“Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Environmental Disaster,” all terms we hear fairly often in the news, across social media, and in government positions. As in most things in today’s America we’ve chosen to make this a political issue that rages on, but is really about the size and role of government, the desired priorities of spending, and just who should be in charge since they know best what to do. Actual effective action is never really part of the script.
There are certain truths, certain fictions, and undeniable consequences to modern society. This post will give my views on those three things as I see them. I tend to believe my views are rather centrist on this whole climate change battle.
Truth 1: The climate is changing. Anyone who says it’s not -- has no concept of the reality of the earth. The questions that swirl around this truth deal only with the speed of change, and its root cause.
The earth has gone through vast ranges of temperature change during its existence. At one point the northern polar ice cap reached down to central North America, Southern Europe and into what is today China. The glaciers carved vast swaths of land as they moved forward with the cooling and left behind wide valleys and deep channels as they receded. We, the western civilizations, have studied the weather in a scientific or near-scientific manner for what, about 200 years? Prior to that, we have anecdotal data derived from the few scattered scientists (after they invented the thermometer), and the other earth sciences like geology and paleontology. But prior to the advent of advanced computers, we could not accurately model something global in nature like the interaction of the various weather patterns? The best we could do was observe localized weather and make predictions on what those localized patterns would do over the next several days. A hundred years ago, or even 50-years ago we heard little about the long-term projections of what the climate would do and the environmental impacts of those projections.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has an interesting publication on the Great Ice Age,[1] published in 1992 before the great polarization of views, it makes an interesting statement about temperatures during the Great Ice Age.
“After a period of warm and equable climate, a worldwide climatic refrigeration initiated the Great Ice Age glaciers. At times during the Great Ice Age, the climate was cooler and wetter and at times warmer and drier than today. Many attempts have been made to account for these climatic fluctuations, but their ultimate cause remains unclear. Although we cannot predict a period of climatic cooling, another Ice Age in the future is a possibility.”
Truth 2: Our ability to accurately predict future outcomes is, at best, limited.
Because of the lack of verifiable historical data, the computer models and predictive tools used by scientists must, of necessity use assumptions to fill in the blanks. As errors in data are found and corrected the questions surrounding those decisions lead to legitimate questions regarding their value in the computational models.
Also because of the polarization of views and the geo-economic/political implications of those views, the dialogues over how the models are affected and what variables actually have the greatest effect on change has been shut down. On the one side, we have those who defend the models claiming those who question them are science deniers, and on the other side we have those who question the models accusing the defenders of fake science. Nothing highlights this foolishness better than the statement “The science is settled.”
Truth 3: The human population has skyrocketed since the pre-industrial era.
If we accept the industrial revolution began in the late 18th and early 19th centuries then it is striking to see the magnitude of the population growth linked to it. As noted in the World Population Clock[2] “At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D., it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.” It had reached 1-billion by 1800. Today it stands at about 7.6-billion, with the greatest change coming in the 20th century, where growth rates were close to 2.0%. Although growth rates are declining they are still around 1%.
To say an exponential growth in mankind does not have an impact on the global climate would seem to fly in the face of logic.
Truth 4: The modern industrial nations have moved from the natural packaging of natural products to petrochemical-based packaging of increasingly synthetic products.
In the 20th century, we began to fully exploit the chemical possibilities of petroleum to make synthetic polymers that are today used in everything from nylons to the plastics that make up much of our world. The unfortunate by-product of these materials is the fact they do not break down in nature when disposed of. We see this in modern awareness campaigns that talk about all the plastic drifting around in the oceans, and its adverse effect on marine wildlife.
Truth 5: The modern industrial nations have become societies where consumer consumption has skyrocketed and all products have relatively short lives before disposal.
It can be argued that the modern industrial nations have become ones of consumer excess where products are routinely thrown away rather than repaired and reused. Consumer electronics is a wonderful example of this. As a boy, I remember having to occasionally replace the tubes in the television, or if something more serious was wrong having the repairman come to fix it. Today I am not sure television repairmen even exist.
The entire world economy now revolves around the production of raw material, like crude oil, into these disposable items demanded by consumers with sufficient funds to meet not only their needs for shelter and food but their desire for entertainment and connectivity.
Truth 6: There are more truths (but I don’t feel like spending more time on them).
While there are undoubtedly more facts that can be laid out I think I’ve touched on the major ones with a possible exception of what all the climate alarmists focus on, which is the use of petroleum as an energy source. There is enough information about that you can form your own opinion and won’t be persuaded by anything I say anyway.
Fiction 1: Signing a UN agreement is a vital first step in solving all the world’s climate problems.
The United Nations is a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, that ideal has not been realized because of man’s greed and ambition. As an organization, it is capable of good things, but as often as not, the political agendas of the various nations get in the way of effective action. Take, for example, one of its founding purposes: to end wars between nation-states. I suppose it could be suggested it has limited war, but one could equally argue it has stood idly by while various wars have been waged. What is often forgotten are the wars it has actually approved of, like Korea, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom.
At the basis of this fiction is the belief that a central world power would be able to marshal the world's resources to engage in what must be a unified effort if there is to be any hope to succeed. Unfortunately, nothing in the history of the UN suggests it has either the will or power to actually do that.
The Paris Accord is little more than a wealth redistribution plan with no ability to actually lower the petrochemical emissions at all. True – it sets targets for a reduction in climate temperature increase, but it leaves to the signatories the actual implementations to meet those goals.
What it does do is effectively create fiction 2
Fiction 2: Creating another bureaucracy will ensure all nations remain focused and committed to action.
Bureaucracies seem only to grow, they become self-serving and ultimately focus more on their own long-term survival than implementing the visions for which they were created. There is nothing in my personal experience to suggest they ultimately are either extremely efficient or timely.
For this, I will draw on my experience in military acquisition for an example. Almost everything we do today with regards to the acquisition of a new weapon system comes as a result of some corrupt act that Congress felt needed to be corrected and remedied through legislation. We have moved the act of buying equipment from the people who will use it into a vast bureaucracy of acquisition “professionals.” These are men and women trained to comply with the myriad of laws and regulations we have put into place to ensure no one can defraud the government (although that seems to happen fairly routinely) while getting the “war-fighter” the best possible weapon. What this organization does very effectively removes personal accountability except in the grossest cases of mismanagement. Even then, the person who ultimately failed is probably protected from any real penalties other than reassignment or resignation.
As a result of these new regulations and the organizations created to deal with them, as well as the federally approved destruction of competition in the aerospace business the cost of a C-130 has gone from roughly $3M in 1975 to a little over $70M today. Although some of that can be attributed to inflation (actually only $10.6M) [3] the majority of the cost is from regulatory compliance, new engineering standards and corporate profiteering due to a lack of competition.
Fiction 3: Government rules and regulations can force a change in human behavior.
Many people believe if we just right the right laws, rules, and regulations then everything will change and all the problems will go away. Looking at society I believe nothing can be further from the truth. We are for the most part a law-abiding society, until such time as those rules and regulations get so burdensome people begin to ignore them.
A case in point is the increasingly popular view by some communities that the consumers are drinking too much sugar-based soda and that it is in their best interest for the government to step in and make it illegal to sell or consume the offending product. A case in point was NYC’s decision to outlaw the “Big Gulp” size soda, or the Obama administration’s rules on what was acceptable for the school lunch program. The most recent example was Seattle soda tax that effectively doubles the cost of a case of soda. Costco made the news with its pricing that shows consumers what they would pay, the taxes they must pay and the new total for a case. It was also rumored Costco advised patrons where they could go to circumvent the new tax.
Finally, as we’ve seen with our sixty-year war on drugs effort, if the government were to ban the use of popular plastics I believe all we would do is create an underground market for those who find a use for them. But at this point is it really possible to replace the cheap petrochemical-based products with environmentally sound organic solutions? This leads to fiction 4.
Fiction 4: Climate change regulation will help the poor.
The NAACP has recently decided to join the bandwagon of climate justice warriors with their statements that “Environmental injustice, including the proliferation of climate change, has a disproportionate impact on communities of color and low-income communities in the United States and around the world.”[4]
A wonderful statement that turns a blind eye to the actual injustices levied on the poor by government regulations that increase the cost of living and industry so the poor will never achieve a viable living wage. Oh sure, we have movements pushing for something called a living wage, but all it really does is raise the minimum wage for the unskilled worker, causing job opportunities to diminish and the consumer cost index to rise, again trapping the poor in a no-win situation.
How much did the move to ethanol in our gasoline cost those at the poverty level who needed their car?
As we force the move to renewable energy sources how much will the average utility bill go up, forcing the poor to choose between warmth and food?
Do we expect that the government should cover all the cost increases so the poor see no change due to climate change initiatives? If so, what incentive do they have to participate?
Oh sure, if we could without reservation quantify the cost of a series of actions and define their specific effect on the climate then perhaps the cost/benefit analysis would show us the best course of action, but we have moved far away from logical discussion on what we can and what we should do.
Undeniable Consequences
If the polar ice caps (both north and south) recede in the long term, there are undeniable changes that will occur over the coming years. What is questioned is exactly what those changes will be, and how best to respond to them. I believe the problems we human beings face is our timeline of concern is measured in years, decades, and sometimes centuries. While actual climate shifts are measured in centuries, millenniums, and eons.
The changes in coastlines would seem to present the biggest immediate risk if the oceans rise, but because of the nature of the modeling, the complexity of the variables and the shutdown over debating the issues; it is unlikely we will ever have a clear and understandable cause-effect-options-solution discussion presented for public understanding.
If we banned the use of petrochemical-based products like plastics and eliminated the use of oil as an energy source would it actually stop the climate change? If so, what would be the cost to our global economy? Would life as we appreciate it today continue or would we return to the golden days of ox-drawn carts around the world? One of my favorite experiences was being on a huge cruise ship steaming up to a glacier in Alaska and being told how man is destroying the environment. On the way in and the way out we must have passed a dozen other ships doing exactly the same thing. Maybe if those concerned with the environment would forsake their money making efforts and stop cruising up to the glaciers they might not recede quite as fast?
A generation of young seems to have bought into the fear mongering campaigns of the alarmists. I’ve seen comments where they say it is already too late to fix the planet. If they are right then we can end the debate today, and go along our merry way until the earth is flooded, the sky turns red and the current species are turned to dust (or mud) if that is what will actually happen? In the end, the cycle of existence will start over again as the earth appears to be self-healing over the long term. That is, of course, assuming the sun keeps burning at its current rate.
Finally, the poor will bear the greatest cost to whatever course is chosen. This is a simple fact, it may be debated but it is inescapable. They are the economic class least able to handle change, and they are the largest of the population groups. Therefore through sheer numbers alone they will be impacted to the greatest degree.
No comments:
Post a Comment