If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it?
And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now?
Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon.
Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).
Your hypothetical is a good one, and I would answer: yes we should still try to reverse it. Rising seas threaten coastal areas over all the globe. Changes in rainfall patterns will create new deserts (see the current California drought). A warmer earth is an overall negative change. Some places might be better off (permafrost in Canada, Siberia might be farmable) but the net change is negative.
We change the climate in local regions all the time. Dams, coastal walls, etc all change the world to suit our needs. I see no reason the global climate is different.
My amateur-level knowledge of geological history suggests that a warmer, wetter, and higher-CO2 atmosphere--such as that found in the Carboniferous Period prior to the rainforest collapse or the Middle Miocene prior to its extinction event--would support greater total biomass and a wider variety of viable species than current conditions.
In other words, the climate change that everyone is frantically trying to reverse would probably be better for the biosphere, and for humanity in general. For specific humans with well-established property interests on or near the oceanic coasts, the current climate trends will be disastrous.
If every organism on the planet had a vote, Earth would overwhelmingly be in favor of more anthropogenic CO2 emission. Of course, only the humans understand the potential downsides, such as temperature-triggered methane clathrate decomposition that may have already been a contributing factor for two planetary extinction events, including the Permian-Triassic (the worst).
~Obviously, the solution is to ignore the CO2, dig up all the methane hydrates, and turn them into useful plastics before the temperate rise causes them to melt.~
Such conditions emerged over very large timespans in which life had plenty of time to evolve in response. What you are talking about is the same changes but over a few hundred years...this would be absolutely DISASTROUS for life. Rising CO2 is already acidifying the oceans and we've already seen symptoms such as coral bleaching.
That is a hard question to answer, because my answer is biased (I live now, so I am biased to think now/recent-past is the best climate). But I do think the 19th/20th century was the most ideal climate possible for the human race. I would speculate it is no coincidence that the industrial revolution occurred so quickly, in part due to a verdant climate.
This caused the death of millions when Genghis Kahn's men needed to immigrate somewhere due to climate change. We'll probably kill a similar percentage of various cities in the next big climate change.
The climate never has been constant and there is no "the official correct climate".
Trying to force people is likely to result in war which is likely to, overall, kill more people than letting it do its thing. We're running out of stuff to economically burn anyway. Its not like we're only 0.0001% burned up or even 10% burned up. Soon enough, talking about rationing something we no longer have access to burn will be quite pointless. Voluntarily saving some for later is likely to have a pretty decent economic impact. Social engineering by modification of tax law is likely to save more centimeters of ocean than any strictly environmental or behavioral regs.
Well, you force people exactly by the means you describe.
Then again I think that maybe it's a time for an "official climate" because it's the decentralized decision making that's screwing as over wrt/ anthropogenic climate change. Someone has to make those regulations and enforce them.
If our evidence was so rock solid we'd probably also have a better quantitative understanding of the extent to which we can alter the climate, and I'd expect energies to be divided about equally between adaptation and mitigation (eg by deliberately increasing cloud cover). Adaptation is so complex and expensive (since many cities are located on flood plains or in coastal regions for economic reasons) that delaying the full impact in order to implement adaptive measures would probably be economically justifiable.
But do we even know the repercussions? I'm still not convinced it's all bad? Aren't the studies about all forests turning into the deserts the most speculative? Couldn't it just as easily produce more green spaces and habitable areas? (apologies in advance if this offends anyone)
We need more studies, of course, but we can't wait too long hoping that we'll luck our way out of the predicted negative consequences; we need to act on incomplete information.
>Would we be talking about reversing or coping with it?
I think the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "reversing it". Regardless of the underlying cause, I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential effects of global warming are anything less than catastrophic. In that light, it only makes sense to talk about adjusting to climate change when you've decided that preventing it in the first place is an entirely impossible task.
I do. Maybe I'm just one and every other person on Earth thinks otherwise, but I just can't see the "catastrophic" unless it is stated in relation to how radical this climate change is and in what direction.
Many more people die now from cold weather than from warm weather. So maybe a little rise in temperature is a good thing. And historic evidence shows that warmer climate meant more productive crops in the middle ages and in the roman empire.
Maybe I am wrong, but I would need more solid evidence of the catastrophic consequences of climate change before sentencing millions of people to death because we choose to spend money fighting climate change instead of fighting malaria or improving access to clean water.
I think lots of people don't think global warming would be "catastrophic." Otherwise it would completely steamroll over any arguments against deploying more nuclear power.
It's a typical human short-sightedness/availability heuristic. People can act if you shove the consequences directly into their faces. All it took is two planes crashing into skyscrapers to start two wars and reinvent both transportation and information security (for better or worse). But the climate change goes too slow, you can't really see the consequences, you need to trust the specialists, and that's where things fall down. Doubly so if you have democracy, since you can't really do anything important if you keep asking everyone for opinion.
Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans).
In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.
Dad always controls the thermostat. So we'd have to select the most father-like of countries.
I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.
In his lecture called "Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society"[1], Freeman Dyson[2] states: "the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology".
This is based on a calculus of the yearly increase in thickness averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, if all the carbon we're emitting by burning fossil fuel were turned into biomass by photosynthesis.
This yearly increase is one hundredth of an inch, and illustrates the "very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil".
>What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change
It really depends which bit you want to reverse. The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways. The main thing people seem to worry about is temperature and there are artificial ways it could be lowered - SO2 and the like. Though I doubt anyone wants to go there.
I'm quite optimistic on renewables taking over eg.
"The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways."
Yes, but not at the current and predicted rate. Many of the ecosystems we depend on for food will not be able to adapt quickly enough and thus collapse.
I don't think most people believe in climate change so you'd probably need to convince more people that it's actually a problem.
If you read the WSJ, Facebook, etc, you'll frequently see comments like the following which had nothing to do with climate change and was about the Rosetta probe.
"Lets hope that with our last election that the US can get back to real science instead of voodoo climate change superstitions whose purpose is to enrich Democrats and ecowhaacos and to make poor people's energy costs go up."
1. Internet comments are a poor way of gauging sentiment; they tend to overrepresent cranky nay-sayers, who disproportionately benefit from venting.
2. If people would like to convince more people that it's actually a problem, consider that people have a tendency to recognize when what is touted as a Worthy Cause is actually being used as an excuse to obtain power or distribute political favors. Consider more public critiques of the efficacy of policy proposals -- this will also help you actually achieve your climate goals -- and have a lot more sympathy to the middle class who would suffer a lot more under an $8/gallon gas regime than a typical employed HNer would. Acknowledge the harm that high energy costs (including gas costs) would do to the economy, and consider ways to mitigate that harm by generally improving the business climate, regulatory regimes and tax regimes -- instead of writing it off or, worse, claiming that green energy is a magical job-creation mechanism (tip: spending more time effort and money to obtain the same amount of energy does not actually help the economy). Hold fewer events like the recent Peoples' Climate March in NYC (transparently a leftist platform using climate change as an excuse to protest capitalism writ large), and whatever you do do NOT use propaganda that features the statue of liberty mostly underwater (an accurate rendition of full 100% ice-melt from 33-degree warming but unrealistic as a near-term possibility and probably not the best image to lead with). Drop the caricatures which insult middle America as uncultured fatsoes driving around in SUVs, accurate or otherwise. Question what other ways in which political-party sentiment infiltrates climate-change talk.
The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change "their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's important to note that both of these positions are not really based in solid scientific understanding, but because they play to their political ideologies. See how the left can simultaneously support climate science but oppose GMOs, which have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
It's frustrating too, because despite owning the issue, the left doesn't seem interested in the economic factors that this article highlights are necessary to take into account. The anti-corporate contingent of the left finds it distasteful.
I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack on that personal belief.
Just give me the convincing evidence and I will do what I can to protect the Earth that my children will inherit. By contrast, you don't need to convince me that there's a desperate world-wide problem with pollution for instance. Mercury, cadmium but the list is seemingly endless. Where is the international disquiet on this front? Meanwhile CO2, the plant food which if its level dropped below around 125ppm all life on this planet would begin to die irreversibly and has greened the planet very significantly in the last few decades, is regarded officially as a pollutant.
Exactly. Climate change is the wrong conversation to the environmental problem. It's diverts time, money and energy that could be directed at addressing real environmental problems like air and water quality.
What is convincing evidence? Many prominent environmentalists consider the climate change to be the biggest problem. Even Mr. Lomborg eventually accepted that conclusion.
Sure the market can deal with it: someone creates a cheaper, easy to transport, clean fuel ecosystem. Problem is people keep denying they need a market solution and instead look with glee on instituting new regulations.
cap-and-trade will not fix the problem with up and coming economies. cap-and-trade is not a market solution, it just taxes the market.
you either figure out a equivalent or better cost way - or we have to deal with war or climate engineering. I would prefer we get something that works before we get into "the kill my neighbor to preserve what I have" mentality.
(given the voting, nope not going to respond further on this issue - no point in "debate" if silencing is the response)
Now, this article implies that we need to leave some coal and oil in the groud, even if it's economic to mine and use it up. My main concern is I don't think that markets can handle this task. Markets are great at exploiting all available resources; but how do you constrain them not to do that? You cannot set any price on a resource that you do not want to use at all. In a way though, yes, it's about externalities.
The market cannot take into account to cost of externalities, unless there is some mechanism to charge for them (meaning tax them). The other option would be to eliminate the concept of externalities by making everything owned by someone, but I don't see how that could work. You would have to come to an agreement with whomever owns air quality before you polluted and come to an agreement with whomever owns temperature before you caused warming...
... and ten years later, when the new research comes up, you'd get sued by whoever owns local wildlife lifecycle which you inadvertently affected without permission.
You're assuming perfect competition and no switching costs, while ignoring network effects. I like markets but they don't inevitably produce rational outcomes.
Agreed, and I extend your remarks with its a sign of pessimism and mistrust of government. Its well earned.
In an ideal world if our leaders were angelic statespeople, I might trust them not to screw things up even worse or as a smokescreen for political corruption. I don't live in a country like that and I can sympathize with OPs quotation. His description is, unfortunately, the most likely outcome.
In all honesty, if we can't fix it ourselves, we're doomed, because the government always causes more problems than it solves, makes things overall worse rather than better, for my entire life. And I'm no young kid and I can't stand the political party OP's quote likely comes from. I might hate what they stand for but I'm objective enough to see common ground when they are, in very small part, correct.
I'm in Europe, and I don't know anyone who does not believe in climate change. In fact it's not considered a faith issue at all; the scientific case is overwhelming. Maybe the sentiment is completely different in the US, because the media is so pro-business that the facts can be safely ignored.
"Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the twentieth-century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse-gas pollution" [ibid].
It's not just business. 30-40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, if we are to believe surveys. A large chunk of the country takes the bible at face value.
Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.
> Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives.
This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It doesn't get a good reaction.
If there is an impending catastrophe, the profit motive is irrelevant. The issue is one of short term (profit) vs. long term (environment) thinking. Saving the planet while still appealing to the profit motive would be great, but if that's not feasible, do we just let the planet go to hell...?
India, China, and all the emerging economies in South America and Africa are going to take the same economic route (coal & gas) unless we give them a cheaper alternative.
Your right, environmentalists don't seem to understand economics or human nature. People will not sacrifice so we really need to tech our way out of this.
India and China are chucking research and money at new nuclear technology. It's not unreasonable to predict that in 20 years, the west will probably be buying molten salt reactors from China.
I think, regarding the economics, there are quite a few environmental scientists who are very cognisant of economics and how that interacts, such as Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey, UK. However, where they do know anything about it, they tend to recognise that economics is not helping the environment at all, so perhaps they should work in areas where they are likely to make a difference instead.
There is a fundamental mis-match between the environment and economics. In economics, eternal exponential growth is mandatory. In the environment, eternal exponential growth is impossible.
I would think only in some economics "belief systems" exponential growth is mandatory
I call them belief systems, because when you look at it, it can hardly be called science: examples of mutualy exclusive theories are coexisting and sides quite often forge the data using advanced obsfucation: tweak some parameters here, adjust them there, carefully pick base data and voila - you've just proven whatever the hell you believe is "the only true way"
I hope both succeed and if we do we should buy the fruits of their efforts since we seem to not be going that direction.
I have seen nothing but environmentalists who understand economics being vilified. I hope this attitude changes.
Economics does not require "eternal exponential growth is mandatory", although some popular schools of economics do. Economics is just a very good way to actually judge cost.
There are two different aspects of economics here; on one hand, it's blindingly obvious that growth-based economy is unsustainable. On the other hand, it's what is driving the world right now, so effective ways to fix the system will likely need to use it for their advantage, and not ignore it.
Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world to attend conferences on how to stop people flying around the world. Yes, they do tend to see the irony in it all.
An interesting corollary of that logic is that if suddenly this sovereign interest was spanning the whole Earth (instead of being fragmented into over a hundred countries), then there would be bigger incentives to strong-arm a solution to this problem more quickly.
Need? Fierce debate continues but the global warming “hiatus,” followed by up to 50 different reasons for nature not following the prediction of dramatically increased global temperature provides at least some doubt on the matter. Yes, it may catch up later!
Meanwhile satellite imagery has shown that the Earth has greened very significantly. It's depressing to note that the advantages of this have rarely been heralded.
One has the distinct impression that were some Newton of climatology to publish a paper showing beyond reasonable argument that we do not need to worry be worried at all by the CO2 increase, climatologists and much of the Left (as it happens) would be struck down with misery rather than joy.
An equally likely solution - probably more likely, given the historical trends of governments - would be to declare half the population as "undesirables", force them to live a pre-industrial existence (if you allow them to live at all), and double the energy prices for the other half, which I'm sure they'll gladly pay given the alternative.
To "fix" it you'd have to go further, all Pol Pot on the population.
We'll probably just continue existing policy, which actually is fairly environmentally sound.
If you eliminate the middle class, they can't buy SUVs and take jet aircraft on vacations. Check.
If you eliminate industrial sites, they can emit greenhouse gasses. Check. Public policy for decades. See above, temporarily we've outsourced our middle class purchasing to Chinese factory production, but once we get rid of the middle class and return the USA to our agrarian roots, the factories in China will also close.
If you concentrate all capital and property ownership into a Very small, optimistically well educated group or individuals or corporations, they will have better chance of enlightened self interest than if the general population is permitted private property. Check, thats been public policy for decades.
Impoverish young people to discourage children, permanently lowering environmental load. Check. Public policy for decades.
I could go on about health care and homelessness and the highest prison population on the planet, but it all aligns quite well.
Honestly, we're already doing so much for the environment I don't know what more we can do without "extreme" measures.
I am not sure how they envision renewable energy (that just barely collects solar power) ever competing on the market with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up (that accumulated solar power for thousands years).
It's like trying to write new commercial Unix-like operating system, and expect profit, when the companies can already use Linux which is already there and into which the investment has been made.
The problem is that we really need to leave that coal and oil in the ground, and not touch it (at least for a couple hundred years), and there is no way markets alone can do that. Even price regulations like carbon tax may not accomplish that goal.
"with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up"
I've been following and investing in energy companies for a couple decades, and that has to be the worst or funniest summary I've ever heard of their production side. I'm sure you mean well, but... if you know where I can just scoop economically viable quantities of coal and crude off the ground, give us a stock tip, will ya?
Well, yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic. Linux also isn't entirely "free" - you have to spent effort configuring it and so on. But I just don't see renewables competing with oil and coal on the fair free market.
If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it?
And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now?
Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon.
Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).