Starfish - Part 2

To continue the thread are there certain acts intended to be helpful but instead are a waste of time and money?

Looking again at the food bank example.  If the objective is to solve food insecurity even for a single individual much less a family then donations don't achieve the objective.    If the objective is incremental not fundamental then the donations aren't a waste.  

To refer back to Bill Gates's perspective of global warning.   He asserts that the goal should be for the rich countries (e.g. US, EU, Britain, Japan) to get to net zero emissions by 2050 and with solutions that can be implemented by middle class countries (e.g China, Latin America) by 2060 and poor countries (e.g. India, sub-sahara Africa) by 2070.

I'm not a climate scientist I accept his assertions.  

I also accept that this will be very expensive.

I also accept that the free market cannot get us to net zero.  It will take tax dollars and lots of them.

I also accept that tax dollars are finite and should be spent efficiently.

With that in mind does it make sense to convert a coal power plant to natural gas?  If so, should it be subsidized by our taxes? 

The answer depends on how you frame the problem and what are the goals.   If the goal is to reduce emissions by 2030 as much as possible then the answer is Yes.   If the goal is to get to net zero by 2050 then the answer is very likely No.

Similar to the food bank how one sees the frames the objective - incremental or fundamental matters.   In the case of global warning I'm told that incremental reduction of green house gases is insufficient.   The only sensible objective is net zero.   So subsidizing conversion from coal to gas is actually counter-productive as it spends scarce tax payer dollars on something that isn't part of a net zero future.

Starfish - Part 1

 Most have heard one version of the Starfish story.   If you've forgotten, I'll provide one version.

There was a fierce storm on the Oregon coast.   It caused a huge ocean storm surge.   The next morning after the tide had ebbed there were thousands of starfish stranded on the beach far from the water line.  They were all destined to die on the beach.  A young woman came to walk the beach - something she did daily.  As she walked with every step she reached down, picked up a starfish and tossed it into the water where it would now survive.

A man watched her. (In this story the hero is almost always female, and the cynic is almost always male.)  He calls to her "Why bother?  There are thousands of starfish.  You can't help them all.  You can't make a difference."

She called back as she reached down, picked up and tossed another starfish, "I made a difference to that one."

So, this is about individual voluntary acts that are intended to promote some greater good.  The question is whether these acts are like the starfish story or are, indeed, futile.

Let's look at some examples.

We all know the damage to the environment caused by plastic waste.   We've all read and seen pictures of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch.   It's awful.  I refrain from using plastic.  I bring my own bags to the grocery store.  I never buy water in plastic bottles.  When I order water in restaurants, I always make a point to tell the server not to bring a straw.   

Does it matter?  

The answer is clearly no.  No individual volunteer actions will stop the spread of plastic waste.  My actions will have no impact on the plastic waste in all of the oceans.   Even if the action is replicated by thousands of others, it will make essentially no difference.

Another example.

There are lots of folks who go hungry every night.  We've all worked in soup kitchens, donated to food banks, etc.  Does our voluntary action matter?   If the goal is to end systemic hunger the answer once again is clearly no.

Another example.

There are lots of folks who lack decent housing.  I've donated to Habitat for Humanity for decades and worked HFH projects in the past.  Does it matter?  In this case we do have a starfish.  Homes get built one at a time and each time one is completed a family's life is transformed forever.

Getting back to the examples without starfish.  If the voluntary actions have no negative consequences, then even though they don't do anything to solve the systemic issue there are no drawbacks to the actions.   However, if the actions with no starfish and these acts have a cost should they be avoided?   Should we consider these acts without starfish simply vanity efforts?  Are these acts that psychologically benefit the actor while making little or no difference to the issue at hand.    

Put more harshly, are they a waste of time?  If they have no cost it doesn't matter.  The avoidance of plastic presents no dilemma.  The food bank donation is not so easy.  Clearly there are both costs and benefits.  Do the benefits justify the cost or could the resources be used more efficiently elsewhere?