The two Steves knew exactly what they were doing when they sat down to pen the final chapter of their sequel to their 2005 bestseller Freakonomics. In the now infamous chapter in the newly released SuperFreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner manage to downplay the global warming threat, compare climate change believers to religious fanatics, and accept at face value the assertion by some pointy-headed geeks that they can save the world on the cheap.
No surprise, SuperFreakonomics set off a firestorm of criticism and angry rebuke. To quote Joe Romm, “the Superfreaks frame this chapter mostly as their (misguided) view of the science versus the views of that famous non-scientist Al Gore (as opposed to the views of all of the scientists who disagree with the crap they are peddling). That straw man approach gives them the ‘high’ ground.”
The Steves feigned surprise Monday night before a crowd of 300 gathered at Seattle’s Town Hall. Why would anyone get upset about that chapter? We’re not denying the climate change problem, they averred, nor are we saying nothing should be done about it.
To the contrary, the Steves told the audience, when they suggested that the costs of capping carbon emissions are greater than the costs of potential geoengineering solutions, they’re just being good, objective scientists. No, make that economists—the only truth tellers among the social scientists, who get treated like pariahs because they make morally agnostic observations about humanity, they said. Dismal science, indeed.
The truth is, there’s plenty to object to in SuperFreakonomics. The whole tone of the climate chapter understates the threat and overstates the potential for technology to save the day. Some examples:
- Leading off the chapter with the “global cooling” hysteria of the 1970s, which sends a not-so-subtle signal that scientists are wrong lots of the time—so they might be wrong again on global warming (pp. 165-66).
- Citing one economist’s analysis that there’s only a 5 percent chance of the worst-case climate scenarios happening—so why invest billions to fix an unlikely threat? (p. 169)
- Making the “global warming as religion” comparison, as if climate science were just another meaningless sectarian rift (p. 170).
- Worried about sea level rise? Relax. The climate models all disagree, and the rise that will actually happen won’t be all that bad (pp. 185-86).
- Worried about a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats coming up with a draconian solution? Don’t. Even if they do, world governments will behave like “rational actors” and do whatever is in their short-term best interest. China and India ain’t gonna put their development on hold (pp. 202-03).
- You’re still worried about the devastating effects of global warming? Stop losing sleep. There are these smart dudes with Microsoft riches working to solve the climate problem, MacGyver style (pp. 176-96).
That’s a pretty simplistic review of the first part of the global warming chapter. But it’s no more simplistic than the authors’ breezy survey of climate science and unquestioning regurgitation of the wild geoengineering ideas being offered up Nathan Myrhvold and his Hall of Justice pals at Bellevue-based Intellectual Ventures. (Motto: If you thought of it, we already patented it.)
This point bears a bit more scrutiny. Freakonomics and its sequel contain lots of counterintuitive observations based on measurable data. The global warming chapter stands out because, well, it doesn’t rest on data. Myrhvold says he and his pals can float a “garden hose to the sky” to pump sulfur 18 miles high into the stratosphere, all for $20 million in upfront costs and $10 million annually to keep it running. Uh huh.
And the IV brainiacs have super boats in mind that would spray ocean water into the air to feed the formation of clouds, blocking more sunlight from hitting the surface and being absorbed as heat. Sounds great, but how many boats? What do they cost?
Dubner event hinted salaciously that IV has solutions to ocean acidification in the works. Details, please!
These are fascinating ideas. But they’re just that—ideas based on some pretty big leaps of faith, i.e. that these things can be engineered, that someone will fund them, and, moreover, that the solutions will actually do enough to cool the planet.
As Grist’s very own David Roberts wrote a few weeks back, “Lesson: the problems humanity faces are systemic and interrelated. The idea that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere will save us is akin to the hope that a math equation can be solved by erasing one of the numbers.”
OK, enough. The real point here is get beyond the bad in SuperFreakonomics and focus on two messages that deserve greater discussion in the world of climate wonkery.
First, Levitt and Dubner do what economists do best, and that’s note that emissions from burning fossil fuels are a negative externality—fancy economist speak for the fact that we don’t really pay the full cost of relying on coal, oil, and gas. Power plants and their customers around the world generally don’t pay anything now to deal with the environmental impact of CO2 emissions and other bad stuff—heavy metals in the emissions and ash, health effects of particulate pollution, etc.
And it’s an open question whether an international carbon-cap system based on trading credits and buying offsets can genuinely cut carbon emissions enough to reduce global warming that’s already predicted to happen. At the end of the day, no matter what is decided at Copenhagen, it’s still in too many people’s economic interests to keep burning fossil fuels. It’s also right for Levitt and Dubner to note that cutting carbon emissions won’t address methane from livestock or nitrous oxide from fertilizer.
Second, and just as significant, Levitt and Dubner are doing a real service by talking about geoengineering and stressing that technology and innovation are going to be a part of saving our asses—it won’t be done through complex cap-and-trade schemes alone. As fancical and unproven as the ideas proffered by Myrhvold and company are, eggheads everywhere should be encouraged to think about them and figure out ways to execute them. We might just need some wacky tech solutions to fend off the worst effects of global warming while we transition the global economy toward clean, renewable energy.
So, read the book. Take the Steves’ dismissive tone with a grain of salt, but think hard about how we insert geoengineering into the climate discussion, and heed their warning about the limits of public policy to steer people away from the old ways of doing things.
More on the super-freaking-hullabaloo ...
- Levitt’s lengthy defense of the global warming chapter.
- Joe Romm’s lengthier dissection of it.
- Boston Globe writer Drake Bennett’s take.
Video: Stephen Dubner on SuperFreakonomics:
Video: Intellectual Ventures video on “garden hose to the sky”:
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 8:54 am
04 Nov 2009
Melting tundra releases methane, creating another huge feedback effect, along with the feedback of darker solar energy absorbent surfaces.
Ocean water can be strategically sprayed up near desert areas in equatorial regions too, increasing precipitation and greening deserts, which would extract huge amounts of extra GHG, but only given organic agriculture. Which brings up a much better "geo-engineering" solution, that really might not be geo-engineering in the sense that the freaks and geeks talk it up.
Convert agriculture from chemical fertilizer to organic fertilizer derived from biodigestion of the biomass waste stream. That's a way to cancel huge amounts of methane (due to fertilizer and manure runoff acting to decompose cellulose in wetlands) and nitrous oxide from chemical fertilizer and manure. Not to mention that biogas from the process of making organic fertilizer can help to backup distributed generation and storage smart grids.
Whatever happened to the "death of environmentalism" guys? These fellers seem to be cashing in on a similar trend. Dissing the DFH/treehuggers.
As far as the invalid, unscientific talking points they are repeating, have they never heard about exponential feedback effects?
They do have a point on global capâ„¢, it looks like a corporate dodge at best and at worst another source of "derivative" trading for international financial gaming. A commercial wave of renewable energy and conservation products (like electric cars) is already taking off, lead by China and Europe. That is the best hope for climate cure, an exponentially growing business in green manufacturing, investment, and jobs.
To match the pace of exponentially growing GHG climate change, only an exponentially growing wave of profit producing business will do. Now it's the role of governments to shift subsidies from the old energy and ag economy to the new energy and ag economy to help it out.
Spraying ocean water could be some sort of last ditch effort, too late to have the desired effect because there is no commercial profit motive behind it.
This scenario is more likely, let's say we decide we want geo-engineering? Throwing up particles into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight and produce cooling on the order of what happened in 1816 ("the year without a summer"). No need to employ a magical "garden hose".
Volcanoes did that job in 1816 and are getting set to do it again. Land is rising due to magma pressure under Alaska. It was in check, pushed back by the gravity of glacial ice. As the ice melts the magma gets ready for a big blowout. Under Yellowstone the aquifer is drying up, drought and water wasting ag and cities are the culprits in this case.
With the same result as in Alaska, land is rising as the water weight is removed. The magma bubble is pushing up threatening to produce a super volcano. This is happening all over the planet wherever snow and rain drought, melting ice, and human water waste is removing the cap on magma pressure.
Eventually if the trend continues, brought on by climate change and human population growth and water waste, several volcanoes will blow. That will engage a natural catastrophic "thermostat". Say hello to a mini ice age that might make summer dissapear for a few years. Say goodbye to most of world GDP and billions of humans with it.
What say you freaks? Maybe you need another chapter on this scenario?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:28 pm
04 Nov 2009
The answer is to use what we have: wind, solar, geothermal and NOW. The notion that you need to research, develop, toy with or talk about new fangled solutions is simply wrong.
What we need is for everyone to get out of the way of the people who will build non-carbon power sources which can be used to power home, factory, industry and commercial enterprises, and make sure that transportation is predicated on pluggable hybrid vehicles which have adequate range, and use electricity or chemical fuels accordingly. We are taking years to do what should only take months. Too much study can give you earth-burn!
We have the tools in our hands if we will just stop stalling and pragmatically get down to the building.
If we sweat the small stuff for too long, the picture is going to change, either politically or physically, and it may be too late to protect what we love.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 1:26 pm
04 Nov 2009
i agree with your overall point that we should concentrate on technologies that are deploy-able now. im generally very skeptical of silver bullet geo engineering fixes too. but people should look into them and research them nonetheless, only as an academic exercise tho. the problem is that they are passed off as realistic solutions to our problems while they are merely pipe dreams.
i work in cellulosic fuels and i can speak on this topic from experience, subsidies for biofuels created the disastrous corn ethanol boom and bust while diverting investment and research money from more worthy endeavors (like turning waste products into fuels instead). now that corn is old news, everyone is excited about biomass this and biomass that, but it matters what biomass you are using.(i suggest people read "big biomass, big problem" for more on this) If were growing the biomass for the sole purpose of making fuel or electricity, we will inevitably increase deforestation and wreak havoc in food markets as arable land is turned from food to fuel crops. the real contribution from biofuels will be much smaller than many hope and believe, tho i believe it is worthwhile nonetheless.
over-subsidization of solar led germany (one the least sunny countries in the world) to have the highest amount of solar panels per capita. those solar resources in germany could be making considerably more power with the same amount of resources expended elsewhere. many of the hurdles we face in renewable energy are simply scientific, and will take time. these new renewable energy sources will have drawbacks and unseen costs as well, we should always question the claims and promises of any new tech industry and weigh all possible costs and benefits.
when daniel says "What we need is for everyone to get out of the way of the people who will build non-carbon power sources", hes exactly right. what i mean is that the government needs to stop subsidizing oil, coal and gas companies and create a system where new (and old) technologies are judged on their ability to create the most energy with the least (ideally none) emissions and negative side effects(toxic waste, harmful chemicals etc.). i dont mean to be too much of a downer, im for the cause, just a little realism is always good.
o ya, best thing in my opinion that could be done right now: smart grid, and also a tax incentive program, or someting like, it to encourage people to weatherize their homes, it would save alot of energy and put alot of folks back to work.
great article too, always best to judge the claims made based on their merit rather than make personal judgments.
cheers,
isaac
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:33 pm
04 Nov 2009
I try to make sense, like anyone would who is in the passenger's seat of a car trying to talk sense to the driver as it goes off a mountain cliff.
Incidentally, you said in another post: "i am generally sceptical of feedback loops, but am admittedly ill informed on the issue and will need to do some reading."
Something worth noting is that 1 gram of ice at 0 C takes 80 calories to become liquid water at 0 C. However, that same 80 calories if applied to 1 gram of liquid water will warm it to 80 C, or about 170 F.
Ice melt is a surrogate for stored additional heat in the environment, and when its gone, that sensible-heat energy goes elsewhere, possibly into the atmosphere. That's where you really see feedback loops.
Dan
Permalink
mememine69 Posted 2:47 pm
04 Nov 2009
SAVE THE PLANET you say? The end of the world is kind of the last bullet in anyone’s bag of threats don’t you think? What’s worse than death? You can’t raise the stakes after threatening us with death of the planet Earth. You are all in here Buddy. You have bet everything, the house and the farm. There is no going back now as you are: All in! You better show us a crisis soon because cooling trumps predicted warming every time and this public belief in this mistake can’t last much longer. History says fear is always a temporary motivator so this CO2 theory is not sustainable for another 23 years.
The validity of Climate Change is heading for a cliff because we know you doomers CAN’T come through with the goods like you global warmers said you would, a promise of climate crisis. And suggesting bad weather is climate change is foolishly transparent and worn out and it’s been 23 years of that childishness. Stop this insanity now and we deniers demand the IPCC renounce this theory and work on a new generation energy development.
The smoggy 70’s are gone, Rachel Carson Rules and now is the time to put this CO2 mistake aside so we can all come together to protect, preserve and respect our planet and face the future of progress with some dignity, not this fearing the unknown, assuming the worst and fighting a non existent enemy of climate change.
It’s not so far fetched to suggest that the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki could be charged for intentionally holding our countries needlessly on a collision course with death for almost a quarter century.
Let it go people, let it go.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:49 am
05 Nov 2009
A continued reliance on imported oil and oil wars to get it. An economy at the mercy of merciless multinational corporations (many of them state owned like ARAMCO, the saudi national oil corp), international manipulated oil trading markets, and debt financed by oil producing nations.
Are you suggesting we wait and let China manufacture all the devices needed for the new global energy economy? And that we keep on track making gas guzzlers and removing mountaintops to keep burning coal? Driving toyota and honda monster gas guzzling trucks and sUVs? I've noticed all the real "patriotic" gas guzzlers are switching to imported infernal combustion behemoths.
Maybe you ought to form your own country then. Do you already live in Texas, the governor wants to secede from the union?
Yes I'm sure you love teabagging as much as the next feller, you have proven that already. Please use it to destroy someone elses future, ours is spoken for already. Sarah Palin would make a great dictator. Good luck with all that.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:05 pm
05 Nov 2009
Dan
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:16 pm
04 Nov 2009
Anyway, you should take a look at the video at this URL:
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/10/15/full-show-october-15-2009/7801/ at 21:32 minutes
The reconstruction shows the time-lapse (based on historical measurements) elimination of thick ice in the arctic such that we are now down to one year old refreeze ice, a material which is likely to disappear much quicker.
You want proof, you may get your wish. Wise people say: beware what you wish for, you might get it.
Recall, if we're all in, so are you.
Incidentally, there were nay sayer when it came to solving smog; any ideas on how we solved that problem?
Dan
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 2:00 pm
05 Nov 2009
i didnt mean to say that i was skeptical of the existence of feedback loops (poor wording), but that im skeptical of many of the conclusions people draw from them. observation has only accompanied theory on this topic for a very short time, so i dont feel one can draw any meaningjul conclusion yet; im not criticizing the science. i am intrigued, tho, and want to know more.
speaking of windfarms, i live in indiana just down the road from huge wind farm. people in the area say that it is supposed to be the largest in the country when it is finished, though i am highly skeptical of this claim:) its in benton county indiana if you want check it out, (and also possibly verify its relative size to other windfarms) pretty cool stuff
cheers,
isaac
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 6:04 pm
05 Nov 2009
The coal folks are throwing everything they can at distracting people from wind power. It's highly competitive and you may have seen some of my other posts in which I talk about China's commitment to build 100,000 to 150,000 MW of wind power in the next 9 years. That will have a potentially devastating effect on US efforts to build the industry back up. As I point out, while the global warming naysayers are playing word games, the Chinese are moving quickly to dominate worldwide an entire industry they didn't have 4 years ago.
If you take a look at my column at http://www.sddt.com/commentary/ and scroll down to Daniel Coffey, you'll see the most recent three and then below them is a link to my most recent year's columns. I write a lot about wind, solar, global warming, politics, political corruption, - just the usual stuff - But I use numbers.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:30 am
06 Nov 2009
In California, many see only a local issue which take precedence and don't really appreciate what may happen if we don't quickly reduce the concentration of atmospheric heat-absorbing chemicals. A phrase a friend of mine uses on occasion says it best: we are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Hence my complaint with climate-change naysayers who create distractions and mistrust. It's analogous to a manager in a fight distracting his fighter's attention away from his opponent, and then the opponent does a little clobbering! Gee, thanks!
I am absolutely for improving the quality of life, saving species, preventing environmental degradation, and I believe that the best hope we have for that endeavor is to keep an orderly civilization and communicate a clear, viable and positive vision of what the future can be. To do that we have to take some steps.
In my thinking, the real challenges are psychological, emotional, and spiritual - but generally credible, unvarnished communication. We have the technology and its pretty good. Some sacrifices are going to be required, some compromises made, but we need the will and common vision to do what must be done. I suspect it will turn out a lot better than people now think - if we make it so.
Thanks for your efforts.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 7:47 am
06 Nov 2009
i completely agree, theres an energy revolution taking place as we speak and were missing out, thats why i work in renewable fuels. we do work all over the world, pakistan, columbia, egypt, brazil; everywhere in the world has agricultural and municipal waste to process. our company is currently deploying cellulosic ethanol technologies to turn various waste streams, like wheat straw and paper sludge, into ethanol. ethanol is a crappy fuel, bad gas mileage and you lose half of your sugar as CO2; the only reason we use it is because humans are really good at using yeast as weve been doing it for so long. the new stuff were working on is really cool, were developing a bacterial fermentation that converts CO2 into a hydrocarbon with no CO2 created during the fermentation(not to mention double the yield) we will literally be able to hook our reactors up to a coal plant, or anything else that emits a CO2 from a controlled point, and turn their CO2 emissions in fuel.
i find that its only talking heads taht have corporate masters to please that attack wind energy, i can assure you that it is a broadly popular venture here in indiana. i live out in the country in solidly "red" state territiry, but everyone ive ever talked to is proud to have a windfarm close by, people drive out just to stand underneath them because they're so cool. i always try to push these broadly popular aspects of ecology, like wind farms, farmers markets and the like, when im talking to conservatives/independents/whatever. people are motivated to action by a positive vision for the future and i always try to emphasize what this lower carbon future could look like. ill definitely check out your link, thanks again.
cheers,
isaac
Permalink