A few days ago Roger Pielke Jr. pointed to a paper (PDF) by Tim Dyson of the London School of Economics called "On development, demography and climate change: The end of the world as we know it?" Pielke called it "refreshingly clear thinking on climate change." That's true, if by "refreshingly clear" he means "weep-silently-aplogize-to-your-children-and-throw-yourself-out-a-window depressing." Abandon hope, all ye who download PDF here.
Dyson's argument unfolds in several stages, but the brutal conclusion is simple: "In all likelihood, events are now set to run their course."
Here are the five main points made, quoted directly from the abstract:
- First, that since about 1800 economic development has been based on the burning of fossil fuels, and this will continue to apply for the foreseeable future.
- Second, due to momentum in economic, demographic, and climate processes, it is inevitable that there will be a major rise in the level of atmospheric CO2 during the twenty-first century.
- Third, available data on global temperatures ... suggest strongly that the coming warming of the Earth will be appreciably faster than anything that human populations have experienced in historical times. ... Furthermore, particularly in a system that is being forced, the chances of an abrupt change in climate happening must be rated as fair.
- Fourth ... the range of plausible unpleasant climate outcomes seems at least as great as the range of more manageable ones. The agricultural, political, economic, demographic, social and other consequences of future climate change are likely to be considerable - indeed, they could be almost inconceivable. In a world of perhaps nine billion people, adverse changes could well occur on several fronts simultaneously and to cumulative adverse effect.
- Finally, the paper argues that human experience of other difficult 'long wave' threats (e.g. HIV/AIDS) reveals a broadly analogous sequence of reactions. In short: (i) scientific understanding advances rapidly, but (ii) avoidance, denial, and reproach characterize the overall societal response, therefore, (iii) there is relatively little behavioral change, until (iv) evidence of damage becomes plain. Apropos carbon emissions and climate change, however, it is argued here that not only is major behavioral change unlikely in the foreseeable future, but it probably wouldn't make much difference even were it to occur.
Ugh.
There are only a few places to find some wiggle room in this argument.
It's true that historically, prosperity has been tightly correlated with use of fossil fuels. But it's at least theoretically possible that fossil fuel use could decline sharply, through a mixture of efficiency and other, cleaner sources being brought online. It's also true that much of the damage has been done -- the greenhouse gases already heaped on the climate will continue to have effects for many decades to come, even if we completely halt CO2 emissions tomorrow. But perhaps if we quit adding CO2, the climate changes will be slow enough for us to adapt without catastrophic disruption. Of course, both these would rely on the fifth point being wrong, or rather, describing a pattern that we might be able to break this time. Perhaps the impacts of climate change are obvious enough in far-off regions like the Arctic for us to get a head start on dealing with it.
Anything could happen. The future is unpredictable. But Dyson's paper is a stark, cold reminder of just how high the odds are stacked against us.
(For a little counterbalancing optimism, read Mark Bahner's comments under Pielke's post, or just, you know, go read Worldchanging.)
Comments View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 11:36 pm
26 Jul 2005
Yep.
"The agricultural, political, economic, demographic, social and other consequences of future climate change are likely to be considerable - indeed, they could be almost inconceivable."
In the range of hundreds of trillions of dollars and 100s of millions of deaths?
Or renewable energy and conservation, shifting to quality of life instead of quantity of possesions and consumption as the measure of human success.
Permalink
Saucerman Posted 9:11 am
27 Jul 2005
Events set to run their course
Sobering indeed, and it ends with this retort:
"For a little counterbalancing optimism, read Mark Bahner's comments under Pielke's post"
Desperate for optimism I read it. Huh. He posits the notion that we'll all be multimillionares soon, so it won't matter - evidently we can buy our way oout of trouble, just like we've always done. Yeah, that really cheered me up, sure...
sustain - it's harder than you think.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:59 am
27 Jul 2005
Yeah, Saucerman,
Bahner's a bit unhinged. You can get a full dose of wackiness if you visit his blog.
But hey, we take our optimism where we can get it, right?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:41 am
27 Jul 2005
No option but to continue seeking solutions
I don't know. I didn't see anything new here.
The speed of climate change will be greater than what humanity has seen before, but so will our technological growth and reactions. Witness the explosion in the number of fuel-efficient cars and the surge in eco-oriented ad campaigns by many of our major corporations.
In the industrialized west, we spend most of our time and energy seeking status (nice cars, homes, clothes, shoes) and entertainment (computers, cell phones, exotic vacations, televisions, VCRs, DVD's, hiking, climbing, and camping gear) instead of food simply because we can. That gives us a large margin of error. We may one day spend most of our time and energy obtaining food instead of status. Farmers may eventually have more status than car dealers. Pissing away thousands of gallons of kerosene flying to Hawaii to get married may no longer be an option for the common person. Parts of the world that are presently locked into material poverty by their organic lifestyles (lack of access to fossil fuels) may feel less impact from peak oil than the west.
Ice ages desiccate the planet while warming periods humidify it. It is bad news that we have lost equilibrium, but at least it is in the direction of warming instead of cooling. We know what ice ages were like, but we know much less about the warm periods between them. Billions of minds are waking up to our collective delima, solutions will be forth coming. Let's hope those solutions include protecting what remains of our biodiverstiy while we scramble to save our own asses.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
markbahner Posted 7:15 am
08 Nov 2005
Per-capita GDP growth in the 21st century
"Bahner's a bit unhinged. You can get a full dose of wackiness if you visit his blog."
Heh, heh, heh! Seriously, the main difference between you and me, Dave, is that I actually know what I'm talking about.
If you think I'm wrong about per-capita GDP growth in the 21st century, I suggest you go to my prediction at Long Bets #194, and vote against it:
Per-capita GDP growth prediction
Mark Bahner
Permalink