Important history to remember on Earth Day

Summary: Exaggerated, often wildly inaccurate, warnings by greens diminish our ability to cope with future shockwaves (high impact, low probability scenarios). We have to plan for them, since eventually one will hit us. Hysterical single-issue advocacy groups are part of the problem, not the solution.

Must reading on this anniversary of a valuable but ultimately botched idea: “Earth Day, Then and Now“, Ronald Bailey, Reason, May 2000 – “The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why.” Especially note all the failed predictions. Most of these had almost no analytical foundation when they were made. The original Earth Day inaugurated the modern era of Big Exaggerations for the News Media as a path to career success for agitators.

There are many possible shockwaves. Earth Day provided a powerful way to focus attention on them. Studying them individually tells us little, as the correct public policy response is “so what?” Screaming about all of them results in apathy, as preparation for a shockwave tends to be expensive — and we cannot afford full preparation for all of them.

We get analysis of shockwaves almost exclusively by special interest groups (often academic or non-profits), who have no interest in putting their fetish in a wider context of social risks and needs. Worse, we allocate resources to shockwave scenarios based on several factors:

the group’s access to elite opinion,
the group’s ability to raise funds,
their degree to which their shockwave resonates with the public.

Many studies have shown the people have little grasp of these kinds of issue, and less understanding of the relevant statistics (probability and risk). There is a better way to do this. Allocation of our limited resources towards these require sketching out (as best as can be done) the full universe of such dangers.

A modest suggestion

We need analysis to provide a basis on which to prioritize, spending what we can afford on high impact projects to prevent and mitigate shockwaves. We need estimates of the impact AND probability of each scenario. Otherwise these are just nightmares, with no rational response.

We should commission a group to collect as many shockwave scenarios as possible, with a brief analysis of each. Then apply a common analytical framework to rate them on both dimensions: probability and impact. The results would prove quite interesting, and allow more rational public policy discussion.

There are thousands of interest groups willing to pitch in and help. It can be done. Survival in the 21st century might depend on how well we manage shockwaves.

For more information

Posts about the precautionary principle: