On 19th June, the Financial Times published an article by Phillip Stephens entitled “Saving the planet will be difficult, but do not despair”. See: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b790f0-3e12-11dd-b16d-0000779fd2ac.html
Essentially, he’s worried that “denial” of man-made global warming is still a problem despite the “overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge” that, unless mankind’s emissions of CO2 are curtailed, we face dire consequences. He claims that opinion polls show that, although respondents in most countries think global warming is “a very serious problem”, that’s not true of the “two worst polluters” – the USA and China. He comments that emission control is no longer “cool” – the world now faces other short-term priorities. He notes how China and India have increasingly voracious appetites for fossil fuels. Hence the “despair” of the title. This, he says, is exacerbated by the problem of getting all nations to move to low-carbon economies – perhaps it’s just too difficult?
Stephens rejects despair. Instead, he supports the economist Nicholas Stern’s proposal that “market mechanisms, technological advances and behavioural changes” be used to share “the burden of adjustment” between rich and emerging nations. That would mean ceilings on emissions by the developed economies that “bite immediately” and a “new international trading system” imposing “binding” targets on developing countries after 2020.
I agree that despair is unnecessary. But there is so much that is unpleasant, misleading and wrong in Stephens’s analysis that that truth could be overlooked. Some examples:
First, the unpleasant. He refers to those who don’t accept the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis as “deniers”. Silly insults are not, I think, an adult way of progressing an important debate. Worse, he suggests that many sceptics “are of a sufficient age to be sure they will be gone before they can be proved wrong”. I have five grandchildren: Stephens’s musing that I might be careless of their future because I will not be around to share it with them is insulting and unworthy of the FT.
His reference to opinion polls is misleading. Polls conducted, for example, by Ipsos MORI in the UK and Gallup in the US show conclusively that voters think that global warming, although a problem, has low priority. The reality for Western politicians is that there are few votes in curbing emissions – and it’s votes that matter. Equally misleading is his claim that predictions of seriously damaging man-made climate change are supported by “the overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge”. A review of last year’s report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that even some contributors are not so sure, a view shared by many non-contributing scientists – see below.
Then the errors. Stephens thinks “the climate can be stabilised”. This hubristic idea – the climate has not been stable since the world began – is as absurd as King Canute’s courtiers’ belief that he could stop the tide. Similarly Stephens’s view that sceptics are “a small band” who “see global warming as the invention of woolly-hatted do-gooders” is belied by, for example, the Manhattan Declaration (“Global warming is not a global crisis”) signed by numerous leading scientists and economists.
But my main criticism is of his idea that ceilings that “bite immediately”, an “international trading system” and “binding” targets are a practical way forward. Experience is conclusive that international bureaucracy is not the answer: consider, for example, the failed Kyoto Protocol and the recent collapse of the EU’s planned emission targets as members sought exemption for home industries.
As noted, Western voters aren’t interested – thus investment in, for example, roads and airports continues, aircraft and shipping are exempt from controls and “green” taxes are unpopular; so emission ceilings that “bite immediately” are impossible. But the biggest problem for international bureaucracy is the emergence of the Asian powerhouses, China and India. China, for example, has over 20% of the world’s population, much of it desperately poor. As well as its rapid commissioning of coal burning power stations, it is spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030. China and India are clear: the alleviation of poverty is their overriding and urgent priority. Understandably, they insist that, before making reductions, their emissions be equalised with the West on a per capita basis. That’s an impossible proposition for Western voters.
What matters to the world’s poor are basics such as drinking water and food and simple healthcare – all of which require increased and urgent economic growth. What matters to those of us lucky enough not to live in poverty is freedom from economic decline. The inevitable consequence is that, since 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions), global fossil fuel emissions have grown by over 30% and growth continues apace. The idea that an international bureaucratic solution could avoid the consequences and “tipping points” promulgated by climate alarmists is pure fantasy – those supporting it live in a utopian dreamland.
Nonetheless, I agree with Stephens that despair is unnecessary – for two reasons. First, there is substantial and growing doubt about the validity of the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis: for example, over the past eleven years, temperatures have stabilised – even declined – despite increased emissions. In any case, global temperatures increased by less than one degree Centigrade over the past 150 years with a substantial proportion occurring before CO2 emissions were a major factor – the fears commonly cited are based on notoriously unreliable computer projection. My second reason is that, even if the hypothesis is valid, there’s a way of dealing with it: adaptation.
There will be huge and largely unforeseeable economic and technological developments over the coming century. I have little doubt they will help us to deal with climate changes that may occur and will do so on a local and “as needed” basis. Such has been humanity’s practice throughout its history.
And other threats may arise: for example, Islamic terrorists with nuclear weapons, collapse of energy supplies, massive economic recession, a worldwide flu pandemic, all-out nuclear war, runaway biotechnology – even an asteroid collision or a new ice age. Preparing in advance for all is impossible and, in my view, potential global warming ranks no higher than the others. We have to adapt to circumstances. It’s not easy – but it’s how humans do things and it’s a basis for hope, even perhaps for optimism.
(For another perspective on this, see http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63#comment-167)
[…] Global warming – don?t despair By Robin Guenier Essentially, he?s worried that ?denial? of man-made global warming is still a problem despite the ?overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge? that, unless mankind?s emissions of CO2 are curtailed, we face dire consequences. … Harmless Sky – http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog […]
[…] Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 6:11 pm Blogs Alert for: US Economic Recession Global warming – don?t despair By Robin Guenier And other threats may arise: for example, Islamic terrorists with nuclear […]
Robin Guenier has written very thoughtful review of the Stephens article in FT.
I found the penultimate paragraph of Philip Stephens’ article, referring to mitigation, a superb example of the kind of woolly thinking that afflicts normally rational journalists as soon as the try to write about climate change:
What kind of contribution does he think that a coalition of hard eyed businessmen and Christian fundamentalists who reject Darwinism could make to a campaign that is underpinned by contentious scientific research? If he was writing on any other subject, would he be use such a lame arguement?
Be careful not to fall victim to the false dichotomy that says we have to choose between saving money and saving the planet. I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns manufacturers’ waste heat into power. The result is lower emissions AND lower costs. Studies for the EPA and DoE in the U.S. estimate we would slash greenhouse emissions by 20% using this technology. The only problem is that regulations give monopoly protection to utilities, inhibiting more efficient alternatives from emerging. Thus, we could be pro-market and pro-planet at the same time, if liberals would stop insisting on sexy, expensive, and as yet marginal solutions like solar and wind, and if conservatives would start realizing that it’s OK to maintain free market principles even if one of the byproducts happens to be lower pollution.
Oh no, TonyN – not a pipe smoker. Should we associate with such a wretch?
But the reality is that the alleged similarity (suggested by Phillip Stevens) between the tobacco industry/smoking and “big oil”/AGW is false: there is no such similarity. The tobacco industry suppressed the results of its own research that had established an unambiguous link between smoking and lung cancer – that was an undoubted and unforgivable scandal. In contrast, “big oil” is hiding nothing: it doesn’t have access to unique research about climate change, which is essentially all conducted at public expense and therefore is – or should be – publicly available. There is, however, at least a suspicion that elements of that research that don’t support the dangerous AGW hypothesis are being minimised or even excluded from public discussion. If so, the scandal is precisely the opposite of that claimed.
miggsathon: there is no danger of my falling victim to your “false dichotomy”. My views on what humanity should be doing are (alas) of no importance. All I am doing is drawing attention to the fact that the major developing economies, mainly China and India, have chosen (for good or ill) the route of burning increasing amounts of fossil fuel to drive their expansion and that we in the comfortable West had better get used to it. In the meantime, assuming you are selling your technologies to these countries, I suggest you redouble your efforts. If not, I suggest you get on with it. Good luck.
Re: #5, miggsathon
To what extent has your business, which would seems to be doing something that is thoroughly laudable, benefited from fear of AGW being at the top of the political agenda?
Re: #6, Robin
The smoking research analogy fails, as you have pointed out, but for me it is not just the sloppiness of the thinking that is aggravating. Like using the term ‘denier’, this is a form of puerile name calling that indicates a movement that is fueled by dogma, where hate figures are indispensable to the cause.
There is actually a far more useful analogy that comes from the same area of research that I will try to write up tomorrow. This demonstrates very neatly what happens when good science meets dogma head on.
Robin, brilliant piece as usual. I thought you might enjoy reading this compilation of polling on environmental issues generally, and GW specifically.
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my site thus i came to “return the favor”.I’m trying to find things to improve my site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!