Since Seattle has just emerged from the clutches of a vicious heat wave, this seems like a good opportunity to have a casual conversation about climate change. Let’s start with an important point:
“Climate change” is a stupid name and an inaccurate description of the problem at hand. We are not really concerned about the climate changing. . . we are concerned about it changing in horrific, Roland Emmerich-esque ways that will kill and displace millions of people and irreparably harm the Earth. We are not concerned that it’s going to stay hot for a few more weeks and then gradually get cooler, causing the leaves to fall off the trees and a dramatic increase in rain. That’s called climate change, but it’s also called Autumn (or Fall, but I’m partial to Autumn).
We’re really concerned about Al Gore’s inconvenient version of climate change, not that the Earth’s temperature will change at a controlled, predictable rate. This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning, and getting worked up about “climate change” is stupid. That’s like getting worked up about tides or gravity or male pattern baldness. Some things just are. Getting worked up about life-threatening, man-made climate change is smart. From here on out, I’m going to refer to this as “catastrophic, overwhelming climate change”, or COCC. COCC runs off the tongue easier. COCC is easier to get your hands around.
Also, since everyone has a very strong opinion about COCC, this seems like a good topic to dive into. It is also timely, given the United States’ recent exit from the Paris Climate Accord.
As with our revelatory discussions on abortion and health care, my intent is not necessarily to argue for one side or the other, but rather to insist that you’re all wrong so stop being such a dick. Let’s consider the possibility that much like with child labor laws or King County statutes on public indecency, there is some grey area here. . . that this isn’t as simple as we’d like it to be.
(*Note- I’m going to try to speak in generalities and in theoretical terms here to leave myself ample wiggle room to change my perspective in the event that I’m proven wrong. . .which I most certainly will be. I’m also going to reference studies without annotation and pretend to be smarter than I am. You’ve been warned. I’m not writing this for a Master’s thesis.)
(*Note#2- This is a post specifically about global warming, not environmentalism as a whole. It isn’t about floating islands of garbage or air quality or overfishing or soil degradation or anything else.)
Let’s start the following questions, because they seem like they’re worth asking:
Is climate change real? Does man impact the climate via our CO2 emissions?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: also yes. Man does. And so do women. Probably more than men. On account of tampons and hair dryers. Be that as it may, the science is clear that humankind has a role to play in terms of our carbon bootprint. Atmospheric CO2 absolutely plays a role in global warming.
Well how real is it? Is COCC going to kill all of us?
Short answer: I don’t know. Why are you asking me? I’m not a climate scientist. Long answer- Well, eventually, Earth is going to kill all of us. In the course of human history, Earth has killed far more humans than humans have killed Earths. Earth has evolved into a species killing machine over billions of years. At some point, our entire species is likely to be wiped out by the Earth, because the Earth is a miserable, vengeful monster.
Let’s take a moment to think about the myriad ways the Earth is trying to kill us:
- Volcanoes- There is no other explanation for volcanoes except that they are but a weapon in Earth’s arsenal of human destruction. Death by fire and suffocation.
- Earthquakes- How do you explain this if not for pure vengeance? Death by shaking (Never shake a species!)
- Tsunamis- The evil step-brother of earthquakes. Death by violent impact and drowning.
- Snakes!- Death by demon serpents that poison and squeeze you to death.
- Lightning- Nothing else can explain lightning except for pure adolescent fury. Death by electrocution.
- AIDS- How is this a thing? We were supposed to go forth and multiply! What trickery. Death by doinking.
The list goes on and on. How many people have died due to “natural” disasters? Well, about 600,000 in the past two decades alone. You know how many Earths people have killed? Zero. Yeah. Think about that.
And don’t give me that, “the Earth is so good to us. It provides us with everything we need,” nonsense. That’s what people kept under the stairs say about their captors. That’s Stockholm Syndrome.
If we can accept it as universal truth that the Earth is more malevolent executioner than generous benefactor, then why aren’t we fighting back? Why are we just kowtowing to this wicked bitch instead of seeking dominion over her? Is that the kind of person you are? You’re just going to lay down when someone attacks you and your friends, family and species? We’re like a bunch of battered spouses. “Earth didn’t mean it. She’s actually really great most of the time. You don’t know her like I do.”
When will we wake up and see that we need to put the earth in her place. I have an idea. . .colonize Mars. Now.
Break up with Earth. Nothing says, “I don’t need you planet,” like colonizing a different planet. Why has earth been such a dick to us? Well, for one, because we don’t really have other options. Earth has a great job, pays the bills, keeps us fed and gives us some walking around money. We just got our GED after going to night school, haven’t updated our embarrassingly sparse resume in a decade and our sexy post-adolescent body is now such a formless doughy mishmash that Earth barely pays us any attention. Earth is the abusive partner that knows that we’re not strong enough to leave so just treats us like garbage. Earth always comes home late smelling like whiskey and strippers and we’re just supposed to have dinner ready and take the rash of physical, emotional and mental abuse. You’re right! That IS messed up. And yeah, it will be tough at first. We’ll be reminded of earth at every turn. We’ll miss things like water and air. We’ll even see her off in the distance every now and then. But over time we’ll forget about grass and waterfalls and sunsets and all the great things about earth. We’ll move on.
Ok, we’re getting a little bit in the weeds here. . .
Ultimately, our best prediction and models for the effects of climate change are just that. . .predictions and models and those models range from, “well that’s not so bad” to “Oh sweet Jesus. We’re all going to die tomorrow”. It’s important to understand that we’re dealing with degrees of certainty here and degrees of certainty warrant discussion. Our range of solutions will depend on the relative certainty of various outcomes. I wouldn’t chop off my arm as a cure for a hangnail, but I sure would for a horrible, life-threatening, flesh-eating bacterial infection. In short, I think it can be generally accepted that over time, climate change could have very real and very serious consequences that may potentially threaten life on this planet in some capacity. We must take that possibility seriously and weigh that accordingly.
Is climate change universally a bad thing?
Stick with me here while I play Devil’s advocate. There is an arrogance in our certitude that current temperature and carbon dioxide levels are somehow, optimal. Could our lives, and human flourishing in general be improved by higher levels of carbon dioxide and slightly higher global temperatures? Well how could that be? I’ll tell you because I have Lycos (waaaay better than Google. . .but not as good as Ask Jeeves):
- Carbon dioxide is not poison. In fact, carbon dioxide is like pizza for plants. It’s delicious, and unlike pizza, it’s actually really healthy for them. They love it. They can’t get enough of it. You know how commercial greenhouses work? By pumping CO2 into them to drive plant growth. You know why 31% of our green space has gotten greener and only 3% has gotten less green in the last 35 years? CO2. The rise in the CO2 in our atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% has resulted in slightly increased precipitation (7% increase in atmospheric water vapor per degree of warming) and slightly higher temperatures (i.e. more favorable agricultural conditions). For example, the Sahel region of Africa, since 1970 has seen its ecosystem thrive in part due to an increase in carbon dioxide. More food for plants + more precipitation= more grass= more animals that eat grass= more animals that eat animals that eat grass=more hunters to kill animals that eat animals that eat grass= social media outrage over said hunters= your mom posting too many memes about Cecil the lion= silent dinners.
Thanks a lot CO2.
Our vegetation is thriving. This is a good thing. >CO2=>H20=>plant growth=>animal proliferation=>increased biodiversity=>>human flourishing
- Cold sucks-Given the choice, higher temperatures are better than lower temperatures. Quick question, what season do you like better, Winter or Summer? If you’re a normal human being, you’ve answered Summer (or you do not live in a place with a miserable, hellish winter. You don’t spend November to May soaking wet and cold to the bone, praying to God to see one day of sunshine). In the heavyweight deathmatch between “Cold” and “Hot,” “Cold” has been consistently winning for decades. Winter kills people, especially poor people or people without homes (usually also poor). The number of people that die due to cold temperatures outpaces those killed by excessive heat. Also, as someone without air conditioning, I can tell you that my energy bills are significantly reduced in the Summer. We are much more suited to survive in warm temperatures than cold temperatures. Higher temperatures=longer growing season=increased agricultural production=more food/money=human flourishing. This is obviously an oversimplification, but studies have shown a modest economic improvement likely as a result of global warming. . .for the next 65 years or so. After that, who knows. With any luck, I’ll have been dead for decades.
- Increased human flourishing leads us to be less dependent upon changes in the Earth’s climate-In the last 10 decades, the global rate of death from natural disasters has dropped from nearly 28 per 1,000 people to about 1 per 1,000 people. This is a testament to the adaptability of our species. Since 1920, deaths from drought are down 99.9%. Deaths from floods are down 98%. Deaths from violent storms are down 55%. As our technology has improved and global wealth has increased, our ability to anticipate natural disasters has increased along with our ability to mitigate the impacts of said events. Buildings are built to withstand seismic and Japanese supermonster events. Warning systems are put in place to alert pending tsunamis or typhoons. Technology is utilized to produce drought-tolerant crops and to install water delivery and storage systems. None of this is to say that we should not be concerned about the environment. We should. But our standard should not be one of non-impact. Our standard for all of our policies should be human-flourishing, both short-term and long-term.
I’m not suggesting that we should burn everything and start worshipping C02, just that, as with most things in life, climate change is neither universally good nor bad. It’s both. It’s neither.
What happens if we don’t address COCC?
This is basically the crux of the debate. Do we care if the temperature of the earth rises by 1.3 degrees in the next 80 years? Meh. Not really. I’ll buy a classy above ground pool. How about 6 degrees? Yup. I’ll have to grow gills and have some baleen grillz made. We care. But to what extent? What tradeoffs are we willing to make? What happens if we do nothing? What happens if we drop everything to address it? This is incredibly layered. There are some assumptions we make in this debate (*warning, non-scientist about to dive into science. . . ):
Assumption #1- Carbon emissions are the critical cause- This asserts that carbon emissions play the key role in surface temperature increases and that failure to reduce them will result in significant global warming. That is at the core of the prediction of COCC.
CO2 is an interesting thing. A little bit is a good thing. In fact, without it, all plant-life on Earth would die off, which would be. . .suboptimal. We need about 150ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere simply to sustain plant life. We are currently at around 400ppm, so good news, we might die, but it won’t be from plant life dying off for lack of CO2.
Now, it is generally acknowledged that the effect of CO2 on global warming is logarithmic. That is, the difference between 300ppm and 400ppm is much greater than the effect of an increase from 400ppm and 500ppm. The IPCC states as much in their various reports. So, in short, carbon dioxide most certainly is an agent in global warming, though on it’s own, not enough to create catastrophic conditions.
Assumption #2- Earth’s climate system is built around powerful positive feedback loops- What is a positive feedback loop? I’m glad you asked, because I don’t really know myself, so this is an opportunity for both of us to get smarter. The predictions for COCC are based on two factors, first, that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will result in direct warming as described above. This is scientifically accurate. If we double our CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm (which would be quite a lot), we would expect the Earth’s temperature to rise around 1.3 degrees Celsius. That doesn’t sound so extreme does it? Well, the second part of the predictions from the IPCC is that the Earth’s climate is a positive feedback system, and that these increases in CO2 will further multiply this warming 3-8x.
Ice is white. White things reflect heat back into space. <<Ice=<<heat reflection into space=>>warming.
Higher temperatures=>>evaporation=>>water vapor in air=>>warming.
Those are positive feedback loops.
So in effect, the basis of COCC is not necessarily that carbon dioxide plays a role in warming, but that Earth’s climate system has very powerful positive feedback systems that will create outsized responses to those relatively minor CO2 driven temperature increases. Those feedback loops are more difficult to test as they contain innumerable variables and assumptions. The rise in temperatures from the mid 1800’s to today (0.7 degrees C) considered alongside the CO2 increase (280 to 400ppm), do not give us historical precedent for those positive feedbacks. If the positive feedback theory was historically accurate, we’d have expected that increase to be significantly larger.
I’m not suggesting that the Earth is or is not dominated by strong positive feedback loops because why would I know that? I will say only that most things that have evolved and survived over billions of years have done so because they have powerful negative feedback loops not positive ones. This enhances stability.
Could there be positive feedbacks? Could warming beget more warming which begets more warming? Of course. YES! But unlike the “debate” about whether carbon dioxide plays a role in warming (it does), this is subject to intense debate and is predicated upon uncertain assumptions and highly variable modeling that is worth further scientific exploration and discussion in advance of implementing far reaching public policy.
Assumption #3- Reducing carbon emissions will actually reduce global warming. Globally, can we reduce our carbon emissions to the extent necessary to overcome all other variables and reduce surface air temperatures? Can we do enough? The diminishing effect of carbon works both ways. . .a reduction from 600-500ppm is not nearly as meaningful as a reduction from 400-300ppm. Would a return to pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels (280ppm) actually work? Is it even feasible? Can we be saved?
Assumption #4- The costs of reducing our carbon emissions are worth it- Assuming carbon is the key, that strong positive feedback loops exist to the point where catastrophic change is imminent, reducing our carbon emissions to the extent necessary to achieve our idealized temperature will come at a cost. Is that cost worth it? What will we have to sacrifice? Life is a series of trades. Are we willing to pay more for our energy? Are we willing to deal with the growing pains of a completely different energy grid? Are we willing to mine the precious metals necessary to build solar panels or wind turbines? Are we willing to deal with occasional brownouts? Are we willing to deal with the downsides of the other energy sources such as disposal of nuclear waste? Are we we willing to subsidize green energy at the expense of other things? Are we willing to accept lower levels of economic growth as businesses struggle to comply with carbon emission legislation? Are we willing to live with the environmental costs of inaction? I’m not saying yes or no, I’m simply asking the question. Ultimately, energy is life. Our world needs more energy. Energy is what allows me to be typing on a computer, listening to Celine Dion and drinking a cappuccino instead of working in the fields with a mule and my seven children wielding scythes and hoes.
Assumption #5- Global warming will occur rapidly and catastrophically– If nothing is done to curb our current CO2 emissions, will the climate change in ways that are harmful, and at a speed that we cannot adapt to? This is also important. Human beings have a history of adapting to an unfriendly climate. See my earlier point about global reduction in climate deaths. If the climate is going to change, but not in ways that are, on balance, very harmful, then it’s not much of an issue. If the changes will be harmful, but they will occur at a pace that can be effectively managed, then it’s also less of an issue.
So what does it all mean?
First, it’s important to remember that we all want the same thing. . .to not live in a hot dystopic future where the teeth of the dead are used for currency and the countrysides are patrolled by roving gangs of irradiated water thieves. That’s all. If we, in our discussions, assume that because one person believes the economic costs associated with potentially ineffectual climate legislation has a greater human cost than the alternative, it doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t care about future generations. It means that he assesses the problem, risks and rewards differently. The inverse is also true. Let’s start with assuming the best of each other and stop trying to reduce one another to labels. I’m not a “climate denier” any more than you’re a “leftist eco-nazi”. We’re two people trying to navigate uncertain waters.
Fossil fuels have provided humankind with cheap, reliable and plentiful sources of energy. That energy has taken us out of the field and put us into the classroom. The proliferation of cheap, usable energy has allowed us to halve the number of people living in extreme poverty in the past 30 years. We need more energy. Not less. We need more people pursuing ideas. Not fewer. We need more people driving the flourishing of our global populace. We need an increased ability to move away from an economy of labor and towards an economy of ideas. Energy allows us to do that. Fossil fuels have been the single greatest resource in the history of the world in this regard.
But. . .
To the extent that renewable energy is cheap, is reliable and is plentiful, it is both sound business practice and the moral good to pursue those technologies. If we can mimic the benefits of fossil fuels while minimizing the negative consequences, then it is an absolute necessity to do so. (I have ‘bolded’ this because it’s enormously important and I’m not going to rely on your crappy reading comprehension skills to understand this. And also, now you can’t call me anti-renewables).
But we must not pursue renewable energy as an end in and of itself. We must pursue it in the name of a nobler goal—the ability for mankind and for our future generations to thrive. That is it. That is why we’re here.
My biggest pet peeve is the oversimplification of incredibly complex issues. I understand our natural desire to solve massive geopolitical and philosophical problems with a clever meme or a 30-second soundbite, but that’s not how life works. Life isn’t fixed in 60 characters or less. Does it seem simple? Yes? Then you’re simple. (I’m sorry. That was rude.)
The Earth’s climate has and will continue to change. We have and will continue to play a role in that. But this does not happen in a vacuum. It is neither universally good, nor bad. We are not dealing in certitudes. We are dealing in probabilities. Making significant financial investments to attempt to slow those possible changes will have real human costs that must be considered. It is not as simple as “down with coal,” or “build more solar farms.” For everything we choose to do to address climate change, there will be consequences, both intended and otherwise. We will displace whole industries and workers. We will impact energy costs which will in turn impact those who can least afford energy cost impacts. We may choose to sacrifice human prosperity for the sake of a reduction in environmental impact. But we will also create new burgeoning industries. We will discover technology that allows for greater human flourishing. This is not a binary choice. This is not about fossil fuels vs. sustainable energy. It is about the present and future of the human race.
Contrary to the opinion of some (you know who you are), I am not a climate change denier and not really even a “skeptic”. I believe it exists. I believe man plays a role in that. I believe that climate change may lead to death, destruction and planetary chaos. I also believe it may not. That we lack the historical evidence to suggest the presence of these powerful positive feedback loops. That we may be able to adapt to it. That we may be able to profit from it, and not purely monetarily. That we may not be able to do anything about it. That the human investment necessary to combat climate change may not be worth it. That the communities that have an energy deficit and are spending their days carrying water to and from the river care more about being able to educate their children and have electricity in their hospitals than whether the earth’s air temperature rises by 1.3 degrees or 2.2 degrees over the next 70 years. That more energy will do more for the good of mankind than less.
There is a cost to action. There is a cost to inaction. But the discussion is neither simple nor complete. The answers are neither obvious nor settled.
Some like to claim, “The science is settled.” Science doesn’t make decisions. Science is not inherently moral. Much to the dismay of Neil Degrasse Tyson, “science” is not judge, jury and executioner. It’s not Judge Judy. It simply provides us with information. The science may tell us that the earth is getting warmer and that we’re the ones turning up the flame, but it does not tell us what to do, how to do it or what it will cost.
That’s up to us.
So instead of pounding our head in the sand and pretending global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the democrats, and instead of turning up our nose and screaming that anyone that has a different opinion on how to address the problem is a ‘denier’, let’s talk about it. Let’s have the discussion.
And let’s also start filing our divorce papers and colonizing Mars just in case. Every species needs a side piece.