He looks to Europe for a case in point, citing International Energy Agency statistics showing that most European countries have increased carbon emissions since 1990. Samuelson notes two exceptions, Germany and Britain, but claims their cuts had "nothing to do with Kyoto;" Germany because of reunification (fair enough), and Britain because ... they had already decided to make cuts. Hey, they still cut their emissions.
But even though this is all just empty talk, none of it matters anyway, says Samuelson, since emissions from developing countries will ensure that greenhouse gases will still rise, and not by any small amount. This leads to his later conclusion that "[w]ithout technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it."Samuelson then goes on to make three policy suggestions. For a column that took a very pragmatic, very realpolitik, maybe even cynical approach, his first suggestion strays far from that: a "stiff" oil tax.
"Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where." This one might have Samuelson catching some flak from environmentalists, but I think he's right in his assessment of the uncertainties. It's tough to tell from just one paragraph though.
The third prong is R&D. In another potential point of friction with some environmentalists, Samuelson asserts "Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. 'Renewable' energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice."
Letters to the editor, especially on that last one, welcome here. Comments, of course, are below.
Comments
View as Flat
wallrock Posted 2:57 am
29 Jun 2005
One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits.
This coupled with the inherent uncertainty of global warming is where we lose a lot of people sympathetic to the cause. There is no shortage of credible predictions out there, but they remain that: predictions. That is why more moderate approaches are the best bet at this time. The payoffs are low, but so are the risks. It's from these "baby steps" that we will generate the momentum to achieve lasting change, not just hot air from politicians who want to corner the green vote with a few symbolic words or votes.
Permalink
bhurley Posted 4:00 am
29 Jun 2005
I thought the story was that Britain's emission reductions were due mainly to the "dash for gas" that occurred when the newly privatized electricity industry dumped coal power and switched to natural gas?
Anyway, I think most governments set greenhouse gas targets and pledges without understanding that they cannot control emissions with any precision. To promise that you'll reduce emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by such-and-such a year is plain silly, because emissions are so closely tied to things that are impossible or difficult to control, such as the weather, the economy, and fuel prices. That's why Kyoto's targets are averaged over a several-year period.
Permalink
chris@organicmatter Posted 4:07 am
29 Jun 2005
To say that there are uncertainty about what the effects will be is only true if we don't know the magnitude. For any given level of warming we can make very likely predictions about what the consequences, and those predictions, even for the bottom end of 2-5C warming are catastrophic.
Between 2 and 3oC warming coral reefs are projected to bleach annually in many regions. At the upper end of this temperature band, the risk of eliminating the Succulent Karoo and its 2800 endemic plants is very high. Moderate to large reductions in the Fynbos can be expected, with the risk of significant extinctions. Australian mainland alpine ecosystems are likely to be on the edge of disappearance, substantial extinctions of endemic Alpine flora in New Zealand are projected [28] and European alpine systems are likely to be at or above their anticipated tolerable limits of warming with some vulnerable species close to extinction. Severe loss of boreal forest in China is projected and large and adverse changes are also projected for many systems on the Tibetan plateau [29]. Large shifts in the range of European plants seem likely and a large number of Eucalypt species may expect to lie outside of their present climatic range [30]. Moderate to large effects are projected for Arctic ecosystems and boreal forests. Within this temperature range there is a likelihood of the Amazon forest suffering potentially irreversible damage leading to its collapse [31, 32].
Please click the above link and check out the paper yourself, where you can read about what Dr. Hare predicts will have already happened between 1oC and 2oC warming, and what we can expect above 3oC.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 1:07 pm
29 Jun 2005
However, I think I would be in agreement with Samuelson in that we both would say that there are a million and one things, in addition to the ones that Chris mentions, that could happen as a result of that 2-5 degree increase, and that we can't say whether those things will be good or bad for the ecosystem, for two reasons. First, we don't know exactly what all 1,000,014 will be, since we can't fully understand something as complex as an ecosystem or the global climate, and second, we can't say whether they will be good or bad because we are making a value judgment if we do. Some people might really like to have a certain number of a certain species around, but other people might hold human health or human lives as a priority over that species remaining in its "natural" habitat. I think that's where the "iffy" proposition line is coming from.
There are some things that we can indeed be certain will occur as a result of that temperature increase. Sea level rise is one. I'm again with Samuelson when he says that the best course of action might be to focus on adaptation rather than prevention, for two reasons. To some extent I think we may have already made our bed and have no choice but to sleep in it, because of the lags inherent in the global climate system. This leads into the second reason, which is that there are a great number of people who cannot adapt to climate change as easily as people in the developed world can. Taking action to change that situation is solving a problem that is much more direct, has other benefits as well, and has very tangible results.
Permalink
chris@organicmatter Posted 4:18 pm
29 Jun 2005
1.) I've got good money that I could track down a lot of ecologists and climatologists would take issue with your assertion that "we can't fully understand something as complex as an ecosystem or the global climate." The word "fully" seems to be your faux-trump here, since you can correctly claim that we will never be able to predict ecological or climatic events with 100% certainty, but for practical purposes we understand most of these systems quite well.
2.) You seem to present a case in which there is a tradeoff between biodiversity and human health here: "Some people might really like to have a certain number of a certain species around, but other people might hold human health or human lives as a priority over that species remaining in its 'natural' habitat." I don't follow this tradeoff argument, and would be inclined to suggest instead that human health is inextricably linked to ecosystem health, of which biodiversity is a good indicator.
3.) Sea-level rise is a good example for your argument, as there is a significant degree of uncertainty here. For a recent article at Organic Matter I did quick literature review to determine the likely magnitude of sea-level rise, and the information I found was consistent with the IPCC's estimate of 28-49 cm (~1-2 ft.) by 2100. You point out, mostly correctly that we have already "made our bed and have no choice but to sleep in it." I say "mostly" because you're right that a certain degree of warming and sea-level rise is built into the global climate system, but to suggest that this means mitigation is useless is fallacy. Will we have to deal with the consequences of climate change no matter what? Yes. Does that mean that we should continue to exacerbate the problem with abandon? No.
4.) I admire your argument that it would solve a root problem to increase the capacity of less-developed parts of the world to deal with inevitable problems such as sea-level rise; you're absolutely right. At the same time I have to ask exactly how you suggest we solve the thousands-of-years-old problem of poverty by the end of the century? Unfortunately the best we can do is to solve the problems that we can solve rather than those that we wish we could solve. I believe that carbon emissions can be mitigated to a sustainably low level by 2100. I do not believe that world poverty can be eliminated in a similarly short period of time.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 5:05 pm
29 Jun 2005
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 10:17 pm
29 Jun 2005
I agree, that within say an order of magnitude we can understand and predict what will happen to the ecosystem and the global climate. There's more work to be done, too, like these projects I mentioned. I would throw in lightheartedly that I am not impressed by the ability of the NWS to predict rainfall when they go with .10-.25 inches and we get 3.97 inches (June 28th). As you point out, there's a sliding scale here, and it depends on what "practical purposes" we have. I'll concede that this point is not any sort of trump, faux or otherwise :) ...
...but shift that dubious distinction to point number two. It was poorly developed in my comment, but I'll give it another shot here. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to care about the global climate in 50 years or biodiversity in the ecosystem as a whole when he is uncertain about if he will be able to eat for the rest of the week. If you told me that a company was going to build a factory that would have one and only one direct effect on the ecosystem, say, the removal of a particular species from the area, but it would mean jobs for 10,000 people who could have a steady source of food because of those jobs, I would go with the jobs. I realize that this is a very oversimplified and unrealistic example, since "when one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." I had some related comments recently here and here about this same topic, sort of.
I agree wholeheartedly that mitigation should continue full speed ahead. I hope it didn't look like I was implying that mitigation is useless, because I don't think that at all. But there is low-hanging fruit to be grabbed on the other side of the coin, in that some, not all, money can be put to better use if we funnel it toward adaptation.
Fair enough. I have no idea what the chances are of us "eradicating poverty" by 2100, but I agree that they aren't great. However, I don't think it's necessary to comletely eradicate poverty to avoid many of the disasters that global warming would bring on the poorest people in the world -- obviously we're not going to have six or eight or ten billion people in air conditioned houses that are a safe distance from the ocean by 2100, or ever for that matter. But I think that there's a lot to be gained (and avoided) if we can bring the bottom third of the world's population up to a level where they will not bear the full brunt of some of the effects of climate change, which I (perhaps naively) see as an attainable goal. The way to do that, however, is a discussion for another day and probably another blog.
Permalink
bhurley Posted 10:50 pm
29 Jun 2005
As for the mitigation versus adaptation issue, yes of course we need to move forward on mitigation, but our adaptation strategies should proceed on the assumption that mitigation will fail. In other words, strive for the best but prepare for the worst.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:31 am
01 Jul 2005
We do not go into African game parks to slaughter the elephants in time of famine, we ship grain across the oceans. Once an area is established as off limits, it simply becomes a constant instead of a variable in the equations leading to solutions (we find ways to work around it). Establishing and interconnecting preserves should go on in the face of global warming, allowing animals to migrate to climates that they can survive in.
Keep in mind that a species cannot be seperated from its natural habitat and survive long term (other than humans). They co-evolved--polar bears, penguins. Speciation is usually the result of adapting to a specific habitat. Zoo's cannot replace nature. Given enough time, zoo animals would adapt to their environment and eventually bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. That won't happen though because zoo's disappear in times of social upheaval and cannot exist in geologic timespans.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
04 Jul 2005
"...none of it matters anyway"
I'm wondering wether you folks at grist are only introducing rhetorical points to drive debate (as Dave has suggested) or really believe these talking points straight from nuke, "clean" coal, and big oil lobbyists?
Even many republicans have now conceded that global climate change is real, and that renewable energy is a practical solution.
Do you just scan over facts like wind electric power is down to 2 cents per kwh, and the sprol articles about nuclear waste. Don't believe me on nuke waste, but can you really doubt the government study cited by sprol and others?
It's a mystery.
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:31 am
04 Jul 2005
This is equivalent to the talking point that evolution is just a "theory". Global climate change from fossil fuel combustion is just a "theory".
On the evolution talking point they then imply that creationism is in the bible, the bible is the word of god, and therefore creationism is not just a "theory".
Likewise (the talking point faux argument goes)the bible, the word of god, implies that this earth is humankind's to exploit in anyway they see fit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:36 am
04 Jul 2005
This is exactly like the old nuclear power, oil, and clean coal...or horse and buggy argument. A false dilemna.
Like the famous mushroom cloud over the US...or invade Iraq false dilemna faux argument that condi and others pushed before the Iraq war.
These folks use the mist transparent informal fallacies over and over again. Condi surely took notes during philosoiphy 101 and completely understands what she is doing, ignorance is no excuse.
And it's no excuse with the environmental debate either.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 am
04 Jul 2005
Yep, once again, another famous talking point fallacy. converted to the environmental sphere, global climate change is setr in motion, we are powerless to stop it.
The similar example from a war talking point...
War is inevitable. The only way to maintain peace is through constant war.
As Orwell put it, "these wars are not meant to be won, they are meant to be continuous". Thus "War is peace."
So global climate change is inevitable, don't worry be happy, keep on burning down spaceship earth while bushco inc. fiddles.
Permalink
bhurley Posted 3:19 am
04 Jul 2005
Even the "skeptics" agree that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause global warming; there is virtual consensus on that matter even from the most prominent skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels.
There are really just two areas of uncertainty: 1) to what extent will the climate change in response to a given increase in GHGs, and 2) what will be the effects of those changes? There is real uncertainty in those areas, and denying it erodes the credibility of environmentalists.
Scientists are still learning how the climate systems works and haven't yet discovered all of its influences. Just a few years ago, for example, a study published in Nature provided evidence for very long-term (~3,000 year) cycles in climate that are related to the relative strength of tides (which in turn are based on long-term changes in the relative positions of the Earth, Moon, and Sun over thousands of years). When tides are strong, there's a lot of vertical mixing that brings cool water to the surface, with a cooling effect on global climate. When tides are weak, there's less mixing and the climate warms. This cycle was only discovered four or five years ago. Nobody knows if there are other natural cycles waiting to discovered that may amplify or counteract global warming from fossil fuels. To claim that we fully understand how the Earth's climate system works is hubris. The climate models do a very good job, but modelers are the first to admit that some of what goes on in their models is "black box" guesswork.
I'm only pointing this out to argue that we should accept the fact that there is uncertainty around projections of global warming. But there is no logical reason to cite the existence of uncertainty as grounds for doing nothing. Uncertainty is a necessary ingredient of risk. Without uncertainty there is zero risk. Politicians understand this, but they still cite uncertainty whenever they want to avoid undertaking some policy that's likely to result in them not getting re-elected.
I think that instead of trying to pretend that there is no uncertainty in future projections of global warming, we should be calling politicians out on the fallacy of their argument that the existence of uncertainty somehow negates risk and can be used to justify a policy of inaction. Policy makers make decisions to act in the face of uncertainty every day.
Permalink