My Journey – A Progress Report
Now that I have just a little more time (but less than you think!), I’ve been trying to understand both sides of the Climate Change/Global Warming “debate” (although many view the debate as over), including the how to think about the economic costs/risks. My goal is to find a rational skeptical argument and an objective analysis to counter the popular view.
I started by reading “Pricing the Planet’s Future,” a highly mathematical/theoretical consideration of the present value of intergenerational societal investments (avoidance/mitigation)/returns (future well being) – what is the cost of very long term social capital? The effort reminded me that, forty years separated from my calculus, perhaps a refresher might be in store. Thanks to Coursera, I made it to the second mid term before i ran out of gas or brain cells. Concurrently studying an online Sustainability/Climate Change Course didn’t help my calculus, but it did prepare me for the next rounds of my education – an MIT Crowdfunding Conference on Climate Change, with heavy exposure to the intellectual arguments (no, not the Al Gore version). I’m nearly finished with John Kehr’s “Inconvenient Skeptic,” and have commenced study of both sides of the argument, along with interviews of folks who can explain their view without resorting to excess techno-jargon.
How am I doing so far? Well, for those of you who (a) don’t have the time, (b) can’t get past the noise, and (c) want as objective a view as possible, here goes (if you trust me)…
A) It’s Complicated, and, no surprise, modeling both short and long term climate causes/effects is probably still not sufficiently accurate to warrant “all in” action on the data.
B) There’s ALWAYS climate change, and, throughout history, change does not always change monotonically (in one direction or the other). The data indicate hundred year warming trends amidst sharp cooling cycles, and vice versa, with attendant changes in sea level, extinctions, etc. The question is what’s new AND significant that Homo Sapiens can control/manage.
C) Hundreds of thousands of years of data strongly support the view that Northern Hemisphere (more land mass0 solar radiation is the primary determinant of temperature and sea level change. Water vapor/cloud cover is second. Carbon Dioxide effects are pretty small. This seems to summarize the strongest skeptical arguments.
D) However, hundreds of thousands of years of data don’t include human-caused CO2 emissions, whose concentration, while small, are rising sharply. “Is it Different This Time????????
E) The financial theory (intergenerational cost of capital), which was ALSO over my head, seems convincing. If society chooses to invest to avoid/mitigate the estimated costs/damage from climate change, the “intergenerational cost of capital” for a social venture is quite low — of the order of 1-2%. In other words, the present value of significant long term investments to avoid/mitigate climate change (IF possible!) and the accompanying reduced current standards of living, ARE WORTH THE COST. Of course, the questions, how much to invest, where to invest, who will pay, and when to measure results, and “will it work” are all matters which are tougher to consider than the calculus.
After studying, primarily, the most rational skeptics, I’m almost ready to study the Interplanetary Climate Change (IPCC) results. But I’ve also found one of the few objective views of the mostly extreme arguments to date. An ad hoc group called “The Right Climate Stuff” comprised of NASA retirees (yeah, I know, some will think they’re all Tea Party cum Right Wing Nuts), seems to have assessed both sides of the argument, with the conclusion that a LOT more data (and model confirmation) is necessary.
I’ve also had the fortune to meet with some well placed sustainability experts, who, in their most reflective moods, seem to argue that, while WE DO NOT KNOW how much climate change we can avoid, argue rationally for a risk management policy – reduce emissions, seek efficiency, ensure the availability of resource for future generations. Others view that as a copout. Some believe that the IPCC Has Spoken. Perhaps. I’m just not there, yet. Stay tuned.
Comments encouraged!