Posted by Jonathan Adler:
*NYT* Discovers "Middle" Ground on Climate:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_12_31-2007_01_06.shtml#1167922177
On New Year's Day, the New York Times published an [1]interesting (if
long overdue) article pointing out that there is much more to the
climate change policy discussions than a debate between "believers"
and "heretics." Now, article author Andrew Revkin claims, there is a
"third stance" emerging that "challenges both poles of the debate."
They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous
environmental challenge, but say the appropriate response is more
akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new
wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to
fighting a fire already raging.
�Climate change presents a very real risk,� said Carl Wunsch, a
climate and oceans expert at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. �It seems worth a very large premium to insure
ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk
seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities
with any degree of skill seems equally stupid." . . .
�Global warming is real, it�s serious, but it�s just one of many
global challenges that we�re facing,� said John M. Wallace, a
climatologist at the University of Washington. �I portray it as
part of a broader problem of environmental stewardship � preserving
a livable planet with abundant resources for future generations.�
The article also notes that some who take this approach -- those who
Roger Pielke Jr. calls "nonskeptical heretics" -- face pressure to
tailor their public comments for political reasons: "Some experts,
though, argue that moderation in a message is likely to be misread as
satisfaction with the pace of change.
The article quotes Dr. Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Center for
Climate Change Research in Britain, "raising the concern that shrill
voices crying doom could paralyze instead of inspire."
�I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change
campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate
change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama,� he
wrote. �I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action
taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping
society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.�
Above I say the article is "long overdue" because the real climate
debate has, for quite some time, not been over the science but rather
over the proper policy response to an uncertain yet significant
environmental risk. Indeed, as I have said before, most of those
labeled "skeptics" accept that human activities are altering the
climate and some (such as Bjorn Lomborg) explicitly accept the
conclusions of the IPCC. They are labeled skeptics less for their view
of the science than their view of the proper response to the risks of
climate change. Lomborg, for instance, accepts the IPCC's scientific
assessment, but argues that the resources required to forestall
significant cliamte change would be put to better use if used to
alleviate other global problems, particularly those related to
poverty.
The evidence that human beings are, and will continue to, have an
impact on the climate has been strong for quite some time. There is
significant uncertainty about what precisely this means (e.g. the
effect it will actually have on weather, sea-level, etc.), but little
doubt that it will produce signficant environmental changes, some of
which will impose significant costs and some of which may provide
benefits. There is also little doubt that the distribution of climate
change's costs and benefits will be anything but uniform. So, for
instance, parts of Canada might benefit from longer growing seasons
and milder winter, while low-lying tropical regions are flooded and
suffer greater disease outbreaks.
At the same time, we have no clue how to reduce anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases sufficiently so as to stabilize
atmospheric concentrations anywhere near present levels. Existing
technologies, including projected advances in renewables, nuclear, and
other low-to-zero-emission energy sources, can only do so much. Ditto
for conservation. The realistic costs of climate change policies
approach the magnitude as those of climate change itself, and include
significant uncertainties of their own.
The real debate is thus over what sort of insurance policy -- or, more
properly, mix of policies -- represents the proper response to the
real risk of climate change, and how should the costs of such policies
be apportioned. This is a serious an important debate. Unfortunately,
it does not get more attention because a fiery believer/skeptic debate
over the science creates a simpler "he said/she said" narrative for
popular consumption.
For additional reactions to the Revkin piece, see [2]this post at
RealClimate, [3]this post at Prometheus, and [4]this post at
Gristmill.
References
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html?ex=157680000&en=21e8be4d9c5d0963&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy/
3.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001037nonskeptical_heretic.html
4. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/3/14539/76760
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
