Global Climate Change — Framing the Conversation
I had a chat with a friend the other day on the likely future for humankind vis-à-vis global climate change. He asked, “What do you think it will take, Craig, for us to muster the will to do something? If there were a fire burning in a building across the street, it would be apparent to everyone, and we’d do what we could to put it out. Here, we’re talking about a set of inexactly known consequences that are unfolding over a period of decades. What will it take?”
Wow, that’s a good question; I wish I had a good answer. All I can do is frame what I see as the big issues:
• Humankind applies a huge “discount rate” to situations like these; we place a much lower value on averting future pain than we do on enjoying current pleasure.
• It’s not in mankind’s DNA to be good at future planning, as my friend Tom Konrad points out. In the 100,000 years or so we have been here, if it worked last year, we do it again this year.
• Big Energy money is doing today what Big Tobacco did half a century ago, i.e., spending a fortune on misinforming voters and manipulating the political system in its favor. But eventually this will cease to work, as the lies become increasingly obvious.
• The analogy to tobacco is good, yet imperfect. Smoking, albeit an addiction, is something we can simply decide to live without. Our addiction to huge per capita uses of energy is not something we can break “cold turkey.” Implementing energy efficiency, conservation, and renewables will require a level of commitment and willpower that doesn’t seem to exist in any significant amount.
• Regarding meaningful intergovernmental agreements on GHG emissions, I think we’re closer to international agreements eliminating all weapons, down to slingshots and pea-shooters. I.e., it won’t happen. The COP meetings that focus on this appear to me a colossal waste of time, at least at this point in history.
• Might this change if there were a catastrophic event or concentrated set of events that science attributes to AGW (anthropogenic climate change)? It’s possible, but, as I note often, we have astonishingly little regard for what scientists tell us. It would be interesting to see what happens if we lose the Greenland ice sheet and a few of the world’s largest cities with it, due to the 23.6-foot increase in sea levels it would cause. Yet again, that’s going to be a long and slow process, we seem to be pretty uninterested in things that aren’t on fire right this moment.
I DO see a ton of great work being done at the level of individuals and groups, both large and small, in both the public and private sectors, in corporations as large as FedEx, and states the size of California. There are tons of incredible projects being embraced all over Europe and various parts of the rest of the world.
Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? I wish I knew.
If there is a light at the end of the tunnel, people and groups are it. I have no faith in the government to be able to help in any way even though I think it should. If we wait for the government it will never happen. We must do it individually at least until some disaster happens that causes mass casualties that could have been averted by alternate energy or seeing that people with alternate energy are making out better during these events. I do not see the government or the American people in general seeing this as a worthy persuit. I know that sounds bleak but I have no faith in them.
“In a democracy, people get the government they deserve” (Alexis de Toqueville)
If at the end of the tunnel one can only see scattered groups and green-energy-conscious people, well they could only be obstructing the dim light from the other end! They have to move back to our-end-of-the-tunnel and start convincing other groups and other people and even governments (which good-or-bad are also composed of other PEOPLE) that the light – is on the other side!!!
” Humankind applies a huge “discount rate” to situations like this; we place a much lower value on averting future pain that we do on enjoying a current pleasure.”
This requires expansion.
Large companies concerned about their profits make investment decisions based on discounted cash flow. That is an accounting technique which determines return on investment in such a way that immediate net returns are weighed much more heavily than net returns in the future. Net returns in the distant future count for very little. And, externalities, i.e., the costs of pollution and other detrimental effects which cost the company nothing, are not even considered unless the executives have a social conscience. That goes a long way towards explaining the behavior of large companies.
Reducing CO2 emissions must be done in such a way that it will have as little negative impact on the economy and quality of life as possible. That means that we need economical energy systems that provide reliable power 24 hours per day 365 days per week. An energy system that cannot do that is suitable only in niche situations and will never be used to provide the power needed for large companies.
Error correction:
The last word in my above post should be “countries” and not “companies.”
Another unintended error:
provide reliable power 24 hours per day 365 days per “year” “not” week…
You keep coming back to this one like the moth. Your observations are largely coincident with my own. I’m unclear on what is being looked for.
Yes, we are extremely short sighted. Even when we accrue direct benefits from strategic planning, we often go with the near term and less beneficial choice. Stupidity? I don’t know. I need the evolutionary biologists amongst us to explain what are clearly destructive impulses.
Companies won’t do what is in their best interests, and we traditionally imbue them with an idealized rationality. If they won’t, I certainly agree with the previous comment of having no faith in government to do it.
Individual response? Yes, this has come up many times before in your missives and our comments. Again, I agree with the prior comment that we must act as individuals. Personally, I do however believe that it makes no difference. I do it because I must. It is something similar to a code of conduct or honor. I do it because I must. I have little belief that it will preclude the inevitable.
Kudos on a great discussion and gingerly bringing to light the burning building. I think it is important to keep pushing ahead on all frontiers. Why? What we are doing is laying the groundwork and foundations for solutions. When that “catastrophe’ happens that wakes a great majority to awareness and action we need to have frameworks and sytem structures already inplace to ramp up with the newly allocated resources.
The most interesting and positive dynamic that is happening as many of us work to fight the manmade disaster which is building. Many new alliances between countries, finance groups, corporations, activist groups, banks, and others are creating strong, diverse well informed organisations with great potential to leverage funding from various sources in the private and public sector…check out the Climate Bond Initiative……
Excuse the spelling on my reply…I have lost my glasses…still reads well…I think…
I heard a comment the other day from Fox “News” that claimed we had “2-3 degrees warmer average temperatures during Roman times than we do now, but they didn’t drive SUV’s back then.” My point is that even if/when we lose the Greenland ice sheet, many people/pundits will still claim it to be from natural climate cycles, not from man-made CO2 accumulation. We cannot wait until the last climate change denier gets on board. As Paul said, I believe change will come from individuals, local communities and new alliances between groups large and small. We also need to better promote the good work that is being done throughout the world into mainstream consciousness through greater media coverage. Keep up the good work Craig and fellow posters!
Marc,
What you posted is one of the things I am afraid of.
This afternoon, I was at a presentation by Interfaith Power and Light here in Albuquerque. The first presenter was a professor at the University of New Mexico here in Albuquerque. She stated that the number of deniers has actually greatly increased. She has done some research work to determine exactly why and is continuing the research. I guess the object of the research is to figure out what to do about the problem. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is a problem and that our CO2 emissions are causing it, yet statements by those who make $$ from fossil fuels are drowning out their voices.
The light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train.
You keep on insisting, the work you are doing is mostly going into deaf ears, but more and more are listening now, so go on and on, it´s the only way.
I feel the solution to this negative inertia is very simple, but very difficult to do. Humans are very stubborn, lazy, and want someone else dealing with the problems, things are too comfortable now. Saying we need cheap, efficient, simple solutions is useless, everybody is going to have to realize soon there is no free lunch, no pill we are going to invent to fix it. We must all do changes, now, not later.
One of the unfortunate things with global warming is that not only are future effects excessively discounted, but the effects of today’s actions are subject to a substantial lag.
1. Physical lag
If we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere today, global temperatures would probably continue rising for several decades before vegetation pulls our excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
2. Infrastructure lag
Once fossil fuel plants have been constructed, it is likely that they will be operated for as long as they can obtain an economic return – possibly as long as 50 or 60 years in the case of a coal fired power station. Continued use of existing fossil fuel infrastructure and vehicles will cause an ongoing rise in CO2 levels for several decades even if no further such infrastructure comes into use.
3. Political lag
Politicians are still intent on constructing more fossil fuel infrastructure, and huge numbers of new fossil fueled vehicles will continue to come into use, so the rate at which CO2 reaches the atmosphere from human activities is unlikely to stop rising for several decades.
In short, we have already done or committed to doing substantially more damage to the global climate than has yet been seen.
I think there are grounds to be more optimistic on climate change emissions than I read here. The European Union recently struck a deal with Australia to create a single carbon market.
And three days ago, the EU and China (the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases) agreed to work together to cut emissions by forming a single carbon market. Apparently, the EU are now trying to recruit India and other major emitters.
Carbon markets (cap and trade systems) work. The U.S. proved that when it used a cap-and-trade system to eliminate the acid rain problem faster and more cheaply than anyone predicted.
It would be wonderful if the United States joined the EU initiative. But we Europeans realize you have an important political tussle to settle before that could ever be considered.
“It would be wonderful if the United States joined the EU initiative. But we Europeans realize you have an important political tussle to settle before that could ever be considered.”
To put it mildly. 🙂
Hi, Aedan. Hope things are going well for you.
There’s really not much we can do when Mother Nature decides to act; earthquakes, tropical storms etc and the reason some apply to the causes of these events cannot be addressed by trying to maintain the status quo of the weather or natural events. That said it’s stupid to continue to poison ourselves and steps must be taken to address that. I believe if the approach taken by Al Gore would have been more diplomatic rather than a scare tactic approach more people would be on board and all factions of government would be more willing to work together. Gore polarized the issue by exclaiming the worst and placing blame on certain industries and human practices. Efforts to correct our habits would have been more coalesced among the world populations if the subject of climate change had been approached in a different manner.
Excellent essay…Thank you, Craig…