Global Warming 5

Until now, our take on Global Warming has often been colored in a troubling way by assumptions about what the nature of public and governmental reactions would be, once it is declared a "crisis." In a recent conversation with Geoff, we took the breakthrough step of posing the problem as a hypothetical: Suppose Al Gore is essentially correct, and that there is a crisis? We're not saying there is in fact a crisis; we're simply supposing there is in order to then consider what the economic ramifications and the appropriate political responses might be independently of what the science actually says. The economic and political aspects of the issue will be intimately commingled with each other, but both of these aspects are separate from the science. They will be heavily determined by the science, but the science is independent of them.

Said thus straightforwardly, it seems obvious. But saying it "out loud" frees up these three conversations to be conducted separately from each other. We can continue to track and critique the progress of scientific research about Global Warming, and simultaneously tackle questions about the economics and politics. Making the hypothetical assumption of a crisis allows us to consider alternative economic and political scenarios without having to wait until the scientific results "are in." Those results will in any case change constantly and incrementally, presenting us with an ever-moving conceptual target. Projected economic and political scenarios that are developed in the meanwhile can be adjusted according to the incremental changes in scientific research as it appears in the journals and the media.

Global Warming 4

I am currently reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming by Christopher Horner. It has the contemptuous tone of a rightist political screed, which makes for odious reading, but it is helpful in one respect--what it has in common with a theme of Geoff's: the fear of what Big Government will do once the issue gets traction in the public mind as a genuine "crisis." For Horner, Global Warming is just the best issue yet with which environmentalists and other leftists will try to leverage their way to greater government control over our lives (whether it's actually true or not). In a simultaneous debate about healthcare going on at my Unitarian church, I notice a similar theme in the conservative view expressed in that debate: The objective of the policy being debated doesn't matter; if the result of the policy would increase government involvement in or control over our lives in any way, then it must be strenuously resisted. This is an ideological consideration, and has no place in discussion about the nature, rate and causes of global warming itself. It may become relevant when it's time to consider government's appropriate role in the response to global warming, but I'm not up to that yet. For now, I must rule "out of court" any suggestions along the lines that, "We can't call Global Warming a 'crisis,' because that means government will do such-and-such, and that would be undesirable."

Global Warming, 3

It's easy to politicize this issue and make it a victim of the liberal/conservative partisan divide. This is unfortunate but probably unavoidable, since responding to global warming requires political action. The issue itself seems fundamentally scientific in nature ("just the facts please, ma'am"), but since a comprehensive grasp of relevant facts appears to be beyond individual "thoughtful citizens," taking refuge in comfortable ideologies often becomes the natural fall-back position. So here are two non-empirical but also non-ideological questions that I think we can tackle at this level:

1. The Precautionary Principle (PP): I think it ought to govern our approach to the political and social response to global warming--given the level of our uncertainty. But here is what Crichton says about it in the Author's Message at the end of State of Fear: "The PP, properly applied, forbids the PP. It is self-contradictory. The PP therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh." But there's no further explanation, and I have been unable to find any elaboration of his view on this in searches of his speeches and websites. What does he see that I don't?

2. I don't know whether Geoff sympathizes with right-wing conservatives who despise Gore and his G.W. message, but he speaks eloquently about some of their concerns (see his comments on earlier posts). They seem more fearful of government encroachment on the economy than they do of global warming itself--as though it were simply a front for political power-grabbing by Gore and his fellow-travelers. Yet nothing on Gore's "to do" list even remotely hints at this. Is it just a political knee-jerk reaction on the part of the right? If he hadn't had anything to do with An Inconvenient Truth, would they have been more inclined to accept its thesis?

Global Warming Controversy, 2

As suggested by Robert Skipper (my former colleague at StMU), our understanding of the issues depends on the facts. This is the empirical, epistemological side of the question: What are the facts? Given the elusive, global nature of the facts, and our lack of access to the relevant data (as thinking citizens), we cannot settle the empirical questions. We must focus instead on the moral implications (what we ought to do) for each of the possible scenarios that scientists can identify. Henry Halff (fellow member at Community U-U Church) suggests that this requires us to adopt a “gaming” approach—taking into account both the likely odds of each scenario, and what is at stake with each scenario.

Geoff Meade (long-time intellectual sparring partner, friend, and long-ago colleague at Goodwill) claims the data are inadequate to justify Gore's urgency. To apply the PP, we must weigh both costs and benefits of alternative courses of action (using utility theory as mentioned by Henry), and we just don't know enough yet about what these might be. However, Geoff's skepticism seems to be fully addressed in the global warming article in the latest Scientific American (8/07). We would have to show why the claims in this article are not credible before giving weight to Geoff’s objections to Gore’s "crisis stance," I think.

That brings us back to the moral dimension--what should we do? Geoff concludes that the lack of empirical data means we should invoke the PP in favor of no action. My difficulty here is that I don't see the basis for his projection that the “long term effects of whatever course of action we decide to take” might have “potentially large, but still mostly unknown, social, economic, and political, as well as environmental, consequences.” What might these be? The aggregate effect of Gore’s proposals would be to (a) reduce the already-damaging human “footprint” on the earth, (b) stimulate research & development and job creation, and (c) reduce strategic dependence on foreign oil. If this is the result of positive response to Gore's urgency, where is the cost of invoking the PP in favor of acting (rather than not acting)? It looks like a win-win situation. Why not “go for it”? If Gore is wrong, we still win. And if it turns out we cannot forestall global warming along with drastic climate change, then (as quipped on another blog), at least we’ll drown in clean water!

The Global Warming Controversy

The majority of public opinion appears to agree with Al Gore's thesis that (a) global warming is occurring, (b) human beings are contributing heavily to it, and (c) if we do not take major steps to reverse CO2 emissions, we will accelerate undesirable climate change. (I will use "Al Gore" as short-hand for everyone who agrees with him on global warming.)

If he is correct, human civilization--particularly in the industrialized nations--faces an unprecedented moral challenge. But his thesis is contested by an audible minority of climate scientists, and right-wing conservatives are using this to debunk and discredit Gore.

What does a thinking person and concerned citizen do? The Precautionary Principle (PP) suggests we act on Gore's recommendations: If he's wrong, we still move towards greater energy efficiency and away from oil and coal dependence--both highly desirable under any circumstances. There appears to be no downside. But in State of Fear, Michael Crichton pooh-poohs the PP, claiming that it makes no sense in this context. (This puzzles me greatly; I was so impressed by Jeremy Rifkin's discussion of the EU's take on the PP in The European Dream.)

Why this Blog: I would like to find the conceptual "pivot point" for getting the best grasp on this issue--the tools to effectively sort through the scientific and political controversies. Archimedes wanted only a place to stand in order to move the earth. I would like a place to stand in order to "move" our understanding of global warming!