Terrorism more threatening than climate change: Howard

John Howard has stated outright that he considers the threat of terrorism (to Australia) to be greater than that posed by climate change, although climate change does pose a significant threat.

Leaving aside the small minded nationalistic angle from which he is speaking, his prioritisation suggests something more sinister lurks in the mind of John Howard and those that share his view.

If you have an inclination towards paranoia, conspiracy theories, or just general fear - terrorism could be considered to pose an immediate threat to the lives of some Australians and small groups of people (using 50,000 people as the definition of 'a small group') in other wealthy Caucasian nations. We are in a period of conflict between religious ideologies (or governments using religious ideologies as an excuse to raise suspicion and xenophobic ire). How long can this last? For eternity? No. For the next 100 years? Let's hope not, but for the sake of this example lets assume that the highly unlikely event of Muslim-Christian (ie. US and lackeys vs Islamic nations) conflict continuing for the next 100 year will indeed do so. And, over those 100 years, each year the nation of Australia (taking the narrow-minded perspective) will face a certain size and probability of loss (however you choose to define them - life, liberty etc) due to terrorism. Therefore, over the life of this improbable 100-year conflict we get an undiscounted value for expected losses of 'T' (the sum of each year's loss multiplied by it's probability of loss).

But, some might argue, terrorism could also exist for eternity - there are always people willing to blow up themselves or other people in the name of something or someone. But haven't we always faced this threat? Of course. So, be careful to remember that this analysis is looking at the marginal increase of terrorism threat based on the current conflict that has sparked the hysteria and knicker-knotting over national security in recent years - and to which John Howard is referring.

Now - climate change. This will be a bit quicker now the framework for calculating expected losses due a specific threat has been shown. Remember the formula, probability of loss in a year x size of loss in a year, summing them up for the total number of years that the loss may be expected to occur. If we assume that the world (or Australia) will exist for say, ummm approximately...forever, then the undiscounted expected losses due to climate change, 'CC', (in comparison to a world without climate change) will be equal to INFINITY.

These are calculations which people subconsciously make all the time. The key difference between how we then prioritise various threats is based on our personal discount rate. Your discount rate is the rate (much like an interest rate) at which you value NOW versus the FUTURE. Quick example - if you could have $500 now or be given $500 next year, what do you prefer? How much do you need to be given next year to be indifferent between that amount and $500 now? The same concept (but with different rates) applies to all aspects of our lives where we make decisions that affect the future. A high discount rate means you value the present much higher than the future. This is a feature common to children, adolescents, people living in poverty, low socioeconomic groups, criminals, people with mental health disorders and people with a high level of fear.

Now - to my point. The only factor that can result in terrorism being a greater threat than climate change is if a high rate is used when discounting the relative threats. This means that our current Prime Minister is either a child, adolescent, poor, criminal, mentally unstable or very afraid. Which one do you think?