posted by: Paulo at Feb 27, 2008 1:52:06 PM
Since I can't have a child, and any woman can have a child of her own with out my assistance,only men should be able to fly and therefor I can fly as often as I like. Right
Posted by: weirdone at Feb 27, 2008 3:04:45 PM
Weddings are pretty tedious. The carbon footprint excuse may not go over too well, though.
Posted by: Mike at Feb 27, 2008 4:23:41 PM
Charge a Pigou tax on air travel, use it to pour iron oxide into the sea, then decide if your sister is worth the money.
Posted by: Sam at Feb 27, 2008 10:00:43 PM
The government should pay people to have less children, which will reduce the nation's carbon footprint and make everything less crowded, including airports.
Posted by: adam at Feb 27, 2008 10:29:05 PM
Fly! The 150,000 deaths are from warmer weather allegedly caused by man-made CO2 emissions. But warmer weather also reduces deaths related to cold. And even the British government recently admitted that the lives saved due to warmer weather would be greater than the number lost. In the name of humanity, save lives and fly.
Posted by: CLS at Feb 28, 2008 5:40:35 AM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html
A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Posted by: Vit at Feb 28, 2008 12:00:39 PM
"So people with no biological children should be allowed to fly a lot and people with lots of biological children should not get to fly so much at all."
Whereas people without biological children should not be permitted to collect social security...
Posted by: Slocum at Feb 28, 2008 12:46:27 PM
