Why doesn't Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" apply to global warming?

Question

“We have to deal with this new type of threat in a way we haven’t yet defined. . . . With a low-probability, high-impact event like this . . . If there’s a one percent 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.”

OK, what chance is there that the earth will warm so much that our economy and civilization will be destroyed in 100 years? Do we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response?

Answer 1

I would use the same formula to weigh both events: the magnitude of the harm feared, the risk of the harm feared coming to pass, and the cost of the course of action recommended to avoid the harm.

What was Cheney talking of doing in response to the threat? Detaining someone and interrogating them? Or starting a global nuclear war? It affects the answer, does it not?

Frankly I don't have all the variables to judge. The one above among them.

PS I asked a question yesterday about what steps are being suggested to combat global warming - another variable I need. No one answered with specifics.

Answer 2

Well, I don't think the "One Percent Doctrine" applies here, simply because the chances are far, far higher than that. But applying it, there's no doubt that some action is required.

What I have a hard time understanding is why would people *not" want to live greener. Here are some really simple things you can do. And long term, they'll save you money. Turn off unused lights in the house.

Replace your light bulbs with fluorescent. At a 60% saving in electricity, the bulbs pay forthemselves in a year or so, and burn for 5-10 years.

Use a groceries list. Drive an efficient route when you make the trip. Don't do jackrabbit starts.

Car pool.

Insulate your home.

Set thermostat lower. If you're chilly, wear a sweater.

All these things will save you money, and I'm sure there are many more.

Most important, be analytical about your use of energy. For instance, a recent study on the environmental impact on the environment of various vehicles show the Hummer to be more environmentally friendly than the Prius, when environmental damage due to manufaqcturing processes is added in. Details at the link below.

If America gets involved on a personal basis, the movement for institutional change will strengthen and grow. You can't legislate cultural change, but a changing culture can demand legislation, to bring industry on board, in a common effort to save the planet.

Or we can ignore it and hope it goes away. Good luck with that.

Answer 3

The administration will use whatever it can to push its agenda. However, they will not use the same reasoning when it comes to things that they do not like. The war allows us to steal oil, global warming means cutting back on oil, that is not in their plan.
Kapute 2, wake up, every credible scientist knows that the planet is warming. The only mushrooms that grow in a damp, dark, empty place are in you head.

Answer 4

Treating Global Warming as a threat like scientists say it is won't financially benefit him in the short term. He is not concerned about doing what is best, only doing what he says is right.

Answer 5

You can't sell the military weapons to fight global warming. The one percent doctrine only concerns threats on which a profit can be made.

Answer 6

Wow, your completely right on this one. Oviously Cheney uses his philosophical reasoning only to fit his personal agenda.

Answer 7

everything should be approached with an open mind and caution.. because 100% of anything is a myth

Answer 8

if we contribute even 1% to global warming, its becaues of our natural body heat is warming the air

Answer 9

because if there IS global warming (there isn't), New York won't have a mushroom cloud to wake up to

Answer 10

Stop it longhaired freaky person, you are making too much sense.