[This is an EXCERPT: read the whole article here. -Ed.]

"Forecasting is a tough job. People are unpredictable. Technology sometimes holds surprises. Accidents happen. Anything is possible. Inflation might soar, but then real rates of return would decline, and oil producers might choose to leave the resource in the ground, rather than convert it to cash. Central banks might hike interest rates to fight inflation, raising the return on financial instruments, which might persuade producers to pump more, thereby lowering the price of petroleum with increasing supply. The value of the dollar may go up -- or down."

"We don't know how these scenarios will play out."

"Governments face the challenge of introducing legislation without the benefit of foresight. Policymakers must weigh the sacrifices that need to be made in the present to address situations that may, or may not, occur in the future. Many voters want measures that will deal with crime, end homelessness, improve education, relieve traffic congestion, fix the health system, repair or replace infrastructure and provide for child and elder care; tangible issues governments could begin to resolve immediately. The effectiveness of such actions would be apparent and measurable."

"But others warn of future catastrophe caused by human activity and insist government abandon outdated models of economic progress, curtail industrial activity and tax citizens to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Only governments, they argue, can impose the changes required to save the planet and the human race. However, there is no way to determine whether any action taken to tackle climate change will be effective."

"The dilemma for governments is that forecasting has such a poor track record that forgoing today's pressing needs to prepare for an uncertain future carries considerable political risk. Making the wrong choices will lead to unfortunate consequences either way."

Photo credit: Scott Thrift