New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 13, 2004

Hello, Buenos Aires! Ron Bailey will be here all week, covering (and, we hope, heckling) the COP 10 conference.

Comments

|12.13.04 @ 10:26PM|#

I posted this comment in the earlier Crichton Global Warming thread, but to no avail. Hopefully, someone can answer this here.

I don't have the expertise to know whether the consensus (recently in Science) represents science or just populist fear-stoking, but are there any concrete predictions made by the pro-GW advocates? Preferably, near-term ones. I remember reading in the news about some honcho at some Indian meteorological agency, predicting that sea-levels by the coast of Bombay and Kolkata will rise by a couple of feet by 2020.

Now, that's a 15-yr prediction. Any, that deal with stuff in the next 3-5 years?

In any case I hope to read this book (Weart, 2003) soon. Any reviews from folks here?

|12.13.04 @ 10:45PM|#

While we're reposting links, here's an interesting proposal that was published in Science recently:

Doing a little now to mitigate long-term climate change would cost much less than doing nothing and making an adjustment in the
future, say scientists whose paper appears in the Oct. 15 issue of the journal Science. Implementing a carbon tax of five cents per gallon of
gasoline and gradually increasing the tax over the next 30 years is the optimal solution, the researchers report. "You can think of the tax as
a low-cost insurance policy that protects against climate change," said Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a co-author of the paper. "The policy premiums could be used to develop alternative energy
technologies."

Emphasis would be needed on new technologies which as Ron points out in the article are needed to affect real change.

|12.13.04 @ 11:44PM|#

Yet another intersting link, the RealClimate blog:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science

|12.14.04 @ 12:44AM|#

Nice try Rikurzhen,

Ron didn't say that new technologies are *needed*. He said "deep reductions are impossible to achieve using current technologies."

Even if there was good scientific evidence that the green house gas-warming connection is critical, (there is strong evidence for solar and land use causes as well) I think that any tax and spend (on alternative energy technologies) response would be harmful to both liberty and prosperity. Market based, and other voluntary responses are much better. There is certainly no reason to force a government "fix" on people.

Remember, in the 1970's, many scientists active in the issue used to contend that global *cooling* was the nemesis. Of course the solution for environmental activists was the same, controls and taxes on industry. Steven Schneider, who I cited in a recent thread...

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/12/reason_writers_7.shtml#comments

...as actually urging fellow scientists to lie on behalf of global warming, was also a big name in the global cooling scare.

Here is a graph from the Max Plank Institute illustrating the connection between solar activity and temperature.

http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/projekte/sun-climate/group/sunearth.html

Here is an abstract of an article about the land use cause of warming, from Nature:

"Cities and fields make the world seem warmer
Impact of land use on climate change has been underestimated."

http://www.ecology.com/ecology-news-links/2003/articles/5-2003/5-29-03/warmer.htm

I couldn't find the whole article from Nature, just that abstract, but here is a review from the popular press:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p21s01-sten.html

The point that I want to make is that:
There is no coercive, Kyoto green- house gas type solution that will fix the sun or land use!

And for folks who feel that there is a *critical* green house gas component to any warming, let them advocate market based and other voluntary remedies.

|12.14.04 @ 12:59AM|#

And, these market based, voluntary ideas could very well be new technologies. But that's just it, they would have to be voluntarily accepted by people rather then being foisted on them by a tax driven government program.

|12.14.04 @ 1:05AM|#

I propose a charity be set up to offer x-prize style rewards for clean technologies.

|12.14.04 @ 1:13AM|#

The evidence suggests that intervention is needed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels; the market alone will not do that in time. Based on the Science paper I linked, the most cost effective solution to this is a tax based one. Since Libertarianism cannot handle a tax-based recourse to reduce the relative demand for fossil fuels, I say all the worse for Libertarianism.

(Necessity vs sufficiency: Forgive my inference, but if current technology is not sufficient, then new technology is necessary. Right?)

|12.14.04 @ 1:18AM|#

In case that's not clear: it seems that in the near term fossil fuels will be too cheap to induce people to pay to switch to new technologies (e.g. alterantive fuels or just more efficient systems). Even if those technologies existed today.

|12.14.04 @ 1:21AM|#

Thus, the closest thing to a market-based solution with a good possibility of suscess seems to be a tax to increase the costs of fossil fuels.

Of course, better solutions may be developed.

|12.14.04 @ 1:57AM|#

Rikurzhen:

The evidence suggests that intervention is needed to reduce the demand for fossil fuels; the market alone will not do that in time.

Now we're getting into some real scare mongering!
That assumes that the fossil fuels-warming connection is critical and also, that if people came to accept that, that somehow government coercion would be more efficient than markets.
But, there is evidence that after a sustained period of warming, the Earth is now starting to cool:

"Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer"

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html

Also, note in that graph that I linked to from the Max Plank Institute, that temperatures are starting to subside.

Since Libertarianism cannot handle a tax-based recourse to reduce the relative demand for fossil fuels, I say all the worse for Libertarianism.

And I say, all the worse for folks who feel that they have to force others to see it their way instead of using persuasion!

|12.14.04 @ 2:04AM|#

How are you going to persuade corporations to adopt a non-profit maximizing energy strategy?

|12.14.04 @ 2:07AM|#

clarifying ... "non-profit maximizing" means "not maximizing their profit" ... not non-profit corporation

|12.14.04 @ 2:27AM|#

Businesses will respond to consumer demand. Convince people to demand products, or voluntarily adopt life styles that you feel are right for the environment and your mission will be accomplished. I could join you in that type of effort. It worked for recycling trash. People have voluntarily paid more to have their trash recycled because they were into the cause.

Sorry, tired, Gotta crash.

|12.14.04 @ 10:00AM|#

Um... did anyone proofread this article? Here's two contradictory statements in the same paragraph:

"The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide..."

"The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor."

The second is correct, mind you, although you'd never be able to tell from the things the pro-Kyoto people usually put out. Did someone forget to put the usual "anthropogenic" tag in the first sentence, or did they just succumb to newspeak?

To address other comments a bit, I'm not aware of any short-term predictions from the pro-Kyoto group that can be verified. I don't see the point, though. Using their own numbers, Kyoto offers up only a meaningless (statistically unmeasurable) change over the course of a hundred years, and that's at a great expense. There's not really any point to implementing it, and that's without even having to go into the supposed science behind the treaty. The IPCC report has a number of flaws, and its results were very highly politicized by the summary group. The usual press statements have little to do with what the actual scientists were saying.
If the greens and the NIMBYs would stop obstructing nuclear power plants, we'd got a long way to reducing CO2 emissions, but most of their leadership seems to have a problem with that.

fyodor|12.14.04 @ 11:00AM|#

Rick Barton,

If we were to conclude that human caused global warming was real and dangerous (which I'll concede may not be proven), I don't see how a purely "market solution" would suffice as it would treat those who harm others with their activities the same as those who don't. Your solution seems equivalent to saying the government shouldn't "interfere" with theft but rather that those who think it's a bad thing should try to convince others not to steal.

That said, I would say that instead of the government investing money collected from pollution taxes in boondoggle research, the new revenue should be used to lower other taxes. Thus the economic harm would be minimal while shifting resources to less harmful technologies. Actually, since environmental harm is just as "economic" as anything else, this should have a positive economic effect.

|12.14.04 @ 11:22AM|#

Wraith,

Although Nuclear power may not emit significant amounts of greenhouse gasses, the waste that gets produced by the reactors is a problem. Because of concerns about proliferation of nuclear materials, President Carter decided to simply find a place to bury the waste, instead of reprocessing it. A generation later, Yucca Mountain in Nevada is still 5-15 years and probably $4-$20 billion away from accepting its first shipment. People who live in Las Vegas, 80-100 miles away, are concerned about waste coming through their city and the mayor has gotten some political capital out of claiming that he will personally stand in the way of the trucks bringing the waste through the city.

The point is, without a large change in the public's view of nuclear power, no one is going to want to build a plant in this country.

|12.14.04 @ 11:56AM|#

fyodor,

Hey, can this the same fyodor who made the excellent point concerning "market failure" in the "Learning Economics" thread? :)

What I envision, is that the wishes of people who desire less burning of fossil fuels will be addressed by manufactures of autos and fuel. And, who knows what else? Their wishes will become manifest in their market demand. As I mentioned, this dynamic certainly played out for recycling trash.

I agree that the scenario of using money collected from pollution taxes to lower other taxes would be less harmful then spending it on alternate technologies.

|12.14.04 @ 12:22PM|#

To accept that Kyoto and its potential successors are necessary, you have to accept a long string of assumptions. If any one isn't true, then attempting to control climate change is a bad deal.

• That global climate is changing.
• 
  
• If it is changing, that the change is due to human activity, rather than natural causes.
• 
  
• If the cause is human activity, that it's better to stop the change than to adapt to it.
• 
  
• If we want to stop the change, that the best solution is draconian governmental regulation, rather than market-based solutions.
• 
  
• If the climate is changing, that it will do irreperable damage to the ecosystem.
• 
  
• If it will damage the ecosystem, that said damage is necessarily a bad thing.
• 
  

If any of those assumptions are untrue, then I don't see how one can support things like Kyoto or whatever else comes down the pipe. It requires a great deal of faith to lump all those assumptions together and claim that if you disagree with one, you're an anti-scientific corporate shill who's too obsessed with money to see the bigger picture. Personally, the chain breaks down at the second proposition. I think that it's more likely that most of the observed warming has been due to natural change rather than human activity. We started our observations right at the end of the Little Ice Age, a time when temperature was colder than "normal." Now temperatures have risen, and we're all worried about it. Well, we only have a century and a half of real observations, far less than that in most areas. How can we really draw conclusions about long-term climate from that?

But even granted that most of the warming is due to human activity, I don't accept that the best solution is to try to stop it. The social costs are far too high to stop it. We should adapt to whatever comes, just as the ecosystem will. Yeah, we don't know what will happen, but that's life. Sometimes you just have to live with it.

|12.14.04 @ 12:29PM|#

Shawn,

Yes, waste is a problem, but it's a solvable one. There are some good methods of handling waste now, such as vitrification. There's also a problem with just complaining about waste from nuclear reactors. Radioactive waste has a half-life; arsenic is forever. It's quite... interesting to look at the amounts of various chemicals that get pulled out of the scrubber stacks of coal and oil plants. Not to mention, of course, the stuff that makes it through the scrubbers. But oh well.

You're definitely correct about the public opinion change. Unfortunately, the main people causing a problem here are exactly the ones who should be pushing for a change. As long as they're scaremongering the way they do now, we'll never get the kind of regulatory changes that would be necessary for further nuclear power in the US.

fyodor|12.14.04 @ 12:36PM|#

Rick Barton,

Heh, yeah they're both me, and as my post here was the latter, I did kinda wonder if I was answering my own question!! Maybe it's only semantics, but I still chafe when people speak casually of markets "not working." But a market is not considered less free if government is involved to the extent of protecting personal and property rights. To the degree that externalities harm such rights but in a broad enough way that it cannot be dealt with on an individual level, you have what we call environmental problems, which maybe are another name for problems of an inevitable commons. I think we should limit the concept of "the commons" as much as possible as opposed to extending it as much as possible as the environmental left would like. Still, there are times when it is probably inevitable, such as with air pollution, or with anthropogenic climate change, if indeed it is real and also dangerous to all.

|12.14.04 @ 12:51PM|#

Fyodor, I was actually thinking after my last post that a tax on fossil fuels would be enough if properly set as to make the development and usage of alternatives attractive. At which point, you can reduce other taxes until the fossil fuel revenue runs dry.

I realize it's a popular contention here that global warming is based on unreasonable science, but I think that's a result of a semi-organized program of obfuscation. The pattern of denial in non-peer reviewed sources versus acceptance in peer-review literature is exactly like the creationism/intelligent design situation.

Despite all of Rick's postings, I have yet to come across a scientist writing in the peer-reviewed literature that denies that some extent of global warming is coming and we're responsible for it. The reason peer-review is essential here. People simply cannot trust sources that haven't been vetted on this kind of issue. And moreover people cannot trust non-expert interpretation of data where the details can make so much of a difference.

fyodor|12.14.04 @ 1:01PM|#

Fyodor, I was actually thinking after my last post that a tax on fossil fuels would be enough if properly set as to make the development and usage of alternatives attractive.

I would submit that the proper level of taxation would be the minimum level that would address the harm done to such large populations that using such a tax becomes more efficient than individual law enforcement. Now, adding a tax to one industry would inevitably increase the relative attractiveness of competing industries. But to add taxation until the advantage to the competing industries is enough to bolster those industries as much as you or some bureaucrat deems the right amount is social engineering and doomed to the failure that all such top-down solutions suffer.

|12.14.04 @ 1:03PM|#

Let me step to the anecdotal level.

I'm a scientist, but I'm not a climate scientist. So I have a pretty good grasp on what I don't know about analyzing and interpreting climate data. And I know that's enough to not trust my own interpretations, or those of historians, economists, etc. Only a climate scientist is going to know how to really make sense of climate data.

Any individual piece of data that someone might want to hold up as disproving global warming should not convince anyone here because we're not trained to understand it in full context.

If you want to read some people who are, check out this blog: http://www.realclimate.org/

|12.14.04 @ 1:05PM|#

But to add taxation until the advantage to the competing industries is enough to bolster those industries as much as you or some bureaucrat deems the right amount is social engineering and doomed to the failure that all such top-down solutions suffer.

The right level is the net cost minimizing level factoring in tax versus global warming damage.

|12.14.04 @ 2:01PM|#

Rikurzhen - just because someone's a "climate scientist" doesn't mean that they know how the climate, climate change, global warming, etc, really work. Christ, meteorologists can't even predict the weather in a local area from day to day! And as grylliade said, the fact that we've been studying climate change for 100 years or less gives us no real ideas of long-term climate change, and as a scientist, you should know that. The data set is just too small and short-term.

Now I'm definitely not a corporate shill, and I love forests and lakes and birds and animals as much, if not more, than the next guy, but there has got to be some real reasons why anybody would want to stifle economies (some of which already need a lot of help) and resign our decendants to even more poverty and death.

As wealth increases, so does technology and a desire to protect the environment. If you're just trying to feed your family do you think you'll care if you have to cut down a forest to do so? So I think that in the end, humans will end up solving their own problems, yes, using markets, and not dictating behaviour based on dubious scientific claims.

|12.14.04 @ 2:25PM|#

Lowdog, I think you're conflating fanatical environmentalism with a more limited idea: not wanting to pay the bill for the damage from global warming after someone else reaps a profit from it.

Climate science: while a single climate scientist can make mistakes, a set of thousands is a self-correcting body. They can make future predictions with mathematical models, they can gauge the probability of future outcomes, etc. That is, they can do better than guess, which is what you seem to be saying they do.

What about climate science makes you think it's not a respectable physical science?

I ask because everyone seems to have their own theory; and that's a bad sign for everyone.

|12.14.04 @ 2:37PM|#

And as grylliade said, the fact that we've been studying climate change for 100 years or less gives us no real ideas of long-term climate change, and as a scientist, you should know that.

You can't use intuition alone to make these judgments. Without being immersed in the data, you can't reliable make such judgments.

We've been studying human genetics for 100 years, but in the last 10 we've really started to figure stuff out.

|12.14.04 @ 4:28PM|#

Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, for sure, so take anything I say on this matter with a grain of salt.

That being said, it is my understanding that climate science is inexact due to the *huge* number of factors involved that make it impossible to to have an accurate model. This includes factors that we are unsure of. And again, even on a smaller scale, it's not very predictive (a bad sign for a group of folks trying to make predictions). I'm not saying it's not "respectable" - and it might be a blast, I'm just saying it's not very reliable. I would hazard a guess that genetics is much more cut and dried (and I know even less about genetics).

But you could be correct, and I could be making incorrect assumptions, some of which may be based on intuition. Really just enjoying the discussion! :)

|12.14.04 @ 5:41PM|#

fyodor,

I believe that environmental concerns should be addressed in terms of property and other personal rights. Harm, or threat of harm from pollution should be adjudicated with the goals of protecting the person and property of any victims, and holding the specific perpetrators responsible for compensation to the specific victims. The institution of the "commons" has been responsible for many of our pollution problems, which, BTW, seem to be getting better by leaps and bounds. (Ron has a book or two on this)

Now, when we consider "externalities that harm rights but in a broad enough way that they cannot be dealt with on an individual level", the reason why they can't be dealt with on an individual level may be that we cannot tell with any certainty that harm is being done and that there are actual persons doing it. This is the case with global climate change and why any taxationation scheme should be disqualified without even having to appeal to principle.

If there is an alleged broad problem caused by just the way we live (driving vehicles which emit green house gases), then the response in a free society should be for those who contend that there is a problem, to change their ways to remedy it and prevail, via education and marketing, for others to join their ranks. This allows a voluntary environmental ethic to grow (remember the recycling craze, it never went away) which will be fairer and probably more effective than government coercion. Taxes kill technological innovation that may be used to stop pollution. Consider that automobile pollution fell much faster before the EPA than after it its inception. (This is in one of Ron's books)

|12.14.04 @ 5:54PM|#

Rikurzhen:

Despite all of Rick's postings, I have yet to come across a scientist writing in the peer-reviewed literature that denies that some extent of global warming is coming and we're responsible for it.

"Responsible for it"? The evidence is that we might not responsible for most of it. And, those two points that you contend certainly don't justify carbon taxation. Also, I did post citations from peer reviewed journals that say that green-house gases are not, (one article) or may not (another article) be a *critical* component of any warming. Solar and land use causes were put forth instead. Also, I posted news stories referring to articles in peer-reviewed journals, making the case that the warming is less than believed.

I absolutely share your opinion on the efficacy of peer review. But, there is reason for caution in questions like this with political ramifications because peer reviewed journals might be more likely to be the recipients of government funding, at least indirectly, and the government bias that comes with it. BTW, it would be interesting to look at the journals back when global *cooling* was the scare.

|12.14.04 @ 5:58PM|#

make that... "might not be responsible for most of it."

Sorry. Preview button, why do I ignore thee?

|12.14.04 @ 6:00PM|#

Any individual piece of data that someone might want to hold up as disproving global warming should not convince anyone here because we're not trained to understand it in full context.

If true, then the same holds for any individual piece of data that someone might want to hold up as *proving* global warming.

|12.14.04 @ 7:00PM|#

If true, then the same holds for any individual piece of data that someone might want to hold up as *proving* global warming.

Exactly. Only a comprehensive analysis of the data by skilled subject-area experts is reliable.

That's why I feel strongly that the scientific consensus should be regarded with confidence against the opinions of non-expert.

|12.14.04 @ 8:55PM|#

Only a comprehensive analysis of the data by skilled subject-area experts is reliable.

Of course, sometimes even analysis by area experts isn't reliable because experts do disagree on this matter. And I think that we should still "question authority" (and non-authorities as well) and think for ourselves, even in matters outsid4e of our fields of expertise. But, I especially think that it's good to be skeptical scientific opinions with political or religious agendas attached. Truth is where you find it, but try to make sure that it's the truth.

Rikurzhen, could you be so kind as to tell us what your scientific discipline is so that we may badger you with questions when the subject comes up?

|12.14.04 @ 9:02PM|#

genetics

|12.14.04 @ 9:09PM|#

Skepticism is of course essential. For example, if it were the case that paleoclimatologists disagreed with the other climate scientists, then that would be a strong justification for skepticism. I just don't see that kind of intra-discipline conflict here.

|12.14.04 @ 10:12PM|#

Rikurzhen,

Thank you. What a fascinating field genetics is.
Well, certainly climate scientists and the global warming debate have been informed by the work of paleoclimatologists. They were among the ones to establish the link between solar activity and temperature change.

|12.20.04 @ 8:33PM|#

(Not entirely sure I am doing this right, as web novice so apologies in advance.)

My interest is in GW and has been since 1950.

I do not think you should be too concerned about deferring to scientific consensus in taking up your opinion. Though now a University Graduate, Honours, Environmental Science (small beer, I agree) the views I had as a thirteen-year-old still seem to be valid where the science pro-lobby is in greatest disrray. Better by far for you to evaluate by the critical observation of the techniques used to promote views, ask whether it is valid, and if suspect (as I observe) ask whether that does not itself give basis for scepticism.

Things to observe appear in distorted graphs: scales are manipulated for false comparisons; assertions contradict and a passive acceptance of colleagues errors is seen in peer review... Those not involved but whose work touch on the field demur and avert their gaze it seems. You can't fight City Hall -- is that the American phrase?

I do hope this topic does not close too soon. There seems an American origin, which is interesting in itself as the negotiated extra years the USA was awarded internationally are running out and there should be expected a campaign for acceptance from world sources. We live in interesting times.

|12.20.04 @ 8:52PM|#

Post-script:
Umm...! Just read the lead article about Kyoto being dead. Hmmm. *v. interesting times.*