Playing the biggest game of Risk

Posted by jamie - 13 December 2009 at 4:56pm - 7 Comments

With all the headlines about what the world will be like if we don't get a grip on climate change - how hot it will be by 2050, how high the sea levels will rise, that sort of thing - there's always an element of uncertainty. The top line figures you see in the press are usually only one of a range of figures calculated by climate modelling, producing a range of potential outcomes based on possible changes to our behaviour and the environment.

What's often neglected is a risk assessment: comparing the probability of a particular outcome against the effect it will have. Our perception of risk is very skewed - we'll panic about things like swine flu (which the chances of us dying from a very low) but we'll quite happily drive around in cars where the probability of dying in a road accident are comparatively higher.

A piece by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times yesterday provides an eloquent comparison between the risks of climate change and nuclear terrorism, which demonstrates just how warped our risk perception really is. He explains how Dick Cheney 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 points out, even though climate change has a far higher probability of being extremely bad, there isn't such enthusiasm amongst politicians for mobilising against it as they are with perceived terrorist threats.

Which is a perfect way to revisit this fantastic video which is well worth spending 10 minutes of your life watching. And now there's a book, too.

Article tagged as: climate change, COP15, copenhagen, videos

Comments Commenting is now closed

What I have difficulty understanding is the lack of real action which is going to make a difference to the geopolitics. Tonight we hear Kerry saying that developing countries must be encouraged not to make the same mistakes as the US, i.e. we, the US would prefer not to do anything. The answer is simple, a worldwide boycott of US products for a limited time, say 3 months. The US can then choose, lose jobs through lack of a buying public, or lose jobs because of lack of action. No progress, then another 3 months.
The only difficulties are a lack of courage by the Green movement and the difficulty of identifying US products, not hard. And if the planet is so important give it a try.
Incidentally I can't wait to hear your reasons for not doing it.

By cienfuegos - 16 December 2009 at 11:07pm

As is always the case, it's always when some catastrophe happens that we wake up to the fact and take remedial measures to handle it when it happens next or not happen at all ever again!! We have this after every disaster that has happened! Now, if we don't take sufficient we are going to reel under the outcome of the global warming in a few years from now!!We should really fight a war against Global warming. With such a wonderful video which helps us to realize what's ahead of us, I hope our policy makers sit up and take suitable action against global warming and global climate change!!

By jcbrown - 1 September 2010 at 2:15am

What I have difficulty understanding is the lack of real action which is going to make a difference to the geopolitics. Tonight we hear Kerry saying that developing countries must be encouraged not to make the same mistakes as the US, i.e. we, the US would prefer not to do anything. The answer is simple, a worldwide boycott of US products for a limited time, say 3 months. The US can then choose, lose jobs through lack of a buying public, or lose jobs because of lack of action. No progress, then another 3 months. The only difficulties are a lack of courage by the Green movement and the difficulty of identifying US products, not hard. And if the planet is so important give it a try. Incidentally I can't wait to hear your reasons for not doing it.

By cienfuegos - 16 December 2009 at 11:07pm

This is an excellent piece that actually tells the world the facts. I mean, as the article says, we worry more about the chance of a nuclear war and countries across the world spend thousands of billions of dollars to equip themselves with the latest of nuclear warheads. Every nuclear country has several hundreds of warheads and yet, they prepare more warheads just to feel safer. But in another 40 years, if the climatic changes continue to change the way it is today, what can any politician or any powerful army do? With the soaring temperatures and the winds of change that beckons us with every passing year, the war mongering and peace politicians only pretend to care, without actually doing anything to real protect or safeguard the world.

By Nathen Love - 5 October 2010 at 7:50pm

By jcbrown - 1 September 2010 at 2:15am

As someone pointed out, the effect of climate change is more worse than nuclear weapon effect. We must pay attention to this issue, BEFORE other problems arise.

By fabriziogervasi8 - 25 November 2010 at 10:55am

This is wonderful of the better blogs in the area of education. If I don't come in for a couple of days, there are so many stakes that it'll make me a couple of hours just to go all over whatsoever I omitted!! Praise.

Thanks. great great info. here keep up http://culinary-skills.blogspot.com http://eggsalad-recipe.blogspot.com http://frenchonionsouprecipess.blogspot.com the pleasant work. I cannot truly lead a more constructive comment as i'm abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.

By Egg Salad Recipe - 25 March 2011 at 9:32am