Britain is hot today. Scorching. It’s hot, it’s sticky, it’s steamy and, for the Guardian that means….it’s Kyoto time:
Evidence increasingly points to a weather system shaped more and more not by nature but by humanity. The pattern of industrial development of modern day society appears to be producing too much pollution for the world to cope with. The effects will irrevocably remake the climate for the worse.
And we all know who to blame for this, don’t we? Yes we jolly well do.
On gaining office, the Bush administration, with its roots in oil and big business, withdrew unilaterally from the biggest international commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions – the Kyoto protocol. To gain some scale of how reckless this act of political vandalism was consider this: if US states were independent nations they would comprise 25 of the top 60 nations that emit greenhouse gases – Texas’s emissions alone exceed France’s.
The Guardian runs this same editorial rant about once a fortnight regardless of whether it’s hot, cold, tipping down or a white-out. In the summer, though, they just turn the volume up. They probably call it a social conscience. I reckon it’s a bad case of sunstroke.
I really don’t get greens. A Coasian solution of giving property rights to either polute or not have your property polluted and then polluter and pollutee bargain over which they want would be a much better solution. It internalises the costs, and pollution is a negative externality, so it encourages people to take measures to reduce their pollution, and leads to preventing all but efficient pollution, which is surely what we want.
And more over, this fits perfectly with the “think globally, act locally” dictum that radical greens espouse. Pollution problems are dealt with by polluter and pollutee, face to face, rather than by distant legislatures and international treaties. If the want to act locally, why do greens advocate international treaties?
Do the Guardian writers not realise that the Kyoto treaty was dead in the water long before Bush got into office, or do they just choose to ignore this inconvenient fact?
The problem we have is the usual one about trying to understanding hypothesis, theory and fact.
Fact, for example, the climate is changing at the moment.
Hypothesis, this is to do with human actions. There is currently an equally valid hypothesis that this is a natural event.
From a science perspective we have to wait until more data is available to arrive at a theory in the scientific sense of the word. However, I am concerned that if, in the end it does turn out that man-made activities are having an impact and are resulting in chaotic fluctuations, then if may well be too late.
We could comfort ourselves that it has probably always been too late, but I’m not sure that’s a valid reason not to be doing stuff about conservation and emmissions now.
Dave made some valid points as to why we should be concerned about emissions etc. now. Another reason for defending free-market environmentalism, even if global warming is a natural phenomena, etc. is because a pollution problem is a logical possibility even if it isn’t actually happening, and non-free-market types will still want to no how a free-market society will deal with it if it did occur. This is why I think simply saying that there is no global warming problem, or no depletion of natural resources, etc. is not enough.
“Hypothesis, this is to do with human actions. There is currently an equally valid hypothesis that this is a natural event.”
I would say that plenty of data undercuts the hypothesis that this has to do with human actions, and precious little data supports it. The data that undercuts it has to do with the fact that the planet was much warmer than it is now only a few hundred years ago, before any manmade CO2 began “polluting” the atmosphere, and that the current warming trend (if any) seems to have begun well before significant manmade CO2 appeared. It is awfully hard to get to causation when you can’t even show a correlation.
Satellite data reveals that, as far as we can tell, the upper atmosphere isn’t heating at all, and that the apparent heating of the lower atmosphere may be a statistical artifact of urban “heat islands”. In short, it is not even very clear that the planet is really warming up – it turns out that our data on temperature is actually of a pretty low quality. Remember, the global warming crowd was warning us of a new ice age not long ago.
Casting about for data that manmade CO2 contributes to posited global warming, you come up with, well, pretty much nothing. The support for this hypothesis is found not in data, but in computer models that are pretty unreliable to date. All kinds of other interesting correlations are being explored, msot having to do with the way that the sun affects our weather. Frankly, I find the idea that the minuscule CO2 emissions of mankind outweighs the cosmic impact of a full-blown star to be more than a little ridiculous.
“We could comfort ourselves that it has probably always been too late, but I’m not sure that’s a valid reason not to be doing stuff about conservation and emmissions now.”
You’d probably be right if these steps were cost free, but they are not. Any effective regulatory steps to reduce manmade CO2 emissions will severely damage the global economy and lead to the deaths and immiseration of millions of people. Needless to say, technological breakthroughs that might reduce CO2 emissions might well benefit the global economy, but to the extent that these breakthroughs are economically beneficial, the market will put them up as soon as it can regardless.
Casting about for data that manmade CO2 contributes to posited global warming, you come up with, well, pretty much nothing.
That’s a hard statement for me to support without qualification. I have problems with the way that core samples and other trend analysis has been conducted, however, should it prove to be accurate then the rate at which things have been warming up this century are significantly faster than in any other observable climatic optimum.
Frankly, I find the idea that the minuscule CO2 emissions of mankind outweighs the cosmic impact of a full-blown star to be more than a little ridiculous.
What we do know is very small pertubations in things do lead to massive changes – man made actions might be smaller than one of catastrophies like a large volcanic outpouring, however, the stable enviroment of the planet is used to handling those. We do not have any basis to say, therefore, that the release of CO2 through manmade actions is doing nothing.
We need more data on that.
You’d probably be right if these steps were cost free, but they are not.
I must admit I don’t find that a very convincing argument myself.
The market isn’t, currently, terribly good at long term returns. Its hard to consider the shareholder value of a 25 or 50 year return when you are maximising this year’s dividend.
The best information I’ve seen is that ice ages relate to cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit. My reference is “The Sun in Time”. The book itself is.. somewhere in my library.
We ARE due for another ice age. As best I can tell, its starting point is somewhere between 200 years ago and 1500 years from now.
I think the Guardian would be rather less pleased if the temperature were going the other way due to an ice age. Last time around, England was buried in less than a century.
It seems to me like the following things are true:
1. The average world temperature has been measured as rising in the last 100 years or so. While it’s not a certainty, it’s likely a real effect and not statistical noise. The rise is about 1 degree C.
2. Should the temperature increase substantially, it’s likely that certain things will happen: rising sea levels, and a change in storm patterns, although it’s hard to be exact about the latter.
3. Some argue that this rise in temperature has been largely or entirely due to the emissions of greenhouse gases by humans. Some argue that this rise in temperature is entirely natural. It’s even logically possible that human activities would have lowered that overall temperature (as some claimed 30 years ago), but the endogenous trend has been really high. I’m not comptent to definitively decide which of these is true, and I doubt most politicians, activists, or businesses are either.
4. The average temperature on earth has varied in the past, several degrees C in the past 1,000 years, and even more over longer time periods, and sometimes the transition has been quite sharp. Even if humans are responsible for the current trend, and we stop doing what we’ve been doing, or even could retroactively change things so that we had never done it at all, that doesn’t amount to any sort of guarantee that the global climate will remain constant. The average global temperature, I think, is about 15C right now. If, for example, in 500 years, the temperature would be anywhere from 11-19C without human interference, and 13-21C with it, why is it so necessary to wish, act, and sacrifice for the former range?
It seems to me that indepdent of the source of the warming, we should be figuring out how to deal with climate change with minimal disruption. I’m not necessarily calling for an enormous governmental program to do this, although the government will have to have contigency plans for itself. The insurance industry will be crucial here. If you can convince insurers that there will be, or at least, there is a non-trivial probability that, a 5-meter rise in sea level in the next 100 years, the costs of insuring a home or business near the sea will go up significantly. People will therefore increase their building in safer areas, and so forth. As for dealing with the negative externality issue, if it is firmly established that such exists, a credit-trading system seems reasonable to me. Which leads me to wonder: if it established that CO2 pollution is the only thing that stands between us and another ice age, do we credit CO2 emitters for this positive externality?
Humans have survived plenty of climate swings before, and not just barely. Whether (sorry) human in nature or not, global warming is an issue that can be dealth with, not the apocalypse.
Dave O’Neill,
Yes I am all for reducing emissions. Let’s start with all the hot air produced by the Guardian.
Dave, in response to my statement that there really isn’t any data supporting the manmade CO2 hypothesis, your “qualification” seems to be that, yeah, you have problems with the data on the rate and degree of warming itself. That strikes me as being pretty much in agreement with my statement.
If the environment of the planet can handle truly catastrophic events like massive volcanic eruptions, why should we conclude that lesser “perturbations” caused by man cannot be handled? Sure, we can keep looking at the data, but you are trending perilously close the precautionary principle, all the while admitting that there really is no good data to support the hypothesis that manmade CO2 is somehow going to trigger a global catastrophe.
As for technological fixes that will reduce CO2 use through genuine conservation or new energy technologies, I think the market is much more likely to find them than any government program.
If you think governments are good at finding and capturing 50 year returns, then you must be observing different government activities than I am. I see governments everywhere engaging in incredibly stupid fiscal activities just to get through the next election, and damn the impact on future generations.
In any event, I was merely pointing out that collapsing the global economy in order to indulge the precautionary principle via regulatory CO2 controls (Kyoto) is not a cost-free exercise, and should not be undertaken unless we are pretty sure that the regulatory CO2 controls will in fact avert a global catastrophe that will be worse than collapsing the global economy. This case is very far from being made:
(a) the data on warming is shaky;
(b) the data linking any warming to manmade CO2 falls somewhere on a spectrum from shaky to nonexistent;
(c) lots of other hypotheses for warming (if any) are at least as well-supported as the manmade CO2 hypothesis.
Assuming all these uncertainties resolve so that, yes, manmade CO2 is found to contribute to global warming (which I regard as highly unlikely), there is then a whole new series of hoops to jump through before you get to the conclusion that Kyoto-style CO2 controls are the way to go. Hell, even the Kyoto supporters no longer argue that their treaty, catastrophic as it would be, will make a meaningful difference under their own models.
your “qualification” seems to be that, yeah, you have problems with the data on the rate and degree of warming itself.
I have potential issues with it yes, which is not to say that it isn’t happening. There needs to be more investigation, but the potential for being wrong is very grave.
If the environment of the planet can handle truly catastrophic events like massive volcanic eruptions, why should we conclude that lesser “perturbations” caused by man cannot be handled?
Because this is how control systems work.
You see this sort of thing in all sorts of control systems, where you can design the systems for handling large changes that occur infrequently, but small changes can have very unexpected effects and lead quickly to very hard to damp down oscillation. It is, of course, very counter intuitive but a lot of science is.
should not be undertaken unless we are pretty sure that the regulatory CO2 controls will in fact avert a global catastrophe that will be worse than collapsing the global economy.
That is not the only course of action.
Taking the US, for example, lowering the economic reliance on cheap oil based products would have a huge long term economic benefit.
If a few cents a gallon can lead to recession, then there’s a much bigger problem than Kyoto.
My climatologist acquaintances are very skeptical of the science purporting to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
The earth has warmed over the last 100 years. It has warmed even more over the last 400-500 years, which is to say, it has recovered from the mini-ice-age that deeply froze the Thames. Also keep in mind that Greenland has been green in historic times!
The actual contribution by man to the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere appears to be substantial – since the start of the industrial age CO2 has risen from around 275 ppm to 350 ppm (from memory). Note, however, that this is PPM – CO2 is a TRACE GAS. By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Also important to realize is that models which predict CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are off by 30% – that is, there is a huge missing piece of knowledge about the CO2 cycle.
Furthermore, if you look at how the models that predict global warming work, you realize that they use a lot of “parameterization” – this is a nice word for “fudging.” Parameterization is where you throw in your best guess for the effects various things because the model does not have high enough resolution to handle those things (little things like terrain, ground cover… minor stuff like that :-). Furthermore, new very important factors keep popping up. An article in Science a week or two ago claimed that some measurements made way out to sea showed that the forcing (net energy contribution) of aerosols was at least twice that of CO2 and possibly much more.
The paleoclimatic record is full of holes. The data is spotty and the extrapolation from raw data to temperature is full of assumptions. For example, tree rings measure growth of plants, but that is affected by many phenomena, from temperature to humidity to rainfall to average solar insolation.
As far as Kyoto goes, it’s a fraud. Kyoto, by the same models used by its proponents, makes NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE in 100 years! Yep – that’s right – the amount of change forecast by Kyoto would not be measurable. Given a consensus model, the change is a delay of about 6 years in the projected temperature rise.
The real purpose of Kyoto (acknowledged by its proponents, albeit in weasel words, if you pin them down) is to get us used to having economic pain for the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions. If you look even closer, you realize it is also to reduce the US economic advantage vs. Europe, China and India (the latter two are EXEMPT from Kyoto’s limits!), and transfer wealth to third world countries.
Finally, I have written a couple of things about this in two blog articles: Response to a Typical Environmental Rant and regarding the motivations of many gerrnies, Environmentalism – Religion for Progressives.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not man-made climate change is a fact (though I believe the fine old Scottish verdict ‘not proven’ is being exceptionally generous) it is probably worth noting the predictable lockstep of the BBC and Guardian on this issue.
Yes, the corporation produced a similar piece of buffoonery on last night’s PM. As is to be expected, it dragged the sorry shambles of the Kyoto scam behind it and dismissed any criticisms of the ‘man-made change’ hypothesis with an airy wave.
Good to see the Left/liberal Axis powers still running in such blissful harmony, isn’t it?
“There needs to be more investigation, but the potential for being wrong is very grave.”
This is true in both directions – the potential impact of implementing Kyoto is also very grave, and it should not be done unless we are quite sure that the impact of global warming will be worse than Kyoto.
Frankly, I haven’t seen anything that I would regard as remotely reliable on the supposedly “grave” effects of global warming supposedly now underway. It may well do no more than return us to what is fondly recalled as the Medievel Climate Optimum, that period a few hundred years ago when the climate was significantly warmer than it is now.
Add another link to the chain of hypotheses to be proved – not only must the Kyotoids prove that warming is occurring, and that manmade CO2 is the cause, they must also prove that warming will be harmful. This is currently assumed, with colorful speculation rampant, but far, far from proven.
“Taking the US, for example, lowering the economic reliance on cheap oil based products would have a huge long term economic benefit.”
It depends on how and when you do it. If this occurs as the result of market forces finding more economical alternatives, fine. The Kyoto-style government intervention approach will have dramatic short-term negative economic effects that would probably swamp or preclude long-term benefits.
Artificially forcing a contraction in the energy use of advanced economies (which is essentially what Kyoto attempts to do when you strip away all the blah blah and wishful thinking) will in turn force a contraction in those economies. That contraction will cascade across all the other economies, and, voila, you have a major economic catastrophe on your hands.
The problem with Kyoto is that, if you buy its assumption that manmade CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming, the only solution that will actually reduce global warming is a pretty quick and pretty dramatic reduction in CO2 production. The current thinking, I gather, is that the current Kyoto targets, even if met, would have virtually no impact on warming trends even under the models touted by the Kyotoids. Even so, these targets would have a dramatic negative impact on advanced economies.
So Kyoto as now drafted gives you the worst of both worlds – global warming and collapsed economies. Attempting to actually avert global warming using Kyoto-style government intervention will only lead to worse economic problems. By the time that you reduce CO2 production enough to head off global warming under the Kyotoids models, you have deindustrialized much of the planet, unless you posit some technological miracles.
The only way to reach Kyoto goals without forcing dramatic economic dislocations is to rely on the discovery of new technologies that can significantly remake the current world energy economy. If you think that there isn’t ample market and economic incentive to do so, but that government intervention can somehow uncover these technologies, then I think you are sadly mistaken.
In short, any solutions to this problem will be found in spite of, not because of, the government-centered Kyoto approach.
My question — my worry — is this — what percentage of people are being influenced by and believing in the Guardian’s periodic bullsh*t rant?
(Also — how come no one ever points out that the reason the US might be putting out more emissions of various types is that it’s a major world manufacturer and exporter? It’s not a question of just driving cars, leaving lights on and stuffing our faces: If you’re producing 25% of the world’s second-tier goods — electronics and so on — I suppose 25% of emissions is only to be expected???)
That’s a rhetorical rant, beg pardon if my numbers are a bit off.
Texas’s GSP: $791 B (2002). (http://www.bidc.state.tx.us/overview/2-2te.htm), Per capita (already in US$): $36,317.
France’s GDP: $1,307 B (presumed 2001), Per capita (PPP): $24,641
(http://www.economist.com/countries/France/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structure)
So, what do we see? Texas emits more than France… and has about 50% more gross product per capita, on just over half as much total production.
One suspects strongly that if Texas got as much of its power from clean nuclear sources as France did, it would emit an amount of carbon far closer to its pure population relation to France… and still produce far more wealth per capita doing it.
Sounds to me most like an indictment of the French economy, more than Texan pollution. (And a call for more nuclear power!)
GDP per capita is a poor indicator of this sort of thing really.
I haven’t seen anything that I would regard as remotely reliable on the supposedly “grave” effects of global warming supposedly now underway. It may well do no more than return us to what is fondly recalled as the Medievel Climate Optimum, that period a few hundred years ago when the climate was significantly warmer than it is now.
In the various climatic optimums one of the things that remained constant was the size of the Antartic ice shelves which have been there since the last ice age.
The recent collapse of the small Andersson(?) shelf was minor. My concern would be the collapse of the Ross Sheet and the subsequent movement in the glacier it holds onto the land. That would be fairly catastrophic.
Of course, the actual disaster would unfold over decades if not centuries but it would be disaster for many major cities.
Another “grave” consequence would be if the Atlantic Conveyer shuts down – a potential scenario which could devestate chunks of Northern Europe like the UK and Northern France.
That an unpredictable weather.
I think the Guardian in dead in the water and the editors are obtuse to their own reckless acts “of political vandalism”
I’d say they suffer from a permanent case of sunstroke.
Dave – I would place the shutdown of the Atlantic conveyor or the collapse of this or that ice sheet in the category of “speculation.” Fine stuff for a movie, perhaps, but is there any data, historical or otherwise, that would support these speculations?
For example, do we know what the Atlantic conveyor did during the mini-ice age? during the Medieval Climate Optimum? during any of the very warm periods in the (geologic) past? As you notetd, the various major ice shelves have survived a number of warmups in the pastl – is there any reason to believe they wouldn’t survive another?
I’ve read scenarios indicating that a warmup will actually increase the amount of water tied up in various ice sheets, as it could well result in more snow deposition there.
Speculation piled on unproven hypothesis is no reason to collapse the global economy.
The global warming crisis is not about the environment. It is a contest between those who believe thay should make choices for everyone based on their heightened social consciousness and those who believe people should be allowed to make the great majority of their life choices for themselves without an inordinate amount of interference.
If one believes that industial capitalism is a moral outrage, then any belief system which promises to control and reduce it is attractive. Then it is certainly appropriate to campaign against nuclear power, because it has “potential” hazards, even if no actual loss of life in a capitalist plant has occurred.
Once you have removed nuclear generation from the equation, as has mostly been done here in the US, it is time to curtail the use of the next most economical and available power source. Thus the attack on coal and oil.
Concurrently, one must always campaign against the automotive industry, as it is a major engine (no pun intended) of the world economy, not to mention that the possession of a car allows one to give the finger to the local vanguard of the proletariat as one drives away.
Whenever you see some literature for one of the environmental groups (or any number of other “causes”), look for that vague telltale phrase about how we will have to “restructure the economic system” or “reconsider our economic priorities” or “accept some limitations on our lifestyles”.
Rest assured, there is a very committed group behind that modest phrase which will be very happy to restructure your employment, reconsider where you live, and place some very strict limitations on your lifestyle.
The key question to ask relentlessly is “How will this be done?” Demand specifics. Every once in awhile, one of these zealots slips and actually says what they want to do. Like the animal rights guy who wrote the population of humans should be reduced to about 100 million. Clarity of purpose like that doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it’s priceless.
I would place the shutdown of the Atlantic conveyor or the collapse of this or that ice sheet in the category of “speculation.” Fine stuff for a movie, perhaps, but is there any data, historical or otherwise, that would support these speculations?
We’ve already seen a minor ice shelf collapse in the last 5 years, one which survived the last climatic optimum, so I’d hardly call the collapse of the Ross Sheet speculation. The small sheet has led to an increased hazzard to shipping which will last years as icebergs of larger sizes drift up into the shipping lanes of the South Atlantic.
Oceanographers have seen “blips” in the Atlantic conveyor probably caused by the lowering in temperature of the Atlantic as the North pole receeds (an observed fact, the Northwest passage is actually open for shipping in the summer now) – whether that happened in the last “mini ice-age” we can’t say. The potential economic impact of the UK having to put up with a climate similar to Labrador would be enormous.
What is often forgotten about global warming is it could make a lot of places much much colder, the problem is we can’t necessarily predict this in anything other than generalities.
In my mind that is all the more reason to be cautious.
veryretired writes:
“If one believes that industial capitalism is a moral outrage, then any belief system which promises to control and reduce it is attractive.”
I think that’s a very accurate assessment, but it looks to the secondary, not the primary cause. This, I’d suggest, is a form of misanthropy. How often have you heard a ‘Green’ say he prefers animals to humans, or that animals should have more ‘rights’ than human beings?
What we’re dealing with here is a mindset – neo-puritanism allied to neo-pastoralism – from which many political views proceed. It is the psychological wellspring of Left-wing political ideas, as well as ‘environmentalism’, so it is small wonder that the two go together so frequently.
As for the original topic, I see the BBC (again!) is still assiduously peddling the same tosh, this time from a professor John Schellnhuber, who bustled on to R4’s Today programme to tell listeners that the current European heatwave is: ‘further evidence of global warming.’
I wonder what he was saying when the USA was suffering abnormally cold temperatures a few months back?
As for Dave O’Neill’s point (our old friend the precautionary principle), I did read him right when he said he had recently flown on Concord, didn’t I?
I wonder what he was saying when the USA was suffering abnormally cold temperatures a few months back?
So? What Global Warming should lead to is more wild and extreme weather, and, it should be remembered some places will get colder too.
As for Dave O’Neill’s point (our old friend the precautionary principle), I did read him right when he said he had recently flown on Concord, didn’t I?
Yes, I did.
I’m not sure what gives you the idea I’m an environmentalist?
I just think caution needs to be exercised in areas where it is practical.
If it helps I think electric cars are a dumb idea too.
If I had my way we’d move to a nuclear/hydrogen economy immediately and lose this lunatic dependance on imported hydrocarbons. Much better for business and the economy.
Dave O’Neill writes:
“So? What Global Warming should lead to is more wild and extreme weather, and, it should be remembered some places will get colder too.”
Leaping on his soapbox the moment we get a short period of hot weather is opportunistic nonsense. It is typical of the hysterical response behind the man-made global warming scam that a ‘scientist’ will take advantage of a single freak warm spell to expound a theory which has nothing to say about the event on which he is capitalising.
Mr. O’Neill also says:
“I just think caution needs to be exercised in areas where it is practical.”
Which seems at odds with your suggestion that we move to a nuclear/hydrogen energy policy.
It might be an ideal. It is hardly practical. Not within 70 years at any rate.
Presumably, as such a frequent air traveller, you do not feel that caution begins at home?
G Cooper,
Leaping on his soapbox the moment we get a short period of hot weather is opportunistic nonsense.
Actually, we’ve now had over a decade of record breakers. The current hot spell is just a blip but the averages are what count, and the average is much higher. There’s a lot of nonsense being spoken in the media at the moment which is, sadly, ignoring the underlying trends and so forth. Likewise, stating hautilly, “we I don’t believe it” isn’t going to help either.
Which seems at odds with your suggestion that we move to a nuclear/hydrogen energy policy.
Why? Given our dependance on fossil fuels to make electricity a move away from them before it becomes a serious problem is a good idea.
It might be an ideal. It is hardly practical. Not within 70 years at any rate.
Really, if we removed the limitations on building new nuclear power stations we could have plenty in a few decades, certainly within the timescale of the natural gas, we are insane enough to be burning to make electricity, running out and us having to by the stuff from Russia.
Presumably, as such a frequent air traveller, you do not feel that caution begins at home?
As I said, you must be mistaking me for some kind of environmentalist.
Although I would like to see the Russian work on Hydrogen burning aircraft to be expanded.