Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Blog

It’s a big hat, okay?

So here’s the thing.  This CNN headline reads:

Climate ‘catastrophe’ killing 300,000 each year

And follows up with:

LONDON, England (CNN) – The first comprehensive report into the human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a “silent crisis” that is killing 300,000 people each year.

If you release a report saying that “climate change is killing 300,000 people” then it would strike the average reader that you were saying that climate change is the determinate thing that is making them die.  But then we get:

Of the 300,000 lives being lost each year due to climate change, the report finds nine out of 10 are related to “gradual environmental degradation,” and that deaths caused by climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria outnumber direct fatalaties from weather-related disasters.

Oh.  So 270,000 people are dying of climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria.  If only we had cures for those things.  Oh wait, we do!  Here’s more:

The vast majority of deaths — 99 percent — are in developing countries which are estimated to have contributed less than one percent of the world’s total carbon emissions.

The article makes it seem like “developing” countries are just like that.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  ”Being developed” is a state they could transition into.

So the question then is, if developed countries are able to prevent 99% of deaths from climate change, then isn’t it really more accurate to say “not being developed is killing 297,000 people per year?”  The question becomes more heated when you notice that those 3 first order causes of malaria, diarrhea and malnutrition are killing quite a few other people as well:

- Each year, there are approximately 350–500 million cases of malaria,^[1] killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in Sub-Saharan Africa.^[2] 

- 1.8 million people die every year from diarrhoeal diseases (including cholera); 90% are children under 5, mostly in developing countries.

- In 2006, more than 36 million died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients”^[27].

So there really isn’t a comparison.  Let me ask you this question.  If you had scarce resources, and could only solve one problem afflicting the world, which would it be:

Option 1: Saves 40,000,000 people

Option 2: Saves 300,000 people, however, if you choose option 1, you will save 270,000 of these people as well.

Well, gee, I don’t know!  This is completely ignoring all the other deaths from war, lawlessness, violence, and other diseases that would be prevented by the development of these nations.  They also make the 300,000 number look pretty small.  It would certainly prevent a large number of those weather-related deaths as well, for example — as bad as Katrina was, it didn’t really compare to the loss of life in the Southeast Asian hurricanes.

And here’s the real kicker: by the fact that we have developed nations on this earth, we can be certain that one can prevent these things.  Obviously large chunks of humanity are already doing so, despite once having been undeveloped nations ravaged by the very same problems.  Approximately two billion people in China and India are proceeding along this course quite nicely.  The path for preventing climate change is not so well-lit.  Plus, even this article tells us that at least some of the climate change is irreversible at this point:

The Global Humanitarium Forum says that temperatures will rise by almost two degrees celcius, regardless of what’s agreed in Copenhagen. [the United Nations Climate Conference, in December]

So we have to take steps to enable developing countries to defend themselves not only from climate change, but a host of other problems as well.  And we really do have scarce resources — especially since, as everyone acknowledges, many of the solutions for stopping climate change actually reduce the amount of resources that developing countries have.

Could we do both?  Sure.  But right now, spending 1 dollar on climate change prevention is drastically less effective than spending it on, well, nearly anything listed here.  So until we get to the point where spending on these things is starting to hit diminishing returns (while also preventing 99% of the deaths from climate change) then I vote our money gets spent on the former.

Disclaimers:

- Yes, I realize the impact of climate change is going to go up.  But the other issues listed here kill millions every year, right now, and have been doing so for centuries.  We’ve come a long way, especially with the rehydration steps necessary to prevent a large amount of the diarhhea deaths.  These are not radical steps.  Again, my primary contention is that achieving development will not only enable these countries to fight those issues, but defend themselves against climate change as well.  Most importantly, perhaps, this will actually enlist the citizens of these countries into environmental affairs.  It is hard to be worried about global warming when you are dying of malnutrition.  Wealthy Americans and Europeans are interested, because they don’t worry about the other things.  Making developing nations wealthy will grant them with the luxury of worrying about the future.

- Anthropogenic global warming is real, and I don’t deny it.  I just think that many of the current proposals for dealing with it won’t help, will hurt more than help, or, as I argue here, ignore solutions that could provide even more far-reaching benefits.  Take this analogy: one can be opposed to methods for dealing with drug usage (such as say, executing dealers and users, or even just criminalization) without necessarily denying that drug usage is a problem with real costs.  So too with climate change.

- If you find yourself saying “you’re just a do-nothing crazy libertarian who wants to ignore global warming,” then imagine me saying “you’re just a do-nothing crazy whatever-your-political-persuasion who wants to ignore global undevelopment.”  My soap-box issue is a lot more serious.  It’s just less cool right now.

Megan McArdle points out the errors in what the various subjects of this article believe — and she’s completely right.  But then the question is: why?  Why do people remain ignorant of  (blatantly obvious to some) things that could make themselves better off?  Especially when one would think that if you were poor, figuring out how to save money on cashing checks or buying groceries would be a very, very important skill to pick up.  So, why?

Why doesn’t Jacob get the bonus savings card at the supermarket?  Why doesn’t Lenwood just go get a new driver’s license and go to the bank?  Why does Jacob react like this at the store:

[Jacob] Carter, a building engineer, snatches up the money, then gives it to the clerk. His final bill is $39.07.

He looks at the receipt and then announces without the slightest indication as to why: “Just give me all my [expletive] money back. It’s too high in this [expletive].” The clerk calls the supervisor, who comes over. The supervisor doesn’t argue with Carter. She just starts the process of giving him a refund.

“I want my money back. This [expletive] is too high. My grandmother told me about this store.”

Even though the prices actually are lower than he normally pays, he’s angry and ends up walking out, insulting the people who are just trying to help him.  Why?  It’s because he’s humiliated by a system with which he’s unfamiliar.   Regular supermarket customers, when arriving with $43, make sure that the things they have put into their basket are less than that amount.  Why didn’t Jacob do this?  I don’t know the specifics, but I’m sure that if he had been going to this store (or one like it) since he was young, he would.  It’s the same reason Lenwood doesn’t like the bank.  It’s an unfamiliar place filled with rules and people that you don’t understand, and you feel like you’re being taken advantage of.  

I know — I feel the exact same way about the home refinancing that I’m working on right now.  I have a basic understanding about the fundamentals, but I dislike working with the loan people about it, because I always feel like I’m being scammed, because I am unfamiliar with the entire process and all the complexities.  I ask stupid questions and I get the mental *sigh* as they politely walk me through what seems blindingly obvious to them.  And I know they do it, because I know I do the same thing when trying to explain some triviality in a field in which I’m relatively adept.

So now we get to the point: why are supermarkets and banks unfamiliar territory to Jacob and Lenwood?  At some point, everywhere was unfamiliar and scary to us, but then usually our parents took us there and we understood it.  This didn’t happen with their parents — so who can we lean on to teach it?  I vote that schools should.  Is there any reason at all that public schools, theoretically designed to grant all the skills one needs to survive in our society, aren’t teaching these things?  Why are there classes on the American Revolution but none on how to save money at the grocery store?  Why are there classes in chemistry but not how to deal with getting a check cashed?  Are these things really “beneath” the noble construct that is a high school education?  While we’re at it, why not have classes on how to save money, how to earn interest, how to apply for a job, how to write a resume?  I didn’t get “taught” those last two until halfway through college.

This leads to the final issue: the frustration and anger felt by Jacob and Lenwood at these systems.  The reason for this is somewhat related — I’m sure they got forced through quite a few years of public school, the system with which everyone is probably most familiar when learning about how the world works.  And that system sucked.  It tried to make them learn what seemed like useless stuff, got angry at them when they didn’t want to, and basically treated them like crap.  However, they did learn one thing: that systems/institutions suck and are out to get them.  To them it was arbitrary, chock full of rules and rule-enforcers who thought very little of them.  And it’s not just their schools — mine was, and everyone I knew as a kid thought so.  Certainly this girl will agree.  

I think this is why the “stay in school” line feels like such a betrayal — why are these famous people telling us we should stay in our terrible schools that aren’t teaching us anything useful, while many of them earn fabulous wealth using skills these schools couldn’t possibly teach?  If this is what you went through, schools, banks, governments, cops, grocery stores all get lumped into the colloquial screwer of the little guy: the Man.  The fact that some of these institutions really aren’t trying to screw anyone is usually ignored in favor of the fact that so many of them are.

How do we make schools something that teaches students to make institutions work for them?  My vote for a solution is school choice — certainly our current method isn’t working too well.  So long as we make public school the showcase institution that shapes the worldview of our children, people like Jacob and Lenwood are going to feel anger, confusion and betrayal with every institution that comes after.  And the only way to improve schools is to give the students (and/or their parents) some power in the relationship — the power to vote with their feet.

Edit: commenters at Megan’s site post things like this, while at least accurately assessing that education is the heart of the matter:

We offer education. We pressure them to stay in school. As Basil states, there are clear and definite advantages to getting as much education as you can, and going as far as you can.

The problem is that even if you get 12 years of  ”education,” it’s absolutely terrible.  I went to a “good” public school, the kind parents moved into the town for the primary reason of sending their kids there.  But it was terrible.  If I were relying solely on the things the school taught me, I’d be a complete disaster.  I know people like to think they are refined products of their education, but look over your daily life.  What enables you to succeed?  Is it what you learned in your grade 1-12 education?  Unlikely.  More likely you succeed via things your parents/mentors/peers taught you, and potentially what you learned in college, if you are actually in the field you majored in.  Ask yourself how well off you’d be without those things.  For me, it’s certainly not a pretty thought.

(more…)