The Absurdity of Attribution Science: Arguments Against the Quantification of Blame

The Absurdity of Attribution Science: Arguments Against the Quantification of Blame


The headlines that say just 70, or 90, or however many companies, are responsible for all the carbon emissions and should be somehow punished show an ignorance and an anti-corporate bias. Of course, affordable and readily available energy is the cornerstone of a successful modern economy and society. That society demands affordable energy. Handicapping those who provide it will not work. It will simply make that energy less affordable. That is a good basic argument against large carbon taxation. The goal of carbon taxation is to entice consumers to use less fossil energy. It should not be a means to punish those who produce that energy. But it certainly can be. 


One might say that since the advent of fracking in the U.S. made electricity and gasoline significantly cheaper, then consumers should have used their savings to buy renewable energy – rooftop solar and electric vehicles. Some of us did but the overwhelming majority did not. Much of this is due to the high initial investments required. This shows that due to cost renewable energy will likely not be widely adopted without some sort of government requirement to decrease the affordability of fossil fuels. 


The attribution of blame for the carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere is another example, this one being used by the IPCC and the UN in attributing cost structure liabilities for different countries in the fight against climate change. If blame is assigned value, then why not improvement? The energy provided to cause those emissions triggered vast improvements in human well-being. Should those not have a value put on them as well? I’m not saying the whole valuation should be abandoned but that it should be reasonable and not overly punishing to high-emitting countries. Often, such attribution, is attribution of blame, and is used as a political tool. One reason the U.S. is not so gung ho about the Paris Climate Accord is that the U.S. is punished by having to pay a higher cost due both to its high historical emissions and its high per capita energy use. That makes it very easy to group it as yet another instance where a UN or world body requires the U.S. to pay proportionately more than the Europeans and others. We pay more in other groups like NATO due to our prosperity as payments often are set at % of GDP, while the Europeans more often than us do not even meet those criteria. If the UN wants to get the US back in the Paris Accord, then they should perhaps provide one clear incentive – a significant discount – since some is better than none.


The governor of New Jersey has stated that he would like to collect money from these flimsy bogus lawsuits against companies like Exxon for covering up climate science – mind you, in times when climate science was not even moderately well-established among actual climate scientists – and use it to further harm them. The lawsuits are patently ridiculous and should not even be heard. Several cities have stated that they would like to sue and use the proceeds to shore up climate change preparedness. Of course, cities and states are huge consumers of fossil fuels. Preparedness against weather events is a good idea but making others pay for it is not. 


Another issue is that of groups of youths being encouraged to file lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for possible future harm from their emissions. It is a waste of time and resources and mainly a political ploy to increase pressure. The future of such litigation probably rests on whether sympathetic judges can be found. Proponents of the suits like to compare them to litigation against tobacco companies for advertising and promoting smoking. But smoking is a choice and in contrast, use of energy is a basic necessity.


The problem with this attribution science is that it is not really science. It is rather a means of attributing punishment value and a means of economic redistribution. Fossil fuels are distributed unevenly around the world and those endowed with them should not be punished simply for developing what they have. 


Essentially, attribution science is like any risk assessment where risk is evaluated and quantified. Of course, quantification of risk is highly debatable and requires scientific experts to estimate accurately. In these litigation examples it is often the highly biased accusers doing the assessment, aided by sympathetic judges and some experts, usually outspoken and arguably biased ones. 


Overall, I think this so-called attribution science is a trend that is not sustainable, at least the way it is being done by bias and activism. It is unsustainable and not viable as it is tainted by ideology. Any true attribution or quantification of risk and harm would need to be as unbiased as possible, perhaps done via scientific council of diverse groups of well-respected authorities rather than ideological and biased groups with an agenda to punish. 


So far, sanity has been maintained, as most of theses climate lawsuits have been thrown out. Likely, they will continue to be dismissed but will some eventually get through with sympathetic judges and governments? Let’s hope not. There are better ways to address the issue. 


References:


Climate Change Lawsuits Collapsing Like Dominoes – by Curt Levey, in insidesources.com, March 5, 2020