Inconvenient Uncertainties and Moral Ambiguities
Ronald Bailey | May 17, 2006, 2:25pm
An Inconvenient Truth, the new movie centered on former vice-president Al Gore's famous global warming slide show, will open in select theaters on May 24th. The movie trailer warns: "If you live on this planet: If you love your children: You have to see this film." Gore declares that man-made global warming "is really not a political issue so much as it is a moral issue." At the conclusion the words "Nothing is scarier than the truth" appear on screen and then Gore portentously intones: "Our ability to live is what is at stake."
Gore is correct that the scientific consensus is that humanity is causing global warming. Earlier this month, a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded: Global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979.
Gore warns that melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could lead to a sea level rise of twenty feet inundating Florida, Bangladesh, Shanghai, and New York City. But there is a lot less certainty than he implies in such scenarios. For example, a 2005 computer modeling study in Geophysical Research Letters found that Greenland is losing ice which is contributing annually about 15 millimeter to the rise in global sea levels. However, another 2005 study published in Science found that Greenland's ice sheet was growing in the interior while melting along the edges, perhaps resulting in some net accumulation of ice. And then in February 2006, yet another study in Science finds that glaciers in southern Greenland are flowing faster into the sea.
And scientific knowledge about what is going on with Antarctica's ice sheets is similarly uncertain. For example, a perspective article in the June 25, 2005 issue of Science found that on balance Antarctica's ice cap is thickening and thus reducing sea level rise. A new study based on satellite measurements that detect minute differences in gravity found that Antarctica is losing ice. But others conclude from those measurements that melting ice from Antarctica may not be contributing to sea level rise.
Researchers generally project that the complete melting away of the Greenland ice sheet caused by global warming would take between 500 and 1000 years. A new modeling study suggests that if the average temperature increases by 4 degrees centigrade, we could see a rise in sea level of 20 feet by 2100. Keep in mind that 4 degrees centigrade is at the high end of projected average increases in global temperatures. The trends in the NOAA study cited above suggest that temperature increases over the next century will be at the low end of the projections.
In any case, while there is wide agreement that man-made global warming is happening, what to do about it is very much contested. Having seen only the movie trailer at this point, I don't know exactly what Gore's latest plan is, but I suspect that he favors schemes for reducing greenhouse gases emitted by humanity, given his support for the Kyoto Protocol. If the goal is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then emissions will have to be cut by 70 percent. What will be cut? The use of fossil fuels which have powered a 20-fold increase in world gross domestic product from $2 trillion in 1900 to over $40 trillion today. It may well be possible to shift to other energy sources to fuel humanity's future, but some argue that global warming is not the main problem that faces the bulk of humanity -- poverty is.
In an attempt to counter the media blitz that will accompany the release of An Inconvenient Truth, the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, based in Washington, DC, is launching a campaign today featuring two television spots proclaiming that the chief greenhouse gas "CO2 Is Life." The first ad, titled "Energy," properly reminds viewers that fossil fuels "freed us from a world of back-breaking labor" and are used "to create and move the things we need." The ending voiceover declares, "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution; we call it life." The second spot entitled "Glaciers" points out the scientific uncertainties about how global warming is affecting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. The "Glaciers" spot also makes the point that the media tend to headline findings that portend doom, while overlooking less alarming scientific results.
Neither of CEI's TV spots denies the existence of man-made global warming, but they do call attention to the enormous benefits that people have gained from fossil fuels and point to significant scientific uncertainties. CEI's spots are not subtle (hard to do in 60 seconds of video), but neither is the trailer for the movie about Gore's crusade. In both media presentations, CEI and Gore are ignoring scientific evidence that cuts against their views.
In the end, the debate over global warming and its obverse, humanity's energy future, is a moral issue. Global warming may well harm humanity by disturbing the environment, but forcing the world's poorest people (2 billion of whom have never even turned on a light bulb) to use more expensive and technically challenging fuels would also cause great harm. In a sense, Gore is right: What is at stake is our ability to live.
Disclosure: I was the 1993 Warren Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and I have been the editor of three CEI volumes on environmental policy and science. I also dine and go drinking with CEI staff members from time to time and we usually split the check.
James Anderson Merritt | May 17, 2006, 8:02pm | #
Bailey says, "In any case, while there is wide agreement that man-made global warming is happening, what to do about it is very much contested..."
I add my voice to those who doubt that there is "wide agreement" on the human contribution to global warming. I also doubt that there is much that people can do about it, except adapt. Climate shift does seem to be happening, but Mother Nature is by far the most likely perpetrator of the change. I think we are being very arrogant to assert that we either caused or can cure what is happening.
JP says, "If I am not mistaken, water vapor constitues about 92-95% of all greenhouse gases. CO2, nitrous oxide, and methane make up the remainder. ... If that is the case, why hasn't anyone studied the effects of water vapor on GW?"
Water vapor is the pre-eminent greenhouse gas, such a huge component of the total that most accountings I've seen don't even bother to mention it. What's screwy to me is that envrionmentalists don't have a problem recommending vehicles that use hydrogen engines and fuel cells, despite the fact that these emit the single most common greenhouse gas in the world. Do they think that hundreds of millions of engines and fuel-cells, all emitting water vapor, will only affect the world's total amount of water vapor by a negligible amount; or that the injection of a similar amount of CO2 will have a more profound effect on warming than the water vapor? I'm really not clear about what's going through their heads; I've never seen the question directly asked or answered in any "legitimate" forum.
MainstreamMan says, "When you are talking about a fantastically complex system, a small push in one direction or another can have large and very unpredictable consequences."
Yes, which is why the prescriptions about "what to do" about warming are BS. EVEN IF we can someday convince ourselves through rigorous science that humans caused the latest global warming, that does not mean that we will be able to simply stop doing what we did, or undo what we did, in order to "cure" the problem. If we were responsible for a small push that tipped the balance, there is nothing to say that another specific small push will restore it, or even that a massive effort on our part will make a difference. We really need to avoid basing public policy on unsettled, half-baked science.
James Anderson Merritt | May 18, 2006, 3:18am | #
Jasno says, "I'm normally not a fan of handing over the decision making process to the 'experts', but is anyone else amazed by the number of armchair climatologists this debate seems to create?
"I add my voice to those who doubt that there is 'wide agreement' on the human contribution to global warming.
"And your voice matters because of...????"
Because I am a citizen who has followed these issues for years -- to more depth than AP wire reports and blog postings, even beyond "Scientific American" and "Nature" -- and I have seen the many scientific flip-flops in climate issues in the past several decades.
Because I paid attention when studying science in school (and have worked for decades in engineering disciplines). I have some idea of the limits of our knowledge, and where to find the holes in the "scientific" arguments often put forth by demagogues to cow the populace into submission.
Because my day job involves cutting through mumbo jumbo BS to get to the heart of technical arguments, as thousands or millions of dollars may be riding on the decisions made on the basis of those arguments. So they had better be watertight.
The reason I said "I add my voice," is because too many who have real, reasonable doubts about the advertised consensus are silent, and I hope that more people, expressing their doubts, will force advocates on both sides to explain their reasoning, and make their public policy case, more respectfully of the people who will be affected, than they have to date.
Although perhaps you didn't mean it that way, your comment sounds like "sit down and shut up." Not going to happen. If you want me an others like me to go away, make the case (or join us in demanding that it be made) with clearly explained facts and reasoning. Make no mistake: the point of invoking "science" in this debate is to cow people into accepting behavior modification by force, well before the legitimate scientific case is properly settled. I live in California, and I can tell you that air quality standards and pollution controls have a real and non-trivial cost, which should only be borne if the science backing them up is solid. Blinding people with pseudo-science or unsettled science may work with kids, but not with those of us who have been around the block a few times and who have seen where that road has led in the past.
Finally, my voice matters because I am willing to use my real name, and to stand behind what I say. It's pretty easy to take potshots from behind an essentially anonymous screen name. Why does YOUR voice matter?
Ken Barber | May 18, 2006, 8:11pm | #
The wealth that we've accumulated in our fossil fuel economies has been produced on credit, because we aren't paying for the true cost of fossil fuels (in terms of environmental impact, geopolitical instability, etc.). Fossil fuel economies are artificially inflated.
[snip]
No, they saddled us with an enormous future debt that we weren't smart enough to see at the time. A debt that could have a significant impact [sic] the world's economies if we don't address it. The costly energy transition which we will be forced to make at some point (because fossil fuels are finite) is part of that debt.
It's clear that this person has no understanding of economics, and no concept of how the world actually works.
Vague statements about "the true cost" of this or that activity have been the stock in trade of environmental fraudsters for decades, along with doomsaying predictions about saddling our grandchildren with unintelligible "debts" that are never specified.
This is nonsense, folks. The illiterate babbling of uneducated fools. The "true cost" of energy is -- well, what we pay for it! Duh. If/when fossil fuel costs exceed the costs of producing energy in other ways, then someone will begin producing energy using those other ways. There is no "costly energy transition" coming, and "we" (meaning, of course, the enlightened ones who still believe that economic systems need Central Planning) don't need to do anything in particular to "address" it except get out of the way. The market will take care of things rather nicely.
Global warming, by altering temperature and precipitation distributions, can [emphasis added] have disastrous consequences (on agriculture and other industries) without the ice caps melting.
And a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil
can have disastrous consequences in Philadelphia too. So maybe we should destroy every butterfly in the Amazon, just in case?
No, what "can" happen doesn't count. What counts is what is (and is not) likely to happen in the Real World.
Global Warming didn't destroy civilization the last time it happened; indeed, it ushered in a period of greater agricultural productivity, peace, and advancements in human rights (for example, the Magna Carta was developed during that period). So what do you think is the more likely scenario if the present warming period gets to the point where it equals the previous one? Productivity, peace and human rights, just like the last time, or the global apocalypse that you doomsayers are peddling?
Sam | May 20, 2006, 1:39pm | #
It all goes back to "so what!". Even if there is a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere, is this necessarily a bad thing?
Rapid Changes are an inhernetly difficult thing to adapt to. Right now we are like teenagers learning to drive; one foot on the accelerator, one on the brake, but noone is there to guide us, or tell us when to slow down, how best to turn etc.
It will be easier to adjust to gradual changing climate and gradual rise in sea level than it will be to a dramatic change in fossil fuel use.
Who says it will be gradual climate change? Not the climatologists. Exxon most likely.
Such a drastic change will be a serious blow to the world economy because of the higher costs of alternative energy.
Alternative energy for cars is already viable at current oil prices...especially if the world governments stop subsidizing fossil fuels (and everything else for that matter). Methane prices are skyrocketing; Coal has doubled in price over the past ten years. Alternatives are dropping in price, even without the help of subsidies. The writing is on the wall.
Some companies will go under because they can't afford the higher costs, especially the smaller companies.
Tough titties. Actually I disagree about the smaller companies, they have less legacy capital to pay for (aging infrastructure, loans, pensions etc.). I am no bleeding heart liberal nor a bleeding heart corporate welfare-ist...pay to clean up your wastes bitches!
With more money spent on higher cost energy, less money will be available for other goods and services, which will have a rippling effect on the whole world economy.
The ripple effect will be to become more efficent at creating wealth. At least in the capitalist economies...so stop wasting time denying the climatologists for the truth they find, and start getting rid of corrupt inneficient governments.
And even if you doubt all that, consider this nifty tool:
http://flood.firetree.net/
basically, it's a google map modified to show the oceans at different sea levels. It's default is an unlikely 7 meters, but even the innevitable one or two meters of sea level rise (by 2100)would be devastating for the community I live in, more would be worse! I have to weigh that versus the 25 a gallon it costs me to clean up my Co2.
