With the UN climate-change conference underway in Copenhagen, the swords are drawn on both sides. Despite the fact that I wrote a post on climate change quite recently, I realized while rereading it that recent events probably necessitate another post. I have heard some interesting viewpoints that have caused me to adjust my position on the issue somewhat, and that is always reason enough to write.
Basically, in my previous post I advocated a fairly aggressive cap and trade system, combined with significant investment in renewables and other efforts, including modification of the GST. I also pointed out, however, that the hysteria around climate change had reached a point where the predictions of doom were far removed from the actual science, and perhaps even more troubling, the issue was actually starting to detract from other worthy environmental endeavours.
I have since heard some viewpoints that have significantly reinforced those beliefs. I recently read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, and subsequently watched the excellent Munk Debate on Climate Change, held in Toronto a couple weeks ago. Dr. Lomborg is 100% on board with the mainstream view of climate science, but he gives people like Al Gore fits with his views on what should be done (or not done) about climate change.
Dr. Lomborg spends much of his book arguing that although climate change will have negative consequences, they are far overblown by supporters of radical action, as well as by the media. Here I agree with him completely. He also makes a case that existing programs like Kyoto are expensive and don't even mitigate emissions by a significant amount, and action severe enough to make a big difference would be economically ruinous. He then goes on to show that the ROI (return on investment) is infinitesimal for dollars spent on fighting climate change, and that it would be far better to spend the money on fighting malaria & AIDS, or on supplying clean water to those that don't have it.
He therefore advocates a strategy of a small carbon tax, combined with a big expenditure on Green R&D and a huge increase in money spent on fighting disease and promoting development in poor countries.
His argument is persuasive, and I strongly agree that development is seriously underfunded; I also concur that in the long term, green technology (including fusion) is our way out of the problem. However, I do take issue with his argument about a small carbon tax. I've previously stated why I prefer cap and trade, and think that the scale can be bigger than Lomborg suggests only if the tax is revenue neutral. Much of Lomborg's argument centres on the huge cost (in terms of lost economic growth) that would result from a heavy carbon reduction program. However, this loss would be mitigated if the tax was truly revenue-neutral. A tax shift, like I have advocated, would make a larger carbon program much more feasible.
The common response to Lomborg is also something I feel like I should address. Many people say "we have to do both carbon reduction and development!" Lomborg rightly points out that with limited budgets, that may not be possible. I still think that there are many things that could be done on both fronts without spending too much money, the distribution of birth control and associated information would be very cheap, and effective. Eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries would save money and promote development in the 3rd world. Those are only a couple of the possibilities available to us.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to say that my recent readings have confirmed my views on many aspects of the issue, but perhaps make me a little more hesitant to prescribe a strong response to climate change, especially if it is not 100% revenue neutral. The existing proposals, whereby most permits would be given away instead of auctioned (making it impossible to use revenues to cut income taxes) are certainly not satisfactory from my point of view.
Dr. Lomborg was also one of the debaters at the aforementioned Munk debates, facing down George Monbiot and Elizabeth May on the resolution: "Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response". I thought that the Con side clearly won the debate, showing that although global warming is a serious problem, it can hardly be mankind's defining crisis. It is one of many serious problems that we face. The response at Copenhagen must be rational and considered, and must not succumb to the hysteria.
However, out of all the recent furor on climate change came one other thing, something which has the potential to do far more damage than people think, in an entirely different way than people think. It is far more of a "phantom menace" than climate change itself (or Bjorn Lomborg's controversial views).
I am speaking of the incident regarding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. Unlike the conspiracy theorists and the climate change skeptics, who assert that the emails represent the final "nail in the coffin" of the global warming "hoax", my own reading of the content suggests that there is nothing to suggest any sort of global conspiracy or manipulation of climate data.
Nonetheless, what the emails do show is that the scientific process, as it exists today, is far less transparent than it should be. The emails do show some evidence of politics influencing the practice of science, and certainly show unethical behaviour when it comes to the transparent release of information, or the suppression of contrarian views that are so key to the advancement of science.
These problems allow attacks on science itself. Increasingly over the last few decades, beginning with the tobacco companies in the 1960's, political groups have begun to attack science itself, claiming bias, conspiracy and politicisation in order to "reposition" certain issues "as theory rather than fact".
This is a serious problem that has the potential to greatly damage future world progress unless it is dealt with immediately. As I said in my last post, I believe the greatest battle our species faces is the battle to pull ourselves up out of the darkness, to realize our own ignorance and commit ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Only if superstition, fundamentalism, dogma and irrationality are defeated can humanity realize its full potential.
In modern times, for the most part, science and reason have been winning that battle. Recently, though, on issue after issue, especially in the United States but also everywhere else, the fight has dramatically intensified. Support for evolution in the United States is actually declining, despite the incontrovertible evidence in its favour. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control has severely damaged efforts to prevent the spread of AIDS. In the Islamic world, in a culture that produced many of the world's foremost scientists in centuries past, the recent trend has been towards repression and closed-mindedness. Countless far-right pundits in the United States are making various claims that are completely unsupported by facts, and yet their shows attract thousands of followers.
It is time that we turn the tide of this battle. The CRU emails are a significant blow, but we must "examine all obstacles carefully, because with a little ingenuity they can often be turned into levers". We must seize this opportunity to make science more transparent and accountable. I understand that scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public because they want to make sure they are credited for their discoveries and hard work, but I think it would be reasonable to require all scientific data sets pertaining to peer-reviewed publications be made publicly available on the Internet once the journal has gone to print.
I also understand that scientists are frustrated by "junk science", which most of the work done by climate change skeptics would certainly qualify as. However, they would be better served to allow those people their right to their view, and then use ruthless analysis and incisive logic to expose that "junk science". That would help science far more in the long run that trying to suppress the publication of bad science in the first place.
I am not a scientist, and therefore the ideas I have presented may be impractical or ignorant. However, the point remains. Science is a key pillar of a brighter future, and we must maintain the integrity and transparency of the scientific method at all costs. Otherwise, fundamentalism will surely win more victories in the future.
P.S. I read an article today about an interesting carbon reduction program. The idea is to link the rate of carbon reduction to the actual change in temperature. That is, if the temperature rises a lot, countries would be obligated to cut emissions more drastically. There are some serious potential problems here, mainly with uncertainty and huge fluctuations, but a system like that might be worth considering. You could reduce the volatility by comparing a 10 year rolling average of global temperature to the baseline temperature measured over at least 50 years. You could then say that my 2% per year reduction (see previous post) in the amount of carbon permits issued could fluctuate between 0-4% based on relative temperatures. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm glad to see people thinking creatively about this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment