Global Warming — Who Owns the Risk?

Many environmental consequences of the recent global warming trend are evident. Examples include images that everyone who has read a newspaper in the last few years or watched a TV news show has seen. Melting Arctic sea ice and Antarctica ice shelves. Melting glaciers throughout world. Gradual decline of numerous species including polar bears, Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, Adele penguins, polar sea birds, and numerous amphibians. All of those effects and numerous others will continue into the foreseeable future as additional, currently undetected conditions arise.

But what if the world changes the existing conditions wherein CO₂ and other heat-absorbing greenhouse gases (GHG) are injected into the atmosphere? Would we have sufficient time to get those emissions in control and avoid the worst potential effects? The answer is a tentative affirmative, not because the technologies are unavailable but because we lack political will.

James E. Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies believes that we have ten years (starting from 2006) to enact national and international policies and procedures to control those harmful emissions. He doesn’t mean we have ten years to think about doing something but ten years of focused action before climate change turns ugly. As Hansen wrote in an essay on November 28, 2007:

Ignorance is no excuse for us. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming, its causes, and many of its implications. Today’s generations will be accountable, and how tall we stand remains to be determined. There is still time, but just barely.

According to most atmospheric scientists, continuation of the status quo will result in doubling the current rate of poleward movement of climatic isotherms (temperature lines used to mark the boundaries of climate types) to about 70 miles per decade. Several centuries of that movement will result in the extinction of between 40 and 60 percent of the species on Earth and will transform the Great Plains, Southeast, Midwest, and perhaps the Mid-Atlantic states into arid and semi-arid deserts, eviscerating the heart of agricultural America.

The status quo scenario also results in an increase of about four to six degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during the 21^st Century, which may cause the disappearance of polar ice sheets since the temperature rise at the poles would be in the range of about ten to twelve degrees higher than at present, translating into an eventual sea level rise (after several centuries of melting) that may be as high as 80 feet. That gradual rise would inundate all the world’s coastal cities and low-lying islands, displacing perhaps a billion people and drastically altering the socioeconomic fabric of modern civilization.

Under that scenario, it is conceivable that by around 2200 sea levels may have risen as high as 20 feet, perhaps more if glaciologists are correct about the rate of melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. And, as peak summer temperatures rise, the resulting heat waves could push the annual number of heat-related illnesses and deaths to the hundreds of thousands, especially in light of the record heat wave that devastated Europe in August 2003, killing an estimated 35,000 people.

The big question is whether the status quo scenario will play out or governments and individuals will act to control the emission of GHG. Although at this point no one knows, several indicators may be identified. First, awareness of the threats of global warming characterizes much of the general public, though that doesn’t mean either agreement with the science or appropriate actions are close at hand. Second, well-known and wealthy individuals and foundations are using their clout and money on both sides of the issue, to deny anthropogenic climate change and to make a difference in the movement to control the warming trend; so, at this time it’s a toss up. On the other hand, large coal-fired electrical generating plants using current technology are being planned and permitted in several states. Those plants do not employ the most efficient anti-pollution designs and will generate more pollution over their projected 30-year lifespans than if the cleaner and more advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology had been used. Therefore, current conditions are characterized by indicators that point in opposite directions, meaning that the situation is balancing on a fine edge.

But, all is neither hopeless nor lost. One of the key conclusions of the United Nations IPCC 2007 Assessment Report was high scientific agreement that all of the CO₂ stabilization levels that were assessed can be achieved through application of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades. Although that conclusion assumes effective governmental policies and economic incentives are in place, we all know what can happen when financial carrots are dangled in front of hungry entrepreneurs. Conclusion: if we start now, sufficient time is likely available in which to turn things around in terms of CO₂ production.

The point everyone must realize is that science has determined that the world is facing a situation (global warming) that is fraught with risk but is also characterized by considerable uncertainty. The resulting ambiguity makes reaching decisions a difficult process, both for individuals and society. So, what to do? I strongly advocate focusing on who owns the risk. Here’s how it works.

a.      If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is false (meaning that global warming is a natural trend) and we wrongly control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals will likely suffer adverse effects until the regulations are revoked.

Implication: We’re producing GHG and own the risk.

b.      If the AGW theory is false and we take no actions to control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals will continue to experience the existing status quo with respect to climate change with adverse effects being about what we have today or becoming slightly worse over time.

Implication: We’re producing GHG but push a negligible risk into the future.

c.      If the AGW theory is true and we correctly control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals may suffer adverse effects in the short-term but the mid- to long-term climate change problems will be much less severe and shorter in duration, as will negative socioeconomic effects.

Implication: We’re producing GHG and own the risk.

d.      If the AGW theory is true and we fail to control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, the status quo climate change will continue and accelerate over time, causing society and individuals to suffer a wide range of progressively severe negative effects that over the mid- to long-term will most likely become catastrophic.

Implication: We’re producing GHG but push an enormous risk onto future generations.

Although I am neither a moral philosopher nor an ethicist, it seems clear that dumping the risk of progressively severe climate change effects onto largely unborn generations that have not caused the problems would be repugnant and reprehensible. Therefore, whatever we do to avert the adverse effects of global warming must arise from our owning the risk and acting responsibly.