Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012--Does That Have Your Attention?
Ronald Bailey | January 9, 2007, 10:46am
"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012" reads the actual headline in The Canadian, self-described as "Canada's new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper." Basically, the article is an amped up version of the so-called methane hydrate hypothesis in which rising global temperatures lead to massive releases of methane trapped in permafrost and ocean bottoms. Each molecule of methane has 20 times the global warming potential of a molecule of carbon dioxide.
Should you prepare to kiss your ass good-bye in five years? David Archer, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago writing at Realclimate thinks not. His formal review of the current scientific understanding of the role that methane hydrates might play in future climate change is here .
Leftwingers would never exaggerate the risks of climate change--would they?
Addendum disclosure: Since all good people just know that righwing and libertarian journalists underplayed the risks of climate change for filthy lucre, I need to link to my confession to being an alleged global warming whore to industry.
John | January 9, 2007, 11:36am | #
“Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.”
John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club5
“Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth’s community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed.”
Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics6
“I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard7
“[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It’s an excellent way of making the humans extinct.”
Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front8
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!9
Yeah, those guys are nutcases, but nutcases exist. There is a real disturbing anti-humanist element to the environmental movement.
VM | January 9, 2007, 12:31pm | #
"Please don't think all Canadians are like them."
you mean the country where female impersonators are played by women?
ha ha (i keed! i keed!). If you don't think we're all like John Tesh, you got a deal! You from the east or west? Tofino is still one of my favorite places on the planet!
For example, here
Has anybody else heard the radio spots where a woman narrates various predicted outcomes of climate change ("polar ice caps was a dirty look", etc), getting more and more emotional?
But a while ago we had an argument here that sorta focused on the fact that there are freaks on both sides of this issue, and therefore, critical thinking was important when discussing this issue (e.g., the TCS people vs this article). It wasn't denying climate change, as since the climate and language change are two things we can take for granted.
Rather, there are opportunities for various courses of action to deal with this situation. It doesn't have to be gloom and doom, nor does it have to be a treasure trove for banana plantation futures in Yellowknife, CA.
There are changes, and since people live in proximity to the coast, any changes will be more apparent (changes in weather patterns, sea levels, maybe storms (dunno - just throwing out stuff here)).
And, why not build a portfolio to "hedge" against changes (you could come up with a risk/result schedule and diversify)? Dammit, the CAPM has to be useful somewhere!
Let's say that the climate is getting warmer. Let's say that it's not due to humans. There is still an opportunity to take advantage of what's happening. Let's say it is human caused, or at least there's an identifiable human component - there's an opportunity there, too.
Where are some market based ideas to deal with these situations?
This is rather outdated, but it might prime the pump for those who seem to kneejerk against any planning whatsoever.
When you invest, you diversify for the lean times - why not simply creating a portfolio that can deal with different magnitudes of climate change?
VM | January 9, 2007, 1:02pm | #
Val:
That is indeed a major problem. I did get to sit in on a lecture once where the Danish EU commissioner for the Environment (Ritt Bjerregaard, IIRC), where she and Bertel Haarder (MEP at the time) talked about how an extra benefit of Kyoto is that it would level the playing field with the US. That was one of his biggest selling points about Kyoto!
However, your skepticism seems to go beyond the UN and the politicization of climate change to actually doubt that the climate is changing. Is that correct? (you've just identified the densest substance in the known universe: bureaucratium; just imagine dismantling the agencies dealing with the WoD, WoT, etc). This citizen takes the proposition that UN action = probably sucky, too.
Are you also thinking of Hicks's Induced Innovation Hypothesis? (IIRC)
The economist from Yale, William Nordhaus, a proponent of proactive steps (including government) in this debate.
Richard Schmalensee (MIT) takes a different view, "popular treatments of this issue [of climate change] commonly ignore economics and assume that if society learns that
any warming is likely as a result of human activity, we should do whatever is necessary to stop it. This seems to reflect the widespread view that environmental issues involve rights and wrongs, not costs and benefits, and that environmental policy should eliminate contamination, not replace missing markets"
Both of them use rational, economic analysis to differing end goals. It is a welcome change from the TCS/Greenpeace arguments.
Do you have a problem with the concept that the climate is changing and that there may or may not be significant anthropogenic causes?
(I don't have, nor do I wish to propose, a "solution" - I'd just like to see what opportunities that people see here)
VM | January 9, 2007, 2:08pm | #
Victoria = the most British city outside of GB :)
As you could imagine, my impression of the area is an off-season stay at the Wickannish :)
Val:
fair enough. But given the climate is changing, do you think you have any opportunities to take advantage of the change?
Thinking that the change will be positive, negative, or neutral (I think that covers the possibilities quite nicely. grin), your choices would then depend on the likelihood of change in one of those directions, and the magnitude of the change.
At this point, let's leave the human component out of it, then.
Is there any strategy you can take that will make for an improved position as the change manifests itself (e.g., invest in coastal construction companies; invest in hybrid technology; divest coal holdings gradually; banana plantation futures in Yellowknife (sorry, I really liked that one)...etc)?
Or what sorts of information would you need to consider diversifying to take advantage of the upside? (Again - assuming negligible or zero anthropogenic effect; and taking as a given that UN = poopie)
To those scientifically inclined:
are greenhouse gasses the cause? Water vapor, CO2, methane, N2O are the big four? Which ones do humans make the biggest contribution? What is the proportion of human to "natural" contribution?
For environmentalists:
Let's say that we have achieved better-than-Kyoto reductions of human spewed greenhouse gasses across the board, including China, Russia, India, and other developing areas, so we're at or less than 1990 levels. How long would it be until the greenhouse gasses we put in the environment dissipate?
And, which economies/regions have the most sensitivity (in terms of GDP) to climate change?
What are the different costs involved based on the above-mentioned time horizons for reduction and dissipation plans? Is there room for market-based solutions (including trade liberalization, exploring use of nuclear power, etc), or do you feel that those solutions aren't appropriate?
I'd like to see this not as a zero sum situation, but cooperative and non-cooperative solutions would be interesting to look at.
(Not sure about carbon taxing or trading, as what % is carbon as a contributing greenhouse as compared with the others, and what is the human share, so is it even addressing the biggest part of the issue?)
As for "global action", since each nation and each region (Greenland vs. Maui vs Japan vs Wisconsin vs Bohemia) will have to cope with different changes that will happen over different time horizons, I don't see how a global initiative could hit the mark. Or would you advocate many global initiatives?
(Is this where the DICE and RICE models come into play?)
grrr. will look more into this. HA!
JSTOR is my friend:
A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change
Strategies
William D. Nordhaus; Zili Yang
The American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Sep., 1996), pp. 741-765.
stay tuned! (or is this out of date thinking?)
