Consequences of Global Warming 02

If any of you Readers who believe the threat of climate change is real are feeling worried or, worse, fearful about the future for our children and grandchildren, all is neither hopeless nor lost. One of the key conclusions of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report was the high agreement and much evidence that all of the CO₂ stabilization levels that were assessed can be achieved through application of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades. Although that conclusion assumes appropriate and effective governmental incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment, and diffusion, we all know what can happen when financial carrots/incentives and tax credits are dangled in front of hungry entrepreneurs.

If we start now, sufficient time will likely be available in which to turn things around in terms of CO₂ production; but only if we start now. Most scientists believe that many adverse climate change effects can be reduced, delayed, or avoided by adoption of targeted mitigation measures. That belief is reinforced by another IPCC conclusion that mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have large positive effects on opportunities to achieve lower CO₂ stabilization levels. Remember, effective mitigation requires a multi-layered response to the threat of climate change: personal and policy/regulatory. But, if our response does not function at all levels, then the mitigation will be less effective. It is critical to realize that no quick fixes are possible. Even after we have adopted the most efficient mitigation available, the global warming issue will be with us for decades and longer. In 2005, James W. Hurrell, Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, made a very significant observation about the time scale of the benefits of mitigation policies for altering climate effects: “it should be recognized that mitigation actions taken now mainly have benefits 50 years and beyond.”

What could push the situation in either direction are concerted citizen actions and pressure on politicians at every level to reduce “greenhouse” gases and other pollutants OR highly focused donations to political campaigns by well-healed energy-related companies and individuals to hold the reduction of GHG to “economically defensible” levels. As of mid-2011, the future is too uncertain to predict and may remain so for a number of years. However, if the anti-science Republican Party and it’s know-nothing leaders win the White House and Congress, all bets are off and my guess is energy conservation and GHG reduction are in the toilet.

SOB’s View Point: Who Owns the Risk?

Obviously, scientists have insufficient information to determine whether climate change will lead to the hottest temperatures in ten million years or to another ice age that extends across Europe and North America. Although time will tell as to which of several climate change scenarios will prevail, none of us, no matter what we believe now, will be around to say, “I told you so,” and so will most of our children.

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 enormous uncertainty. The resulting ambiguity makes reaching decisions a difficult process, both for individuals and society, especially decisions that largely affect the future. So, what to do? I strongly advocate focusing on who takes ownership of the risk. Here’s how it works. Read the following statements carefully because they are complex.

a.      If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory turns out to be false and we wrongly controlled GHG by over-regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals will likely suffer adverse effects until the regulations are rescinded.

Conclusion: We are producing the GHG and own the risk.

b.      If AGW turns out to be false and we took 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.

Conclusion: We are producing GHG but push a negligible risk into the future.

c.      If AGW turns out to be true and we correctly controlled GHG through appropriate industry regulation and curtailing certain types of 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.

Conclusion: We are producing the GHG and own the risk.

d.      If AGW turns out to be true and we failed to control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, climate change will continue and accelerate over time, causing future civil 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.

                 Conclusion: We are producing the GHG but through lack of action 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 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 in a responsible manner.

Like a number people who have studied the potential effects of global climate change for several decades, I am more than a little conflicted, holding what are essentially opposing ideas simultaneously. On the one hand, I think that the world has or will have access to techniques that are capable of reducing GHG and mitigating their adverse effects. Once financial incentives have been put into play, entrepreneurs all over the world will spring into action and create viable solutions to many, if not most, of the problems caused by emitting high levels of GHG. And, after unrelenting pressure from individuals and NGOs, governments will enact and enforce policies/regulations that are intended to reduce GHG to sustainable levels.

On the other hand, the effects of inertia on achieving control over GHG emissions cannot be discounted. In the past decade, it has become increasingly clear that the world lacks the political will to cut global emissions. China’s growing GHG emissions are on pace to double those of the United States in a decade, and that country shows little interest either in slowing down its pace of growth or adopting and enforcing environmentally sustainable practices at any level. Plus, India’s growth rate puts its GHG emissions only slightly behind those of China. Neither Brazil nor Indonesia seem to have any desire to control the senseless destruction of their tropical forests, an incredibly deleterious practice that not only increases GHG emissions but also reduces the global oxygen supply. The United States has refused to cap its emissions or enact sustainable GHG regulations and much of Europe has failed to satisfy even the modest terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 landmark treaty on limiting GHG.

In addition, several other types of inertia must be taken into account. First, the level of disbelief in the adverse effects of global warming by individuals and leaders throughout the world has to be considered. In the US alone, millions of uninformed people as well as thousands of high-level corporate executives regard AGW as a hoax; changing their minds and corporate practices is a daunting challenge likely to take decades to achieve. Second, consider the inertia set in place by the many coal-fired power plants in the world, which will go on spewing GHG into the atmosphere for between 35 to 50 years, no matter what other mitigating measures are enacted. Finally, you cannot forget the inertia of changing from the relatively fuel-inefficient motor vehicles of today to a more highly efficient technology of the future, especially here in the U.S. if more anti-science Republicans are elected to national office.

Overall, given the numerous significant constraints that cripple opportunities to effect beneficial change, I simply do not believe that global, national, or individual efforts to control, reduce, or mitigate GHG emissions will be successful over any period, from short- to long-term. From my perspective, by the time the world either recognizes the dangers or can enact effective measures to control GHG emissions, too many tipping points will have been triggered and systemic and irreversible environmental collapse will be underway.

Therefore, I believe that personal choices and sacrifices in terms of attempting to prevent significant climate change, no matter how laudable or seemingly sustainable, will prove singularly unsuccessful. I fully recognize that that position contains more than a small element of self-fulfilling prophesy. To counter that element, I remain deeply committed to working as hard as I can to achieve meaningful policies to reduce GHG in the atmosphere. And I try to live as energy-conscious a life as possible.

As an aside, I am very happy that I am too old to see what I feel in my heart will be the inevitable, adverse, and catastrophic consequences of the blindly foolish choices we are making today.