Up til now, I've mostly avoided the issue of global warming, simply because
I don't seem to have a view that can be swallowed by most people. And recently
I discovered an insightful article that suggests where the discrepancy lies. Basically it discusses the concept
that the discussion on climate change is a social/political discussion instead
of one concerned with science and process modeling. Quite often, the science is
instead used as an alibi to promote and reinforce one’s existing political
positions and social attitudes.
Attempting to categorize the social/political relationship of people to the
subject of climate change, the article differentiates into 6 different
categories.
And you know what? I don't fit into any of them!!
I am neither on the "left" nor on the "right" of the
scale. But I'm hardly in the middle either. Actually, it would surprise me if
there were many people who would claim to fit right into one of the categories.
And like most poll-related statistics, the answers that we give depend on the
questions.
Nonetheless, here is the linear scale that the author presents:
The Progression of six categories in the climate change debate. For a
description of the positions, click to this graphic: Six Americans.
So what are my views in comparison to the above?
First of all, I can most certainly imagine that burning fossil fuels has
raised carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. The measurements are clear that
CO2 content is rising. I can also imagine that this is causing more
heat to be trapped on the earth's surface, creating a type of
"greenhouse" effect, as the phenomenon is being advertised. And
rising global temperatures will most certainly change overall weather patterns,
evaporating more water from the oceans' surfaces into the lower atmosphere.
Climate patterns will most certainly develop accordingly, creating draught for
instance on the US's central plains while causing more precipitation and more
extreme weather/storms elsewhere.
Now, so far, with these tendentially "certain" views, I would fit
into the author's categories of either being an "alarmed" or a
"concerned" citizen, meaning I'm pretty far to the left. The others
in these two categories, when they talk to me, certainly wouldn't count me as being
one of their own. To the "doubtful" or "dismissive"
(meaning, to the far "right"), on the other hand, I would appear to
be on that far "left" side.
And what about the two categories in the middle? The "cautious",
for instance, are "somewhat convinced" of the science of climate
change but their "belief is relatively weak", so that they could
easily change their minds.
Of course, for me, if climatologists were to show that carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) does not have as much effect on surface temperatures that
we have taken as established the past 25 years, then I wouldn't have much of a problem
with the evidence either. I have no horse in the race regarding global warming and
am not playing politics with the issue - at least not in the assumed way.
I don't think, however, that we need to worry about the scientific
community changing the general consensus anytime soon. For, as it stands,
recent events (those in the laboratory called "earth") are cementing
this consensus and confirming that the modeling has been pretty much correct so
far (drought in the US, methane plumes in Siberia, smallest ice cover over the
Artic for millennia – or at least since the warm High Middle Ages).
So why should anyone try to dismiss the science as not being
"proven"?
And slowly we are getting to the author's actual issue, that the debate on
global warming is not a debate in the realm of climate scientology but on the
level of social science. Only, the author is trying to deal with a different
phenomenon: How can very smart people on the Right deny the "proven"
scientific consensus on global warming? And rightly, he says in the paper
itself that it really has nothing to do with the science in and of itself.
This is the reason I was amazed at the six categories that the author
constructed, for they have to do with how one believes in the science of
global warming - except in the extreme positions. In the social sciences, the
question is a completely different one: What are the morals concerning the
climate and environment and what should our political consequences be regarding
these?
And this is where the linear categories proposed by the author hardly help
anyone, which appear to me to be different than the text of what he's saying.
For what makes a difference how convinced I am of the science if I don't agree
on what the meaning and moral of the science is and of what
should be done about it?
Therefore, I would suggest putting a y-axis onto the graph which at least attempts
categorizing us, the constituents, by how we interpret the science. Because
then, not only I myself would find a spot - and I might just find out that a
(probably even double-digit) number of people think like I do.
So here's my proposal for the graph:
The x-axis deals with the science, going from -2 to +2.
The X-axis considers one's relationship to the science of climate change. -2 is completely convince
while 2 is convinced that the science of climatology is not correct.
On the far left are those who think that the science cannot be doubted and
that human activity and CO2 emissions are by far the strongest
component in driving global warming.
In the middle are those who think there is probably some correlation to
observed warming and CO2 emissions, although there should be a good
element of doubt involved. The scientific community's systemic doubt
(scientific doubt) is also interpreted as real uncertainty to the events surrounding
and causes of climate dynamics.
And on the far right are those that either think that the science of global
warming is wrong, hype invented by the environmentalist (if not directly an
academic/green conspiracy aimed against industry in general), and that the
correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is most certainly
accidental. For in the past 2.7 million years there have been periods that have
measured up to 6°C higher temperatures (interglacials) without human
activity, so probably sun activity and cosmic radiation has more influence on
temperature than any million parts of a common atmospheric gas – which
historically has followed the
temperature curve anyway, instead of leading it.
Now, if you look at this first axis, it would seem that the global warming
debate is already summed up. But, like the author likewise points out, there is
a whole other level to the discussion: What should we do about it, who should
have the say about it, what relationship do we have to the scientific community
and what does it mean for us locally and for the globe? Usually we can call
this the political side of the discussion, while the author calls it the
sociological debate.
For myself, like I've already indicated, the science of global warming is
mostly clear cut. At the same time, I think that for political reasons
from much of the scientific community, which does not want to sow doubt of the
importance of "greenhouse" science (let's not confuse anyone by
including the 18,000 other components which have an influence on climate!),
such phenomena as cosmic rays and other cloud seeders are very underplayed. But
this seems quite human: If you have a message, keep it very, very simple.
Otherwise, nobody will understand what you're trying to convey. With these
caveats, I would not place myself all the way to the left but pretty far:
-1/-1.5 when only concerning the science involved.
At the same time, I would place myself on a political scale pretty right of
center - meaning I usually disagree with greens and leftists who are calling
for strong government action - not that I necessarily agree with the Right's
conclusions, but they are much closer to my own sensibilities.
I most certainly see a much different future than is painted by those on
the Left in regards to global warming.
For I think that the results of humanity's handiwork could only possibly be
calculated into the future, as the ICPP is trying to do, IF we keep living the
way we have up to now. IF we only extrapolate the present into the future, the
scenarios could certainly come to pass. And, of course, the next 50
years have probably already been determined by our relationship to and actions
regarding fossil fuels during the past 50 years. The problem is, I really don't
think carbon dioxide will be our problem in 50 years! By then we could just as
well be worrying about global cooling! Well, not quite so soon, but perhaps in
100 years..
Just think - the scenarios assume that humanity will continue burning just
as much or more fossil fuels as we are now. But what about fossil fuel
restraints? Being in the peak oil camp, I am of the general opinion that
mankind will never burn significantly more in fossil fuels than they are doing
today. IF it were to stay like this and continue a century, we would most
certainly have problems. But if we were only able to continue like this, say,
15-20 years?
Not only with this simple example of disagreeing on the other elements of
the future can we begin to guess what the real problem here is. There are simply
a plethora of opinions, reasonings, interests and sensibilities which play a
part in forming one's political stance on global warming. For the discussion
presented by the author, though, we can use the American political landscape to
describe the sociopolitical side of the coin.
Let's say that on the "left" there would be those who are of the
opinion that:
·
Environmental concerns and economic equality are the most important issues
facing mankind
·
Overpopulation is the basic root of CO2 emissions as well as
other pollution subjects, and therefore birth control should be a quite high
priority of governments
·
CO2 emissions should be strictly regulated and controlled by the
government
·
Global warming needs a global answer, especially concerning the rich West
·
International governances like the United Nations should be given more
powers to control national regulations
·
Government should be very active in promoting and subsidizing renewable
energies and other substitutes which replace emitting technologies
·
Scientists should be brought into government to help construct sound policy
·
Mining, drilling and construction should be highly regulated, so that the
environment and atmosphere suffer as little as possible
·
Economic growth should be restricted to necessities while consumption
should be curbed
I'm sure I've missed a number of points, but the
general tendency becomes clear: climate and emissions regulation fit into a
broader sociopolitical framework, while government (esp. international) should
be powerful enough to make the necessary changes. If this is not done, mankind
will end up destroying itself.
Then there's the middle ground:
·
Global warming probably won't be as bad as the extremist claim
·
National Governments should do what they can and force the car industry to
raise gas mileage standards and improve efficiency in industry and household
·
Atomic power is probably one of the better answers/replacements
·
Governments and industry should be morally committed to voluntarily make
the needed changes
·
Recycling should be made easier - then maybe I would do it too
·
Overpopulation and environmental-misuse issues (except, of course, for CO2
emissions) are mostly problems of the Third World, surely we can donate
money and help teach them how to do it right
·
We've dealt with other issues, why won't we be able to deal with this one
along the way? Global "warming" is only another way of saying that
things change!
In Summary: We don't need more (or less)
government to deal with this or any other issue - our national governments and
industry just have to focus more on easy solutions a bit. Besides, we'll deal
with it probably just fine when we get there.
With myself, I notice a number of tangents to the
way I think. Here are a few examples:
I certainly think it's a shame that people in Bangladesh and New Orleans
will be flooded more often than they have been in the past. At the same time,
isn't it convenient that we have someone to blame for all the problems in the
low lying, poor areas of the world? Why do they have to build at/below sea
level anyway?
As my wife put it quite simply (without any influence from yours truly!):
Haven't there always been climate changes and bad weather? Didn't we always
have to adapt?
And here, the historian comes out in me. Just think of the Egyptian
capitals which had to move after only two centuries because the canals silted
up and the waterways in the river delta changed course? Partially changes in
the amount of water in the Nile were responsible for this .Who knows what was
going on upstream, causing floods and draughts. So why should we be any
different in having to move our low lying cities? If it's built low, it will
flood. The Mayans, the Anasazi and Ancor Wat were all societies built on
constant rain falls/water flows. Once they faltered (of course after having
built their societies on best-case scenarios), the societies began faltering as
well. Nowadays is no different. Why should the world-wide low lying cities not
have to pay/move, irregardless of how wealthy they are?
Or, one only has to think of the end of the last ice age, about 12,000
years ago to see drastic swings of a couple of degrees temperature change in
only decades, not centuries! Some of these swings helped kill off the mammoths,
for instance, and horses in N. America – their place of origin. Back then, most
people were still going with the flow, wandering/migrating back and forth with
the weather and seasons. Some were already starting to divorce themselves from
the short-term effects of the weather by adopting agriculture - and thus
becoming more dependent on the long-term patterns.
On the other hand, over the last 10,000 years we have probably had the most
stable temperatures for the longest time the earth has known in the last 2.7
million years, since the days that North and South America united, creating the
ice-age era that we're still in. Is it really so bad, that this quiet phase
might be coming to an end for a while?
25,000 years ago, as the last glacial passed its peak, the ocean was almost
120 meters lower. 120 meters!! And we should be worried about 1-3 meters in the
next hundred years?
This means, that I might not disagree with the science, but I have problems
with the alarmist results, with what we should do about the scientific modeling.
What I certainly do not agree with is the idea that we are making the earth
uninhabitable. Temperatures might rise – but there is no way that our few
hundred ppm carbon dioxide will touch off a runaway green-house effect.
Desertification in places, yes. Extreme weather in many places, sure. An
ice-free North Pole and a colder Europe because of it, why not? War over the
new habitable zones? Sounds human to me. But extinction? Not because of warmer
weather.
It’s all a matter of proportion.
The second issue is that of other "obvious" consequences. What
actions should government take, for instance? Should so-called carbon credits
be traded? Well, that sounds complicated. Should fossil fuels be taxed so that
they become uneconomical? Why, yes, why not?! Concerning the political debate
that the author was referring to: What should government do because
of climate change? What should government look like because of
it? Should it become all-invasive in the way we live, turning into a moral
agency? No. Right now, government (local and national) and its role doesn't
need to be changed because of a “bit” of global warming.
Generally I agree: The government should pass prohibitive laws and tax
unwanted behavior. For tax dollars go back into the economy, fueling other
activities, while behavior slowly changes. And government should remain as
small and simple as possible.
And finally, what solutions should be offered to protecting the planet from
such global results?
Well, none.
Although I do like some of the geo-engineering ideas out there. Long live
the techno-freak!
Sure, everyone should do their part in cutting down their use of
everything, including energy, while improving efficiency. But to suggest the
typical geo-engineering solutions or world-government approach is really
barking up the wrong tree. Besides, what good does it do for someone growing
corn in the Midwest to worry about the rainforest in Amazonia? Instead, local
corn growers should feel free to use local resources to defend its growing
season. Or to change the crop it's growing – but not to have a monopoly on
water supplies and to pollute the streams with pesticides. Yet these are local
and national concerns, not world ones. Certainly there should be regulations on
the national level regarding the effects of their actions downstream in New
Orleans.
Now with this idea, let's go back to Bangladesh.
A river flows through Bangladesh, taking the Monsoon-rains that dump their
moist air onto the Himalayas back to the ocean. Much of the country ends up
being under water. Year for year. And this is nothing new. The river, though,
has become dangerous, destroying much of the landscape it's flowing through. And
silting up the delta, just like in ancient Egypt. Why – because of global
warming?
Well, the rains have become stronger, but the real problem is that the
forests along the river in the mountains have been and are continuing to be cut
down, so that the effect of the rains are now being magnified along the river.
Meaning: Most of the answers to the effects of global warming lie not directly
with fighting global warming but in fighting the immediate causes (in this case
deforesting).
It's on these grounds that I find myself in the political middle,
perhaps leaning to the right, but not necessarily.
And then there’s the right. The right can be characterized by a number of
other attitudes:
·
CO2 is not a pollutant but a basic building block for life -
"plant food"
·
The science of global warming is far from being obvious and could be
explained by a great number of anomalies and/or causes. Temperature rises
correspond with the general end of the Little Ice Age.
·
Global warming is a ploy to disempower especially the benign American world
military presence, the pax americana
·
For that case, global warming rhetoric is used as a ploy and a moral lever
for a number of things: To loosen American middle class affluence; to give more
power to national and especially international instances; to take power away
from the free markets and give more to a socialistic government; to take moral
authority away from religion and give it to the state
·
It's also an excuse for redistributing wealth to a morally strengthened
third world
·
It's an excuse to take power and wealth away from industry and give it to
central authorities, i.e. more socialism
·
Socialism is the reason for Europe's economic woes today
·
Economic stimulus to private corporations is much more important than
wasting money on "alternative" energies, which btw are not
alternatives all. They're just more expensive and produce less energy
·
CO2 emissions might be high now. If it really is a problem, technology
will certainly be able to deal with it in the future. Energy scarcity is the
same myth as the others promoted by environmentalists
·
We should not be passing "prohibitive" laws (thou shallt not emit
CO2). On the contrary, offshore drilling, etc.. should be allowed,
so that we have the energy we need in order to be able to make the changes we
need.
·
Markets should be free to decide if solutions are needed or not
·
Human ingenuity and market forces will cancel out resource restraints and
pollution problems - meaning we can deal with such things in the future, if it
really is a problem
Well, now that we have two linear progressions from left to right, how
about we turn the social/political orientation on its head, showing those on
the political Left, which tends to be the Green position as well, on the bottom
(-2); those on the political Right on the top (2), so that we can make a nice
grid of the two, combining the scientifity with the politity of the situation.
This is especially for myself important as someone who does not fit on either
of the linear schemes - meaning left is not Left and right is not Right.
Double axis graph:
X-axis remains the same, concerning the science of climate change, while the
y-axis measures the social/political orientation of one's views.
When we plot the views of the six categories presented by the author, we
would expect a straight line from the lower left to the upper right. It seems
to me that this line has a certain bend, like the one I've plotted:
This tells me that the author's attempt to distribute the different views
gets caught up too much on the amount of belief that one has in the science. In
his world view, the population is most certainly bent (like in the graph)
toward ignorance to and/or disbelief of the science. Therefore one's task, to
right the situation, would be to evangelize to a belief in the science of
global warming. Well, that sort of negates the insight that the author is
presenting: That especially in America, people are more caught up in the
politics of climate change (non-consensus) than in the science.
Secondly, on a graph like the one I've constructed, it appears more
possible to find one's own spot in the whole discussion. Like for myself:
Science views more "left", while my political views are more "right",
so that my opinion can be found in the left-upper corner (the blue spot). Other
positions are possible as well, like someone who doubts that CO2 has
a lot of effect on the climate but is in favor of a government that has an
increasing role in society. Yes, mandatory health care should become law, for
instance. This is plotted as red on the graph.
I am very interested in following the climate change debate. In 20 years,
we'll probably have a completely different understanding of how weather works.
And I doubt that CO2 will neither lose its role as driver of climate
change nor it being the central element in the debate. Just think of Kyoto -
how long ago was that?!
And I expect the world to be a touch warmer in 20 years than it is today.
On the other hand, I expect to see the world being much more resource-challenged
than it is today. The search for the next round of alternative energies, fossil
fuels and nuclear will be well under way. The natural gas abundance in the US
will not be completely gone - just restrained and falling unabatedly again.
Basically we will use everything we've got and can get our hands on. Energy
will be even more expensive - but doable.
But right here and now I want to make a prediction that I have not seen
anywhere else – a long-run game changer.
It will be our search for energy which will either make the CO2 situation
worse or better. Sooner or later, though, we will have to move away from
hydrocarbons, just because they will get too expensive to produce. And in our
search for renewables, we will have to get bigger and bolder: The bigger the
engine, the better energies will be able to be collected and harnessed from it.
At the same time, we will begin moving up in the atmosphere: Our
wind mills will get taller and perhaps bigger. And solar will be collected
somewhere above our heads instead of in fields on the ground: Above the
rooftops and above the trees. And someday above the clouds.
Now, in 20 years, the trend to "higher" will be noticeable, but
still so little, that it of course will not have any effect on our climate. As
the years go on, however, it will begin blocking off sunlight that would
otherwise hit the earth's surface. Like in a forest, the ground does not heat
up as much as in pasture or especially in the desert. In 100 years’ time,
perhaps, the newly created shade might start to make a temperature difference,
perhaps balancing out the warming done by CO2. Not long after that,
it might even be making such a temperature difference that the fears of global
warming will be forgotten. Who knows, maybe the ghost of global cooling will
start haunting us.
Granted, this is only one of many possible futures.
But it should demonstrate that it's not at all possible to extrapolate the
present situation with our emissions and our fossil-fuels way of life too far
into the future, the way the thinking on global warming does today.
For others who believe in the abundance of things, this view would praise
the ingenuity of human innovation. But for someone like me, it will have more
to do with unintended consequences. Global warming is most certainly an unintended
consequence. And I think the end of it will be just as unintended.
For this reason, I think it is even dangerous to give elected governments
more power to make the preparations for a future which would - irregardless of
our actions to "fix" the CO2 problem - have no relevance.
(Back to topic: this puts me into the political right.) At the same time, I
think fossil fuels should be well taxed - if only to fund research on how to
get out of the fossil fuel business. Otherwise, subsidies should be kept down
to a minimum - while the government should be forced to get rid of the ethanol
mandate (which forces food "to be burned"). For if corn is not
profitable, why grow it? Of course, there should be help in "doing the
right thing" like planting trees and letting nature and natural vegetation
return.
But that's me preaching again.
Anyway, if you didn't find yourself in one of the six categories presented
by the author, I just thought I would let you know you're not alone. 'Cause I
didn't either.