Pascal's Wager, as it was originally applied to the case for belief in God, appears logical because the four possible outcomes are obvious. In applying it to climate change, however, Dr. Whitcombe (Sept. 16) erred in his descriptions of the consequences of various scenarios.
Let's take another look at what the results would really be.
The first situation is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and we do something about it. Actually doing something about it means immediate worldwide cuts of 80 per cent to CO2 emissions. The consequences would be horrific - the collapse of the world's economies, the impoverishment and deaths of billions because there simply is no alternative that can adequately replace fossil fuels.
There is enormous potential in geothermal and/or thorium reactors for electricity production but the time and money requirements are huge. Wind, solar and biofuels, besides being hugely expensive as well as drastic for the environment, can't come close to supplying our current needs. But not to worry, we're never going to actually take real action.
The second outcome is that climate change is not anthropogenic but we still do something. Same terrible outcome for humanity.
The third outcome is that climate change is not anthropogenic and we do nothing about trying to control the climate.
But we would still do something, we would do what humankind has always done in the past - adapt, and with modern technology we can adapt better than we have ever been able to before.
The fourth outcome is the same as the third - climate change is anthropogenic but we do nothing about it. We would adapt to the slight warming that the science tells us would raise the temperature by about 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, just about the same temperature we had 1000 years ago during the Medieval Climate Optimum when humanity thrived.
At the same time, there would be an increase in agricultural production and forest growth because CO2 is plant food, and increasing CO2 means a greening of the planet.
Eventually technological advances and the private sector would wean us off fossil fuels.
There's a fifth outcome that Dr. Whitcombe didn't mention, and that is the one we seem likely to follow - that we only pretend to take action on climate change.
The upcoming Paris conference will be focused on cutting emissions from successful, democratic, capitalist economies and/or transferring those emissions and wealth to the rest of the world. Economies would contract, people become poorer and heating homes in winter would become unaffordable to the poorest, as has already happened in Germany and England when renewable energy policies were enacted. The poorest of the poor would go hungry as crops are diverted to bio-fuels.
Emissions would not be cut, they'd merely be transferred to other nations.
Of course, all these outcomes are predicated on the assumption that climate only changes in one direction - warming. But history tells us that climate also cools, and when it does crops fail, starvation ensues, disease increases and people die in large numbers. We'd be wiser to be concerned about global cooling.
Art Betke
Prince George
