New at Reason

David Weigel | April 3, 2006

Ron Bailey sees a bet on climate change and considers leaving the table.

Comments

Captain Holly|4.3.06 @ 4:39PM|#

The question of how much danger the trend toward higher average global temperatures poses is still open, but that the earth's temperature is going up is not. The debate now is how bad it might get.

No, the debate should be "what, if anything, can be done about it?"

Given current technology, there are only two realistic options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions: Returning our society to the 1700's, or replacing all coal- and oil-fired power plants with nuclear ones.

Other things, like driving a hybrid instead of an SUV, are so insignificant that they are irrelevant. Such remedies are roughly akin to terrified villagers throwing virgins into an active volcano: They might make people feel better, but they won't change a thing.

|4.3.06 @ 4:50PM|#

Cap'n Holly -- I think "how bad will it get?" is a useful question to ask before getting into what can be done and whether it will be cost effective.

And while I agree that a nuclear power renaissance would be a good thing, there's a distinct possibility (likelihood, I think) that either factors other than power generation (like human agriculture -- methane is a significant greenhouse gas as well, and forest clearance eliminates a natural means of CO2 sequestration) are equally significant, or that human agency isn't the decisive factor here at all. It may be necessary to develop means to live with changing climactic conditions, or to actively counteract them in some fashion.

|4.3.06 @ 4:57PM|#

Make no mistake: There is a persistent and angry voice from the left that would love to have us return to the pre-Industrial 18th century. Not only would it dismantle the capitalist system they despise, but it would certainly return us to high infant mortality rates, early death and shared misery: All of which, unspoken but sometimes blatantly, the left adores in their Quaker-like condemnation of pleasure and progress. And that's the type of worldview that will us. These cunts need to be met at the ideological gate and flamed.

|4.3.06 @ 5:08PM|#

Thank god we've got the cool headed pleasure seekers on the Right saving the day, what with their embrace of sinful leisure and progress in science.

|4.3.06 @ 5:08PM|#

And that's the type of worldview that will kill us.

That's what I meant. Kill.

|4.3.06 @ 5:10PM|#

Jared, agreed.

I didn't mean to imply that the left has a monopoly on human misery.

Captain Holly|4.3.06 @ 5:17PM|#

In my post, I should have written "effective" instead of "realistic". Returning to an 18th century economy is not only unrealistic, it's also impossible.

Unless, of course, some 90% of the population dies in an Ebola epidemic....

|4.3.06 @ 5:21PM|#

Captain Holly:

reducing CO2 may or may not get us anywhere...temperature increases are what we can agree on...not what is causing them.

Nuclear energy's beneifts can stand alone on its ability to remove some of the west's fate from the hands of despots and radicals...

|4.3.06 @ 5:24PM|#

I don't even pretend to be up on all of the science around this stuff, but I've never read any convincing explanation as to the basis on which climatologists peg human activity as the cause of the warming trend of the last century or so, given how much we know about wild swings in average temperatures in previous eras (Little Ice Age and all that). Mere correlation with the Industrial Age does not equal causation.

|4.3.06 @ 5:38PM|#

And take away all of our freedoms and way of life while they are at it.

Captain Holly|4.3.06 @ 5:55PM|#

Nuclear energy's beneifts can stand alone on its ability to remove some of the west's fate from the hands of despots and radicals...

Although I'm an unabashed cheerleader for nuclear power, it probably wouldn't do much to our oil imports: Only a small percentage of our power plants burn crude oil.

In fact, since there is enough clean coal (low sulfur and mercury, high BTU) under the state of Wyoming to supply the entire US with electricity for the next two centuries, we don't actually need nuclear power for energy independence.

But in terms of air pollutant emissions, nuclear would be much, much cleaner than even the newest coal-fired plant.

What would truly liberate us from Middle Eastern oil and help Save Poor Mother Gaia would be widespread use of nuclear power combined with significant yet affordable improvements in electric vehicle technology.

|4.3.06 @ 5:58PM|#

I am a scientist, and regularly read the literature. There is about as much debate now about the question of "Are we causing global warming?" as there is concerning Intelligent Design, which is to say, none. The earth's temperature has been rising .1C to .2C / decade, and all projections have this trend continuing or getting worse.

The question as to what to do about this is more complicated, but it is clear to me that substantial action is justified. Those who claim that acting would "set us back to th 17th century" are full of hogwash. At worst, we might have to pay 5% of real GDP, which would set us all the way back to 2002 or so. I would start with a $1.00 tax on gasoline (and an equivalent carbon tax on other emissions), phased in over two years with a six month warning. 90% of this money should be returned via tax cuts, and the rest used for R&D, mitigation, and public transportation.

Libertarians should LIKE a gasoline tax, as opposed to an income tax. If we are going to tax something, we should be taxing sins, not productivity.

|4.3.06 @ 6:00PM|#

I am a scientist, and regularly read the literature. There is about as much debate now about the question of "Are we causing global warming?" as there is concerning Intelligent Design, which is to say, none. The earth's temperature has been rising .1C to .2C / decade, and all projections have this trend continuing or getting worse.

The question as to what to do about this is more complicated, but it is clear to me that substantial action is justified. Those who claim that acting would "set us back to th 17th century" are full of hogwash. At worst, we might have to pay 5% of real GDP, which would set us all the way back to 2002 or so. I would start with a $1.00 tax on gasoline (and an equivalent carbon tax on other emissions), phased in over two years with a six month warning. 90% of this money should be returned via tax cuts, and the rest used for R&D, mitigation, and public transportation.

Libertarians should LIKE a gasoline tax, as opposed to an income tax. If we are going to tax something, we should be taxing sins, not productivity.

|4.3.06 @ 6:00PM|#

Given current technology, there are only two realistic options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions: Returning our society to the 1700's, or replacing all coal- and oil-fired power plants with nuclear ones.

Or moving to more local nonplluting means of generation on a town-by-town and even house-by-house basis, all of which will reduce the pull on the existing coal- and oil-fired grid. There was a great article about this in Discover recently, but I'm not inclined to point you towards it because I'm sure you'll dismiss it with a sniff and a wave. Feel free to Google it, though.

PS I fully support more nuclear development.

|4.3.06 @ 6:13PM|#

Chad (I am a scientist, I wear a lab coat, now all you ignorent choads cough up 5% of your standard of living because I said so). What about the fact that our cutting emissions does nothing to stop China and India from emitting even more to make up for whatever cuts the U.S. makes.

More importantly, science is not done by vote. It is done by experimentation and prediction. I couldn't care less that their is a "consensus among scientists". Big fucking deal. Show me an experiment, a theory and a prediction that comes true as a result of that theory and I will listen to what you have to say. This "well everyone now agrees", as if scientists are immune from groupthink and the inherent temptation to predict gloom and doom to make themselves relevent and get grants, tenure, ect, crap doesn't cut it.

In the words of a London Times editorial "Groupthink is everywhere, even in science. Some data is beyond refutation: sea levels are surely rising; carbon dioxide levels are up; and the climate is changing. There are likely to be linkages of some sort. Around these rocks of hard fact, however, swirls a sea of guesswork and speculation. It is here where � as we observe philosophical currents at work that are not so much scientific as driven by guilts, envies and yearnings � we need to observe particular caution.

I�ll tell you how we can know this. Buttonhole a passionate eco-apocalypticist and tell him a way has been found for us to cut carbon emissions perfectly painlessly, and carry on living as we do. Observe the involuntary anger cross his face. Or tell him it�s anyway too late and we�ll never stop China polluting. Observe that his objections remain: to how his own countrymen live. He may talk science but his underlying motives are of a different kind. "

My guess is Chad that if aliens landed tommorow and gave the world endless, cheap energy that produced no greenhouse gases and allowed us all to continue our sinful lifestyles, you wouldn't be too happy about it.

|4.3.06 @ 6:14PM|#

There is about as much debate now about the question of "Are we causing global warming?" as there is concerning Intelligent Design, which is to say, none. The earth's temperature has been rising .1C to .2C / decade, and all projections have this trend continuing or getting worse.

But that still doesn't answer my question. From what I understand, even at these rates of increase, the earth's temperature will not be particularly high by historical standards, unless you view "history" as only the last 100 years or so. The earth's temperature has risen and fallen quite a bit over time, even with no dramatic reasons for doing so. Again, I see nothing more than mere correlation as the scientific basis for saying that human activity is causing global warming. You can't ignore correlation, but neither can you turn it into causation without real evidence. And given the draconian policy prescriptions being bandied about, there'd better be a pretty damned good explanation beyond that which I've seen so far. A lot of this seems to be a variation of the precautionary principle, which is the biggest load of crap ever.

|4.3.06 @ 6:23PM|#

The problem here is that while the increase in temperature is not going to be high by geological standards, it's likely to be much hotter than it's been since the beginning of civilization. That much change in climate will certainly have an effect on the distribution of pests, hardiness zones for crops, rainfall patterns and the spread of tropical diseases among humans and especially livestock. Also, the heating may be the most in the artic, making unbearable merely uncomfortable, but it's going to be doggone miserable here in Texas, where it was 85 degrees on New Year's Day and we've been in a serious drought for most of the 21st century. (2004 was the exception.) I do think that "don't shit where you eat" is pretty good advice on this point. We need to do something and include China and India in it.

|4.3.06 @ 6:46PM|#

"What about the fact that our cutting emissions does nothing to stop China and India from emitting even more to make up for whatever cuts the U.S. makes."

Well, in the process of cutting our emissions and making things more efficient we will have developed lots of advanced technology which will probably be manufactured in China, which means it will rapidly be stolen and mass-produced at dwindling prices - though most of the knockoffs may only be marketable in developing countries due to IP protections in the developed countries.

US-driven demand for high-tech high-efficiency products will likely lead quickly to that technology being adopted by consumers in India and China, simply to be modern and up-to-date.

|4.3.06 @ 6:48PM|#

"reducing CO2 may or may not get us anywhere...temperature increases are what we can agree on...not what is causing them."

Regardless of what's causing the increases, it's pretty stupid to continue behaviors that will only exacerbate the problem.

R C Dean|4.3.06 @ 6:49PM|#

The problem here is that while the increase in temperature is not going to be high by geological standards,

which right there should tell you that just maybe we aren't causing this.

it's likely to be much hotter than it's been since the beginning of civilization.

We may or may not get as warm as the Medieval Climate Optimum, depending on whose predictions you believe.

I do think that "don't shit where you eat" is pretty good advice on this point.

But if the only way to stop shitting is to first stop eating, I would say the cure may be worse than the disease.

We need to do something and include China and India in it.

Do what? And what if they say no?

Mohan|4.3.06 @ 6:49PM|#

India is taking bold steps toward new energy resources. It has a long way to go, but the direction seems right.

|4.3.06 @ 6:55PM|#

"I don't even pretend to be up on all of the science around this stuff, but I've never read any convincing explanation as to the basis on which climatologists peg human activity as the cause of the warming trend of the last century or so, given how much we know about wild swings in average temperatures in previous eras (Little Ice Age and all that). Mere correlation with the Industrial Age does not equal causation."

Keep telling yourself that. Click your heels together three times, saying "it's only correlation, it's only correlation, it's only correlation," and Americans and American companies can keep being lazy.

We'll just get scooped by foreign companies who are more entrepreneurial and innovative, and are less content to sit on their fat asses and collect their checks by selling ancient technology updated with a worthless "Hemi" or some crap like that.

But, hey, you can relax and take it easy. No skin off your nose if the Netherlands drowns.

R C Dean|4.3.06 @ 6:55PM|#

in Texas . . .we've been in a serious drought for most of the 21st century.

That's not the least bit unusual.

Droughts have been recorded as a problem in Texas since Spaniards explored the area. �lvar N��ez Cabeza de Vacaqv found a population of soil tillers near the site of present-day Presidio, where it had not rained for two years. Regarding the white man as a god, they begged him to tell the sky to rain. In 1720 a summer dry spell in Coahuila killed 3,500 of the 4,000 horses that the Marqu�s de Aguayo,qv governor of Texas, was prepared to bring to Texas. A drought in Central Texas dried up the San Gabriel River in 1756, forcing the abandonment of a settlement of missionaries and Indians. Stephen F. Austin'sqv first colonists also were hurt by drought. In 1822 their initial food crop of corn died from lack of moisture. Each decade since then has been marked by at least one period of severe drought.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/DD/ybd1.html

Thinking that localized cutting of CO2 emissions will make it rain strikes me as being an almost exact reproduction of throwing virgins in a volcano.

|4.3.06 @ 6:57PM|#

R C Dean writes: "But if the only way to stop shitting is to first stop eating, I would say the cure may be worse than the disease."

If humanity were left up to people with your lack of imagination and will to give up, we would have died out millenia ago.

Climatological surrender monkey!

|4.3.06 @ 6:57PM|#

Actually I think there is still some debate about what causes global warming.

http://reason.com/9810/fe.baliunas.shtml

The Sun may be causing some or all of the increase in warming. As near as I can figure, the arrogant mankind-did-it-damnit-debate-over crowd has yet to explain why there was a period of decades last century when there was no increase in the measured Earth temperature. We had global warming for several decades, some cooling/treading water, and then some global warming again. The Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis Alarmists (GEHA's) prefer to knock the motives of those who have come up with a more plausible hypothesis that the Sun also warms (imagine that).

The second problem with the GEHA's is that they don't choose to try to understand economics. Mitigation notwithstanding, there is also the effect of taking polluting industries offline in the US and Europe, only to see them reappear in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. This will happen, and all the carbon credit trading in the world won't change it unless all countries are on board.

The only way all countries will be on board is if there is a clean energy supply. The cleanest that could replace everything now is nuclear, and the GEHA's hate nuclear with a passion, which leads one to wonder what they are trying to achieve.

Finally, any statements that claim that Europe is making progress on reducing so-called greenhouse gases overlooks that this is a mirage. Through trading emissions credits, they are taking credit for Eastern Europe's cleaning up their insanely polluting industries. This cleanup was going to take place regardless of a market in emissions, because they were going to clean up noxious emissions anyway. The fact is that essentially of of Western Europe is emitting considerably more so-called greenhouse gases than they were in 1990, which is where theory says they should try to be 6% below. It ain't going to happen, and is all smoke (so to speak) and mirrors.

|4.3.06 @ 6:59PM|#

"The Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis Alarmists (GEHA's) prefer to knock the motives of those who have come up with a more plausible hypothesis that the Sun also warms (imagine that)."

Well, those people do tend to be sucking at the teat of the lazy corporations who would rather milk old technolgies than seize an opportunity to leap ahead.

|4.3.06 @ 7:39PM|#

I'm a believer in the rule of thumb that says that by the time government gets serious about fixing a problem like this, there's already a workable market solution in place. ...and I remain optimistic that if we can keep government "investment" out of the energy business, then the transition costs to a world with green energy will be borne by entrepreneurs. ...and will come all the sooner.

|4.3.06 @ 8:27PM|#

Sticking with my anarchist's dictum that every problem sows the seed of its resolution, is it not reasonable to assume we will use less carbon-based energy to stay warm the more greenhouse gases we get?
And, if we could stop all government subsidies to asphalt/concrete highways, surely fewer cars would be built.
Should we rejoice that GM is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy? (What's bad for General Bullmoose is bad for global warming?)
Could Condi Rice convince the Iranians to launch some lead torpedoes at the sun to slow the fusion incessantly going on up there? Could the Intelligent Designer be counted on to augment Iran's contribution?
Inquiring minds want to know.

|4.3.06 @ 8:46PM|#

Folks, if in April, you put on an extra blanket, and get hot that night, you don't claim "Hey, it was hotter last August, so perhaps natural temperature fluctuation is why I am so hot tonight" or "Perhaps I had the eight-hour flu". We have put on a few blankets and have ordered a heck of a lot more. It is going to get hotter, unless we are really lucky and there happens to be a natural cold spell to offset it. Of course, the opposite is equally likely to happen, in which case, we get really darned hot.

It is pretty simple. We are doing something on a massive scale that will cause the earth to get warmer. Rapid increases in temperature will cause a number of serious problems (as well as a few benefits). Simple cost-benefit comes out in favor of doing something, but not panicking. Simple honesty requires one to acknowledge the obvious.

For John in his lab coat: If you could just publish a paper refuting the thousands of papers that have been published on this matter, it would be a good start. So far, essentially every paper published says either "a small problem", "a moderate problem" or "a big problem".

uncle sam|4.3.06 @ 9:37PM|#

No consensus:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

|4.3.06 @ 11:41PM|#

While a delta T of +.13 C. per decade may evoke a global yawn , the rise has been great enough to evaporate vast swaths of bibliography, like this slug from the end of a Reason article published in the depths of the Ice Age,June 2005 to be exact:
" Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey is editor of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths and author of Ecoscam..."

Ron, Ron- you really ought to put it atop your resume , for few paradigms of journalistic conduct are more seemly than a science journalist allowing evidence to change his opinion.

The only two that come to mind are publishing retractions and getting the sign right in the first place.

|4.3.06 @ 11:43PM|#

uncle sam: boy have you been hoodwinked

Read the petition: It is clearly designed to manipulate. Hell, I would sign that petition as literally true.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "

It is right, there is no convincing evidence that the problem will surely be catastrophic. The evidence at this time indicates that it will be somewhere between annoying, bad, and catastrophic (all three are possible).

And note that no one disagrees with the final sentence. There will be benefits, though nowhere near as large as the costs.

I am surprised any sane scientist would sign this, as it is clearly meant to manipulate, while being literally true.

|4.3.06 @ 11:48PM|#

Russell: I follow the evidence where it leads. As for Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths--the myth is that global warming is necessarily a catastrophe, NOT that it's not happening.

|4.4.06 @ 12:40AM|#

Ron:
Your commitment to the evidence is commendible- that's why I have just commended you upon it.

Nobody expects newer and more elegant editions of the books you have ceased advertisng , but for the benefit of those informed only by your past eloquence, a column explaining what changed your mind, and when , might be apposite.

Knock em dead-
I don't see any Greens bucking for a retraction Pulitzer, though Lord knows there is room for several.

|4.4.06 @ 1:40AM|#

Happy J,
Re:"The cleanest that could replace everything now is nuclear, and the GEHA's hate nuclear with a passion, which leads one to wonder what they are trying to achieve."

Sorry to tell you dude, but I's with those you dub GEHA's and many see atomic energy as the best long term solution. The problems with it are not environmental, but political. Don't want those _____________s to make bombs with the spent fuel and all that (the waste problem can be taken care of with modern technology, reprocessing, etc). Really, you should try to get out and meet more people. Many of them are very smart, even when they disagree with your politics.

As for the climate models people are using... they are getting better, include factors like solar activity, geothermal factors and the so forth, and the better they get the more they indicate that human activity is one of the factors contributing to the current warming...no one serious claims it is the sole factor. It's more of a fuel-fire thing.

As for global disaster, a wandering comet it more likely to wipe us out, but hey, we wouldn't want to put any energy into avoiding that either, might require us to raise taxes or something.

|4.4.06 @ 2:24AM|#

"I follow the evidence where it leads. As for Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths--the myth is that global warming is necessarily a catastrophe, NOT that it's not happening"

Ron, I think we agree. The scientific community is in widespread agreement that global warming is happening and that our activities are a significant cause. Projections on the order of 2-3C by 2100 are probably on the money. This is not "catastrophic" but clearly will cause a number of unwelcome problems, including stressed ecosystems, coastal flooding, and any number of local climate issues such as droughts and stronger hurricanes, to name a few. Of course, even under reasonable projections, there is also a non-trivial chance of catastrophe as well, which we should take into account. We are gambling with something very valuable and irreplacable.

There is no doubt now that the data justifies action, but not panic. A carbon tax (or cap and trade, which is ultimately the same) is the most efficient way, combined with an end to our absurd subsidies of polluting technologies. From there, let the market sort it out.

Personally, I am pretty hopeful about the matter. I think most projections underestimate how quickly the dinofuel age is going to come to an end. We are already knocking on the door of renewables undercutting petro, and it won't take many more nudges to push it over the edge. From there, it is a landslide.

|4.4.06 @ 2:43AM|#

We are already knocking on the door of renewables undercutting petro, and it won't take many more nudges to push it over the edge. From there, it is a landslide.

Then why do anything?

This makes me think of all the peak-oilers that crow about global warming--WTF?

|4.4.06 @ 4:49AM|#

crap! I forgot my usual plugs for:
www.terrapass.com (nets you a nifty bumpersticker,
and
www.carbonfund.org (more comprehenseive than TerraPass)

both are voluntary freemarket solutions for individuals.

|4.4.06 @ 9:09AM|#

Well, Ron, just remember:

Every time God closes a window, he opens a door.

Heh.

|4.4.06 @ 1:00PM|#

Mainstream Man,

Sorry to tell you dude, but I's with those you dub GEHA's and many see atomic energy as the best long term solution. The problems with it are not environmental, but political. Don't want those _____________s to make bombs with the spent fuel and all that (the waste problem can be taken care of with modern technology, reprocessing, etc). Really, you should try to get out and meet more people

Re: you should try to get out and meet more people. I'm going by what I've read in the "GEHA" literature and by what they say on tv when confronted by a host that miraculously doesn't lap up everything they say as fact. The host says something like: "Ok, you hate fossil fuels because you say they are contributing to global warming. That must mean you are pushing for nuclear energy right?". And the response is invariably: "No, nuclear is bad because of blah blah blah, and we should be using solar, wind etc.".

The problem is that solar and wind etc. are not in the foreseeable future as alternatives to supplying the bulk of our electricity, or we'd all happily jump on board because they create no noxious emissions, and carbon emissions will be a moot point.

I'm happy someone who believes that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels is actually in favor of nuclear energy. Now if only you can convince those who believe in the whole carbon thing to likewise go for nuclear energy, then the US can easily meet and beat the Kyoto targets by replacing all our fossil fuel burning plants with nuclear energy. I actually prefer the cheaper and safer coal myself, but if the choice is between an Al Gore type as our next president who will try to destroy our economy by forcing us to use radically less energy, or choosing someone who advocates nuclear, then count me on the nuclear bandwagon.

|4.4.06 @ 1:46PM|#

R C Dean,
If whale oil ahd been kept artificially cheap we wouldn't have whales today. If we keep fossil oil (and other such fuels) artificially cheap (as Chavez wants) then we will continue to use it until it is all gone into our atmosphere.

Helping fossils Peak Out is the only 'Libertarian' solution I can think of.