Newcomb's problem and environmentalism

Iain Dale says:

Frankly, it doesn't really matter what we do in this country on global emissions if we can't persuade India and China to follow suit.

It doesn't follow, however, that it's irrational to curb our own emissions. To see why, consider Newcomb's problem.
Imagine two opaque boxes, A and B. A contains £1000. B contains either nothing or £1 million.
You have a choice. To take only box B, or to take both boxes.
Now, here's the wrinkle. A superbeing, with great powers of foresight, put £1m into box B if and only if he predicted you would choose only box B. If he predicted that you would choose both boxes, he put nothing in it.
So, do you take both boxes, or just B? There are two lines of reasoning.
1. "I'll take both. The £1m is either in the box now or it isn't.  Nothing I can do will affect that. So I might as well take both boxes."
2. "I'll take only box B. The fact that I'm making this choice is evidence that the £1m is in the box. So the only chance I have of getting the £1m is to forego the £1000."
There is a parallel here with environmentalism. The case for curbing emissions in the UK alone is like the case for taking only box B. We hope that our choosing to do this is evidence that others - like the Chinese and Indians - will also choose this. This has nothing to do with the UK exercising "leadership" - that's drivel - it's that our choice to curb emissions is likely to be replicated by people who are in similar positions facing similar choices. Our choice is evidence for what others would choose.
Those who reject this, like Iain, are those who'd choose the two boxes.
There is, then, a clash of rationalities. In his best book, Robert Nozick called this the conflict between causal expected utility - the two box choice Iain is advocating - and evidential expected utility, the one-box environmentalist choice.
In fact, there's also a third rationality, which I suspect greens are using. It's symbolic rationality. Greens want to symbolize that they care about the environment and the future, even if their own actions make no material difference.
So, maybe the difference between Iain and the greens is about which rationality to use.
But here's the quirk. If we only ever use the causal rationality which Iain implicitly endorses, we would never vote - because our own individual vote would never make a difference. It's only evidential or symbolic rationality that justifies voting. We vote to either symbolize who we are, or because we hope that our decision to vote is evidence that like-minded people will make the same choice.
So, here's my challenge to Iain. Either show why causal rationality is more relevant to carbon emissions than evidential or symbolic rationality. Or don't vote, and don't call upon others to do so.

Comments

[Paul Evans]

You see, Chris, this is where we differ. You concentrate on detail and make a rational choice. I - like many people - look at the personalities concerned and chose someone to make that choice for me.

So, in my case, I'd support whatever the opposite of Iain Dale's advice is.

Not a noble or necessarily sensible course of action, I'll agree. But it is, I suspect, the way that many people make their choices. Idiots like me make your ideals of direct democracy unworkable.

[Chris C]

Iain's idea also assumes there is no potential for, say, pump priming of green ideas, techniques and technologies which we could develop being transferrable to China and India (even being a handy tradable good). That is a causal chain which he cuts out of his analysis.

If we don't move first, that will not happen.

[Dr Dan H.]

The fallacy of your reasoning is that it completely fails to take into account the motivation of the players like China and India. You say that you hope that they will see your noble action as a cue to follow suit.

What is more likely is that they will look at your noble actions and think "Oh look, the silly buggers just crippled their economies. What a god-sent opportunity to enhance our economies at their expense, without them competing against us!"

In other words, you fail to take into account how likely the action you wish to stimulate will be. An "likely" is the one thing it isn't; a three-legged donkey is more likely to win the Grand National than China, America and the rest are to follow our lead.

Pipe down and get on with growing a brain. Believe me, you need to.

[AntiCitizenOne]

"What a god-sent opportunity to enhance our economies at their expense"

A wise capitalist would prefer richer people to trade with.

Only the left benefits from making people poorer.

[The Pedant-General]

AC1:

"A wise capitalist would prefer richer people to trade with"

True, but in this case your wise capitalist is China and he does not get to make that choice. He is presented with a poorer Britain through our choice not his.

[Alex]

The problem, Dr. Dan, is that your analysis doesn't fit with the facts. China has mandated that all new buildings carry solar cells on the roof.

[Gracchi]

The problem with all the anti-China India stuff here is that of course they know that they will suffer from Global Warming just like us and so they will beleive that they ahve to take action too.

[Not Saussure]

One difference between voting/not voting and curbing emissions/not curbing emissions is that there's very little cost or inconvenience attached to voting, while there are not inconsiderable immediate costs to curbing emissions.

Consequently, there's very little disincentive to vote, while there is to curb your carbon emissions.

Another problem with your example, I think, is that you assume we actually believe -- because experts have told us this is the case -- that this omniscient super-being will actually put the money in box b.

If it's actually going to cost me money, on top of the opportunity cost of foregoing the £1,000, to choose box B, and if I have to go on is some scientists' word for it that they've discovered the existence of this super-being with his great powers of foresight, then how irrational am I being in sticking to box A?

[peter whale france]

Hi co2 does not cause global warming 85% of thr greenhousr affect is caused by good old water vapour. Water vapour rises predominately by the suns action on the seas. Even the amount of wasted breath uttered by uninformed people, has no affect on global warming,just on the fears of the populace in general and a way of politicians to extort more money to waste .

[dave heasman]

Hi Peter whale france "Hi co2 does not cause global warming 85% of thr greenhousr affect is caused by good old water vapour"

Oh dear, I wonder how everybody missed that one? (hint - they didn't)
Now to the other 15% - that's your greenhouse gas. And how about your melting ice, Peter? Will more or less water evaporate if the sun's shining on grey sea rather than on whiteish ice? (Hint - more)
And as water gets warmer, Peter, will there be more, or less CO2 dissolved in it (Hint - less)

Sorry for the hi-jack Chris.