Essay on Moral Hazard Argument Agains Geoengineering

Climate change is not a new concept. It has been mostly referred to as global warming in the past. As much as people would like to file this issue away as something to deal with at a later date, it simply cannot wait. This problem we face is costing us billions of dollars, forests and wildlife are being eliminated, and people are dying. Starting to sound like a big deal, right? Future generations will be affected the most. People who do not even exist will have to pay for what we, all people, have done to this earth. To begin to make changes, one must realize the severity of the issue. Bill Mckibben, author of “Recalculating the Climate Math,” conveys that “We’ve already raised the world’s temperature by one degree—enough to melt almost half the ice in the Arctic, kill off huge swaths of the world’s coral, and unleash lethal floods and drought. July and August tied for the hottest months ever recorded on our planet, and scientists think they were almost certainly the hottest in the history of human civilization” (Page 3 of 5). Global climate change is a serious problem because it increases natural disasters and is the cause of extreme weather.

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

In an article on the Uninsured it states that “Lack of coverage increases the unpredictability of medical expenses and the potential for financial catastrophe, including bankruptcy” (Content.healthaffairs.org). The stress that is added when trying to plan financially can become overwhelming, “even for the majority of Americans who have coverage, maintaining it is not a sure thing, and the prospect of losing it can cause anxiety

The cost of health insurance has changed drastically over the years as it has become more expensive. Depending on personal characteristic, the cost of health insurance may vary. For instance, as individuals grow older the more expensive it becomes. In this case, health insurance is more costly because “older individuals require more health care” therefore “the cost of providing health care is rising” (Madura &Atlantic, 2012). Not only does this affect the high cost of health insurance, but the number of individuals uninsured. As stated by Madura and Atlantic (2012), “about one in every five workers is uninsured” and has increased since then because health insurance has become unaffordable. As a result, individuals tend to seek health care elsewhere as they can no longer

The Affordable Care Act has made many positive changes for uninsured and underinsured citizens. With the addition of a program called Health Insurance Marketplace, it is now possible for uninsured people in every state to purchase private insurance plans, those making under 400% or less of the Federal Poverty Level will be able to have tax credits making insurance more affordable (Lathrop & Hodnicki, 2014). Insurance companies are no longer allowed to cancel a policy or raise rates when a client gets sick. Insurance companies cannot refuse coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions such as cancer (“Quality Improvement,” 2015). Insurance companies now must cover preventive care and screenings allowing diseases like cancer to be caught early (“Quality Improvement,” 2015). Research has shown that through health screenings

The Global Warming theory has become increasingly popular over the past few years. Citizens of the world are being encouraged to be more environmentally conscious by others including politicians, celebrities, and world organizations. The problem with the theory lies in the fact that it has become more and more controversial as it gains publicity and attention. The basic concept behind this theory is that the earth was made with a balance of “greenhouse gasses”. These gasses are naturally occurring within the atmosphere and they essentially make the planet habitable by keeping it warm.

At the current moment, doctors’ offices can refuse care to any uninsured person, whereas an emergency room cannot. The hospital is required by federal law to adequately screen and stabilize a patient. This is where the uninsured tend to show up for care where they tend to seek emergency care for urgent medical conditions that might not have been there due to lack of insurance. This would include the screening tests such as a colonoscopy or a mammogram for preventative care. This can delay the diagnosis of a serious complication that might have easily been taken care of through preventative services. The uninsured and underinsured are generally not as healthy as the insured counterparts. There is also lack of follow up care and medication to make sure the disease is under control. This group of

     Most of the people who are uninsured are the working poor, which the overall costs of medical care can hurt them. By the means of doing their best, these people just can’t afford the insurance. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. (Reese) Premiums grow several

Someone without health coverage are less likely to receive preventative care and therefore more likely to become ill which increases medical costs, [1].

Moreover, the benefits of expanding coverage outweigh the costs for added services. [4] Safety-net care from hospitals and clinics improves access to care but does not fully substitute for health insurance. These findings are supported by much research, although some cautions are appropriate in using these results. People with health insurance are protected against uncertain and high medical expenses and are more likely to receive needed and appropriate health care. In addition, having health insurance is associated with improved health outcomes and lower mortality, so employees with health insurance are more likely to be productive workers. You do not pay income tax on health insurance benefits so it is more valuable per dollar than the same amount in taxable pay. [5]

This webpage describes in detail about every geoengineering. It was a wonderful picture to show the locations where the geoengineering can be used. It also talks about the consequences that will occur if we don’t take action in stopping climate change.

The first argument examined on the man-made global warning side is that increasing greenhouse gases caused by human activities is causing directly observed climate changes. The first resulting climate change discussed is warming global surface temperature. There has been an increase in global surface temperature of 0.74 degrees C since the late 19th century. In the last 50 years alone the temperature has increased by 0.13 degrees C per decade. North America and Eurasia have seen the largest increase in warmth. However, some areas of the earth have actually cooled some this past century (Easterling & Karl, 2011, para6). After the mid 20th century 70% of the global land mass saw reduced diurnal temperatures. From 1979 to 2005 the maximum and minimum temperatures have shown no change; both indicate warming (Easterling & Karl, 2011, para10). Furthermore, borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data all seem to agree with recent warming (Easterling & Karl, 2011, para11).

One of the first men to give thought into geoengineering was Nils Gustaf Ekholm, a Swedish meteorologist who in 1901 “speculated about the possibility of climate modification via engineered enhancements of [carbon dioxide] emission” because he believed that elevated carbon dioxide had beneficial effects on climate and plant growth (415, Keith 2000). Decades later, geoengineering, known in the 1950’s and 1960’s as ‘weather control,’ was mainly seen as a way to improve the natural state or mitigate natural hazards. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were the leading countries interested in this ‘weather control,’ and from the 1930’s through World War II both countries conducted experiments dealing mostly with cloud manipulation and precipitation. For example, a Soviet experiment during the winter of 1960-61 is reported to have cleared clouds over an area of 20,000 square kilometers (Keith 2000). In 1946, the United States General Electric research labs discovered cloud seeding which sparked a huge interest in weather modification within the country. It was not until 1965 that the attention was shifted from modification of weather to the modification of climate in order to fix the carbon dioxide problem, which is the center of interest today. David W. Keith spoke about this transition in his article Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect:

In the last 100 years, Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F. The rising global temperatures have caused changes in weather and climate. Global warming refers to the ongoing rise in the average temperature near Earth’s surface. This is causing a climate change, which refers to any significant change (major change in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time (several decades or longer). Due to this, it is projected that the temperature will rise from 2 to 11.5°F in the next hundred years (US EPA, 2014). The “drivers,” which are the principal causes making this occur, are very controversial. It is debated whether a change in temperature is due to the work of

The naysayers see nothing but risks when analyzing geoengineering. An article in Nature discusses the risks of injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to combat global warming and says they have been underestimated. (Keller, 2011) Some have proposed that adding fine particles and liquid droplets, which reflect heat, to the atmosphere could postpone the need for deep cuts to carbon emissions. But by modelling the economic effects of substituting aerosol injections for carbon cuts, the researchers show that potentially damaging side- effects of the aerosols — such as depletion of polar ozone and changes in precipitation patterns — could easily wipe out any benefit. Since aerosols disappear quickly whereas greenhouse gases linger, Earth could face even more abrupt and costly climatic change if any aerosol injections were interrupted by, for example, war or the breakdown of international pacts. Toby Svoboda, 2012, compares the different methods we can use for geoengineering the climate and which would be the most plausible with the least amount of direct repercussions. Aerosol Geoengineering (AG), is favored by many scientists as they found it to be fast (Keith, Parson, and Morgan 2010), and the most inexpensive (Barrett 2008), and has the capacity of diminishing some harmful impacts of climate change (MacCracken 2009). Svoboda found that there were some disadvantages, such as ocean acidification. Since AG only works on global cooling, it does not alleviate the problem of CO2.