Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the Here's a little op-ed column by David Harsanyi that appeared in the Denver Post this morn titled "Chill out over global warming."
If you follow the global climate tribal wars you've heard it all before. Bill Gray, fresh off his ranting biopic in the WaPo, got the ear of Mr. Harsanyi and repeated the same stuff about global cooling and his filial affinity for Senator Inhofe's hoax rhetoric. [That alone is a toughy. I'm an observational oceanographer by training, so Bill Gray has my ear when he rants about modeling and modelers not having a feel for the real world. And he's clearly one of the best hurricane scientists around. But he's also clearly nuts. (in a good way. in an Uncle Gary sorta way.) ]
If you've followed the game you can skip most of the article and if you haven't and decide to read the article, you should consult further opinions on climate science here and here (plan on googling science dictionaries).
There are a couple of things worth talking about in the article though.
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up."Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
Oops! Can this possibly be true? First, let's go to something else in the op-ed that is definitely true:
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
How can RPSr. possibly say this? Well, it's not too hard. Name me three "non-skeptic" and three "skeptic" climate scientists right off the top of your head. My guess is that if I asked ten readers who aren't climate scientists but still follow the news/debate, your lists would all look nearly identical. Most of the climate scientists would have the same list of "skeptics." You'd pick the same guys and gals because you only hear from the same guys and gals. It's not their fault -- it's easy to see how quoting frequency becomes a positive feedback loop. Quoted once and it's an honor, quoted twice and it's a coincidence. After that you're a go-to media-made star expert.
So if RPSr. is right, is Bill Gray right, too? Are there "many" younger scientists out there with a variety of opinions that they don't share? Every climate scientist will answer this question differently, so I'll just give you mine: ABSOLUTELY. A great science studies paper (maybe I'll do it if I get a chance) or long NYT Magazine article would round up all the senior grad students and postdocs at Lamont-Doherty, Woods Hole, Scripps, U Washington, Penn State, U Miami, Oregon State, NCAR and U Oklahoma to get opinions on climate change. Not only is our author going to hear a variety of opinions on climate science, the health of the science, the state of the data, the people doing the analysis, the senior scientists who always get heard, and the state of the planet, but (s)he is going to hear some strong opinions that while humans are changing the atmosphere, ((gasp!!)) it's not going to be that big of a deal. It's beyond just "of course there are lots of opinions -- that's science!" It'll be very illustrative of RPSr.'s point: the panoply of opinions are not represented to the outside world.
Again, any climate scientist will have their own take on what I write above. But I'm a social and curious guy, I talk to anybody I get within 30 feet of and I've been talking about this subject with colleagues for almost ten years. And my perception of any "consensus" is:
- human-caused? sure
- problem? probably (ranging anywhere from "no" to "definitely")
- big problem/panic? no (ranging from "no way!" to "ummm....nah")
- crisis? maybe, not really, not too worried (except for the ecologists who always say "YES!")
- doing anything about it in your personal life? no. (No range here, I don't know personally know a single climate scientist trying to reduce their carbon footprint in any meaningful way, or urging others to do so).
- science solid? in some areas yes, in others not really.
As happened again two months ago, every time I question this it seems I come across another colleague who says something like, "This is all bullshit." They don't usually mean that the whole notion of anthropogenic climate change is bullshit, they just mean that the science isn't solid enough for their liking and that the threat is overblown. These aren't skeptics working to disprove hard-found facts on the climate system, these are working climate scientists themselves researching for the love of figuring out natural systems. In the case of the colleague I mention above, (s)he is a former Lamont-Doherty classmate with a PhD in chemical oceanography and much atmosphere-ocean gas exchange research, now a very successful researcher running his/her own program at a federal lab. (Gender neutral to help preserve anonymity.) This person in no way fits any standard "climate skeptic" model yet if you had heard what I heard you might have thought it came from Dick Lindzen. Point? There is a lot of opinion out there, even if you're not hearing it.
Comments
# 1 | Brian | June 5, 2006 8:00 PM
Hey, did you go to Lamont? My father used to teach there. He's a vulcanologist and though he fully acknowledges the anthropogenic forcings, he too doesn't seem overly concerned by the implications.
# 2 | Left_Wing_Fox | June 5, 2006 8:33 PM
What I have to wonder about is if there is this level of debate in the scientific community and a relative unconcern about the consequences, why haven't the "skeptic", pro-industry or Republican think-tanks actively sought out these sorts of moderating voices, instead of using the muddle-headed canards and easily debunked refutations that we're treated to on a regular basis?
# 3 | rbsimmon | June 5, 2006 9:20 PM
As a minor player (I'm a scientific visualization specialist) in NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Climate and Radiation Branch (not GISS) I have to strongly disagree with you on this point. Come to Goddard and count the Prius' and Civic hybrids vs. the number of SUV's. Count the number of people who ride their bikes to work, despite the risk of being hit and killed on the road. I think the climate science community is quite aware of the risks posed by global climate change, and many of them are personally committed to improving the situation.
BTW: you might want to point out that the director of the CSTPR is Roger Pielke Jr., son of Pielke Sr., and more or less an apologist for the contrarians.
# 4 | Brian S. | June 5, 2006 9:39 PM
So is the "not a big problem" defined the same way as RP Jr. defines a 10% increase in hurricane intensity compared to what would otherwise occur as not a big problem? If that's the case, then I feel that I'm not overestimating the problem, I'm just giving it a different label than these people do.
FWIW, I've generally thought the most important implications of AGW were changing precipitation patterns in countries with extremely poor farmers and herders, and biodiversity loss. Water implications from disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas, and all the implications of sea level rise, are also worrisome. Seems to me that it's a big problem.
(And FWIW, Part Deux, I have my doubts about the study that came out saying nearly 200 million Africans would die from global warming. That seems unlikely.)
# 5 | kevin v | June 5, 2006 11:59 PM
Brian 1 - yes indeedy....details in the About page.
LWF - I think that's an excellent question and I've thought about it myself. Here's the only answer I can give you: about 90% of scientists are deathly afraid of politics (beyond just backyard/office cooler discussions with their friends). Some are willing to stick their necks out, a vast majority aren't, especially if they sniff a mood that might jump on them for expressing dissent (and I think we can all agree that any scientist expressing a little dissent on climate in whatever form that dissent takes is hammered pretty ruthlessly). Obviously early career scientists feel they have much more to lose by being vocal than established/tenured scientists.
Where am I coming from on the 90% number? As a (former) Congressional Science Fellow I've talked to a large number of early career scientists. I could count on one hand the number who expressed interest in doing something like a Congressional fellowship or otherwise expressing any interest in science and politics.
rbs - no doubt some are doing what they think they can do, but as I said, I don't personally know anybody and I do know quite a few climate scientists. I applaud personal striving toward energy efficiency and I've argued for meaningful increases in CAFE standards (rather than the incremental nothingness that Norm Mineta is sure to push for on behalf of the Administration). And I ride my bike to work everyday. I'm just giving my observations.
I'm curious why I'd need to mention father-son relationships or directorships or whatever in this case? And which of the two (or both) do you consider an "apologist?" Wouldn't be my view of their writings, but as a Chris Mooney commenter showed (in defining my politics for me), opinion is in the eye of the interpreter.
BS - I can't give numbers, just my vague interpretation. 8-) I fully recognize that other scientists will have different interpretations. And I don't disagree with you that the biggest issues will be outside the U.S. As is the case with natural disasters, U.S. issues will be mostly economic while 3rd world issues mostly life-and-death.
# 6 | James Annan | June 6, 2006 12:11 AM
Kevin,
I really think you're guilty of reading what you want to hear into these sort of comments. I can't recall ever hearing any normal scientist saying anything like "it's all bullshit" regarding the conclusions of the IPCC TAR. But of course we may have strong opinions regarding individual pieces of research, and I would certainly agree that some aspects are overblown (as I've blogged about frequently). Will it kill my career? I'll tell you in a decade or so...
As for "doing anything about it", I call bullshit on that too. Of course, I'm not claiming that I and many of my colleagues are paragons of virtue. But if you've seriously never met anyone who is actually trying to do anything about it, it could only mean that you move in very limited circles indeed. I rather doubt this is true, and conclude instead that you are simply seeing what you want to see. Or perhaps playing Devils Advocate for the purposes of a provocative blog post...
# 7 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 12:25 AM
Or perhaps playing Devils Advocate for the purposes of a provocative blog post...
I guess you see me doing that pretty often, huh? Blogging just continues the way one has acted his/her whole life; only difference is, you can't see the expression on my face when I'm doing it. I wouldn't get nearly the hate mail if people could....
Anyway, yes and no. Before I even wrote that I did a mental round-up of every climate-connected classmate at Lamont with whom I'm still in reasonable enough contact to have a sense of their lifestyles. And I stand by my statement. They're driving the same cars, living in normal houses, buying imported foods and flying all over the place. Nobody is buying carbon offsets, driving hybrids, reducing their travel and making sure they only eat local foods. They are all living like normal Americans.
As far as who comments and who is afraid of killing their careers, the proof is in the pudding. How many climate blogs are there vs. how many climate scientists? And how many climate bloggers are both early career and willing to throw water on results they think are overblown or otherwise bullshit? I can think of you and .... well .... nobody else.
# 8 | James Annan | June 6, 2006 1:54 AM
Maybe you don't regard them as early career (I don't think that most of them are much older, just more successful) but RealClimate have also been quite happy to hand out the brickbats where appropriate. They have done it in a slightly more more measured way, perhaps...
# 9 | TokyoTom | June 6, 2006 6:51 AM
Kevin, I think Brian S has correctly identified the major reason why climate scientists may feel little personal pressure to speak out or to change their lifestyle - the principal impacts of climate change will be felt in the third world, with much lesser impacts in the developed world, which is in a good position to adapt and to weather the storm.
Other reasons for apathy are the fact that changes now will not be felt (even if made wholesale by society), given the amount of committed forcing already in store, and the fact that, absent coordinated action with other individuals and countries, any voluntary actions carry benefit any number of free riders, further diluting the benefit of voluntary action.
These of course are also factors that have played into policy delay in the US, along with the fact that those receiving an implicit subsidy through the unfettered and unpriced use of the global atmospheric commons were happy to pay nominal fees to politicians and to pundits to continue/mask their continued subsidies.
Regards,
Tom
# 10 | rbsimmon | June 6, 2006 8:34 AM
I think you'd need to mention the relationship because you're commenting on Pielke Sr.'s remarks, and I think there's a pretty close relationship between the two (my impression--I'm more familiar with Sr. than Jr.). Perhaps the "mild McCarthyism" is in your department, aren't you a young researcher promoting the philosophy of your boss?
I mean Jr. is an apologist. He argues the Exxon/contrarian point of view: "We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing," without doing any climate research. Sr. is an active researcher in the field, and contributes constructive criticism, even if I don't agree with his conclusion (the fact that local environmental change is often more serious than global change does not mean that global change can not have extreme local effects.)
One more point: Why do you believe young scientists have nothing to gain by arguing against the concensus? Research that contradicts established science--finds something new--is far more likely to be published and noticed than research that confirms the consensus, even if the new/surprising result turns out to be wrong in the long run.
# 11 | Roger Pielke, Jr. | June 6, 2006 10:41 AM
rbsimmon- You are sadly misinformed.
Nothing could be further from the truth than what you have written, "I mean Jr. is an apologist. He argues the Exxon/contrarian point of view: "We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing," without doing any climate research."
Before carelessly slandering people on the internet, perhaps it is a good idea to do some background research so that your opinions are at least informed.
Thanks.
# 12 | John Fleck | June 6, 2006 11:29 AM
rbsimmon again demonstrates the accuracy of Kevin's spot-on analyses of the mindless tribalism that infects this discussion. "Roger Jr. doesn't seem to be in my tribe so he must be in the Exxon tribe!" I'm wondering, Roger, do you have uniforms? Like, do y'all wear matching T-shirts or something so I can tell which side you're on? If not, how do you know who to tackle when they're trying to capture your flag?
# 13 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 11:56 AM
Rob, usually commenters who make off-cuff remarks that can be easily shown ridiculous by ten minutes actually reading somebody's body of work don't have such a prominent web presence and employment. But you make your own bed.
Anywho, your inference is curious. Since I've bashed Exxon in other posts and "Jr." is an Exxon apologist, where does that leave our relationship? And can I trade on my agreement with one news quote by "Sr." for a permenant job at CU or CSU or maybe in the state climatology office of Colorado?
Anyway, if I was a young researcher (that part is right) who in any way was afraid of the ramifications of what I've written publicly, I probably wouldn't have written things like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=13&search=barnett
or be blogging at all since I obviously can't keep my devil's advocate trap shut! hahaha
# 14 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 12:06 PM
James, was that a backhanded insult or compliment? No, I don't consider most of the regular RC contributors to be early career. Certainly Mann, Ray P and Archer aren't, I don't know Gavin's status but he's been around long enough to be in a tenured-like state, Rasmus has been publishing for ten years, etc. [Me? Sure. I never postdocked after my PhD which was only 3 years ago -- this is the first time I've done a research gig since leaving grad school. I'm about as early career as you can get.] But that's not the point. RC isn't exactly going against the mold or *ever* calling established orthodoxies into question, is it? Point was, early career scientists who might take even a moderately, occassional contrarian POV aren't putting themselves out there and I don't think it's because they don't exist.
# 15 | Gavin | June 6, 2006 12:25 PM
Since it came up, I should probably confirm that I am in a (relatively recent) 'tenured-like state', but I don't think that has affected my desire or inclination to state my opinions. I find it odd though that you seem to equate 'speaking out against orthodoxy' as being the hallmark of being some kind of free thinker on the issues. Orthodoxy in science is generally orthodox for a reason, and indeed many of the 'occasional contrarian' POV's that are expressed are wrong precisely because they often don't understand why the orthodoxy is the way it is. One of the roles I envisaged for RC was precisely the explanation of the reasoning behind the 'orthodoxy' so that the more ill-informed commentary might be moderated (some hope!). You have to remember though that 'scientific orthodoxy' is not like a religious sect - it can be very orthodox to think that some questions are extremely uncertain for instance (the importance of long-term solar forcing for instance). Finding something 'unorthodox' to say can be a great way to raise one's profile and so if people really want to do that, there are many outlets (Geroge Taylor and Patrick Michaels spring to mind as examples of people whose opinions would never be reported upon without their 'unorthodox' natures). The lack of serious 'unorthodox' opinions in the media is not through lack of ambitious young scientists, but more because of 'big tent' nature of the 'orthodoxy'.
# 16 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 12:47 PM
Gavin, I agree. My intent and thoughts are not that "'speaking out against orthodoxy' as being the hallmark of being some kind of free thinker on the issues." There are plenty of "free thinkers" who still agree with 90-95% of the established orthodoxies (myself included).
My point is simply that I agree with RPSr.'s quote in the article: "Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted 'over and over' again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions."
I think that's about right. By "intellectual diversity" I don't think he's talking about getting more Singer/Soon/Baliunas into the mix, he's talk about getting more people into the mix who say things like, "Ok, the science is solid, but it really doesn't matter, because ...." Seems to me that when people come along with nuanced messages like ("I agree with the science, but xxxx social/economic issue is much more important to the big picture") they get shouted down by many.
# 17 | Steve Bloom | June 6, 2006 1:22 PM
Kevin wrote "Seems to me that when people come along with nuanced messages like ('I agree with the science, but xxxx social/economic issue is much more important to the big picture') they get shouted down by many."
This is a bad example since it involves a broad discussion of public policy (and, btw, happens to be one of the standard forms of climate "skepticism", IMHO quite lacking in nuance unless you're contrasting it with Bill Gray's views). Can you list some examples that stay within the science?
# 18 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 2:01 PM
Steve - that's just the point. To a guy like me, just discussing the science is meaningless. I've spent all my time since my first undergrad geology course looking for places where science and society collide. Discussing either independent of the other isn't what I do.
# 19 | Jeff S | June 6, 2006 3:53 PM
Really interesting post (and discussion) but ultimately a little frustrating, at least to me. First can you clarify if the range of opinion you report among climatologists is reasonably representative of your own opinions. I suspect it is, based on the well observed tendency for say, Tom Friedman of the New York Times to get into cabs driven by folks who say just what he thinking. Not that there is anything wrong with that, BTW. It's human nature.
Anyway, to the extent that this nuanced view is your own, can you say more about the statement:
"crisis? maybe, not really, not too worried"
To what degree does this reflect doubts about the solidity of the science, which you also allude to, or doubts about the extent it will impact people and the environment in general? Or, is it a sense, as Brian S. brings to the discussion, the feeling that as highly educated members of a very weathly society, we and our children are likely to see most of the benifits and little of the costs of staying on our present course of increasing the concentration of GHG's?
Also, in above comments you seem to imply that there are perhaps many issues that you believe are much more important than climate change. What would you put on that list?
Similarly, can you flesh out where you and/or your cohorts feel the science is solid and where it is "not really".
fwiw, I'm a scientist but not a climatologist, and GW is something I've been somewhat interested in for about 15 years. But I don't know the science in detail. I've been appalled by how issue has been politicized and I lay the blame entirely at the feet of folks who do not respect science or believe it has any role to play in public policy, except if it supports their narrow interests. And those who directly benefit from obfuscation, e.g. Exxon Mobil. And, moreover, I believe that GW is a major crisis, on a risk-adjusted basis, the biggest ecological threat we face.
I allow that I could be wrong about that, however, and I'm much more likely to be convinced of this by a scientist than by, say, Sen. Inhofe.
# 20 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 4:28 PM
Of course my own views are going to color my perceptions, which is why I wrote twice in the post, "Every climate scientist will answer this question differently." As far as whether people are judging this a crisis, I am judging by actions as much as words. As I said in the comments to James, I'm just not seeing a lot of panic from fellow climate people. The strongest feelings I hear on the issue are from ecologists and others involved in species extinction issues. I would judge that those types see crisis more readily. James might make a case for crisis. I don't see it.
It's not that I see "many issues that [I] believe are much more important than climate change," it's that I recognize that climate change is one issue wrapped up amongst many, many others and I don't think a focus-lock on CO2/GHGs is all that productive. We and the rest of the world already face severe weather-related hazards issues that, although they may get worse with climate change, are already serious problems that need to be solved in their own right and not framed only as carbon mitigation issues. I went to Caracas, Venezuela after 30,000 people were killed in a day of debris flows in December 1999. The issue there isn't climate change, it's demographics. My fear is that if we focus on carbon mitigation it will steal the show, allowing people to leave the real problem (settling patterns and lack of knowledge transfer from local geologists to residents) untouched. That's one example of many. In certain cases climate change will be a major player in a local problem, in the case I illustrate above climate change is the minor player. To the extent that we spend resources on carbon mitigation, we may take away resources and/or focus from more important underlying issues. My goal here, in part, is to try to keep us focused on reality. In the Venezuela case reality is that carbon mitigation isn't going to do a damn thing to prevent the next weather-related 30K-fatality disaster on the slopes above Caracas.
FWIW, I'm not sure if you've accurately encapsulated Brian there, but I disagree that the wealthy society is "likely to see most of the benefits and little of the costs of staying on our present course of increasing the concentration of GHG's." As I said to Brian, as happens with all natural disasters, the wealthy society is likely to see huge economic costs and little life lost while the poor society see the reverse of that. But I think the wealthy society is potentially much more vulnerable to agricultural issues that could arise. To the extent that a wealthy society is utterly dependent on its infrastructural lifelines, if those lifelines break down, the wealthy society may stand utterly helpless and frozen while those in a poor society at least may be able to go about continuing to eke out a living as they had been. I do think that consumerist, comfortable, suburban America is far more vulnerable than they think they are.
# 21 | Jeff S | June 6, 2006 8:39 PM
I certainly agree that a "focus-lock on CO2/GHG" isn't all that productive. Focus-locks seldom are. The problem is that I don't see many people who, for lack of a better identifying "tribal" identifier, believe that AGW is a "crisis", think that a focus-lock is appropriate. It seems to me that this is something of a straw man. Kind of like your "not signing kyoto isn't like nuking switzerland" post.
But hey, banging around strawmen can be fun, so I'm not faulting you for this.
Getting back to the "Crisis?...Not too worried" question, if you are "judging by actions as much by words" and are not "seeing a lot of panic from fellow climate people", well, I guess that's not too surprising. Panic is a really hard thing to maintain over a lifetime. And probably not that useful, either. Also, climate people are, after all, people, and know that that vacation in Hawaii won't warm the planet very much but may well add to their quality of life, that driving is easier and faster than biking, etc. I think the expression is "the tragedy of the commons".
Look, it seems to a large extent we are arguing semantics about what constitutes a "crisis", perhaps in part because as you note you like to be a devil's advocate.
I'd be interested in your reaction this statement: Given the very real potential for serious and lasting consequences to the world's people and ecosystems, the US response to AGW has been and continues to be grossly inadaquate, especially given our large contribution to the world's GHGs.
Nuance is great, but taking a stand is cool sometimes too.
# 22 | rbsimmon | June 6, 2006 9:09 PM
Aren't flame wars what the internet is for? Anyhow, that makes a good case for the time, editing, and vetting that goes into content posted on the Earth Observatory, as opposed to personal comments from my home computer. (But check out Deep Freeze and Sea Breeze or The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards if you're interested in either Pielke's work.)
I acknowledge using "apologist", "Exxon", and "Pielke Jr." in the same sentence was misguided. I'm off to spend more than 10 minutes wading through his body of work. Hopefully I'll come back with an insightful comment. In the meantime, we should all just kick back with a drink, perhaps a caipirinha:
Muddle (mash the bejeezus out of) 1/2 lime cut into quarters with 1 (generous) teaspoon of brown sugar. Add 2 oz. cachaca (unaged Brazilian rum) and fill with cracked ice.
# 23 | TokyoTom | June 7, 2006 3:48 AM
Kevin, at least you're aware that ecologists and others involved in species extinction issues see crisis more readily. As that is not your field, you just don't feel it the same way as, say E. O. Wilson or Thomas Lovejoy, which is not surprising, as legendary biologist Aldo Leopold noted some time ago: "One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well -- and does not want to be told otherwise." A Sand County Almanac, p. 197.
I think it's difficult to argue with those who note that we are the source of a great wave of extinctions, but still possible to remain emotionally aloof, given that most of the extinctions are not happening before our eyes and do not affect us personally. But that aloofness does not eliminate our collective responsibility - through failure to address the common institutional failures that lie at the root of extinctions, climate change and other natural resource issues - for the damage that is being done in the form of lost genetic information and damaged ecosystems. Leopold also made the rather obvious comment that "To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." The equally obvious rejoinder is that our tinkering with the earth is neither intelligent nor deliberate - but why not? Because it is simply the inevitable consequence of our marriage of human numbers and desires with potent technological and capitalist tools, unhindered by essential feedback mechanisms in the the form of clear or enforceable property rights (this, by the way, is what Diamond fails to understand in Collapse).
Garrett Hardin explained the tragedy of the commons rather lucidly to us forty years ago, but we haven't been able to get past our individual self-interests to ensure our collective long-term interests, at least with respect to global and regional commons, "public" resources even at home, and even private resources in the third world.
Kevin, in an effort to ensure perspective, you state that "My fear is that if we focus on carbon mitigation it will steal the show, allowing people to leave the real problem (settling patterns and lack of knowledge transfer from local geologists to residents) untouched." Well, just as with the species problem (tropical forests, reefs, over-fishing, etc.), overpopulation and climate change share core attributes: they are manifestations of market failure. In the West, we have seen declining birth rates as in largely market economies parent have to bear most of the costs of raising their children. In the third world (and parts of the West), this is not the case. Each separate problem of institutional failure imposes costs that are shared among all, with the benefits concentrated in a fewer number; it is worth the effort to remedy each of them, in an of themselves, and to do so on a net basis reduces costs rather than imposing them.
Your focus on out-of-pocket costs in making changes reflects a capture of the debate by those who want to keep on enjoying benefits at the costs of others. A better and more accurate framing would be to realize that we need to tie ownership rights to the those who exploit a resource, so they not only receive the benefits but must bear the true costs of their actions. Solving these problems does not in principle mean that the government has to pony up the costs, or some kind of payoff - even if doing so might be needed to grease the skids sufficiently that powerful special interests start to move to policies that are more rational overall in the long-run.
Regards,
Tom
# 24 | kevin v | June 7, 2006 1:18 PM
Thanks TT, I again agree with you. I also say, though, that
we need to tie ownership rights to the those who exploit a resource
means individual users of energy, which is all of us (I guess I'm feeling slightly less guilty right now sweltering in my office but without AC). Oil/gas purveyors are just doing the extracting and selling, while we're all doing the using. Of the two, the user is the exploiter.
# 25 | Brian S. | June 8, 2006 9:39 PM
I didn't mean to say that the climatologists Kevin talked to thought, "Warming a crisis? Well, not to us, and screw the poor, so - not really." Instead I don't think they even considered what'll happen to subsistence farmers when asked the question.
I'm speaking from my usual ignorance, but I'd be surprised if there's a single climatologist anywhere whose primary research concerns the effect of climate on subsistence farming and herding (as opposed to commercial ag in First or Third Worlds). If such a person or people exist, I'd expect they would be in crisis mode.
And btw, here in California, where I personally live behind a levee below sea level in a flood zone, climate change could be an issue. Maybe I'm just not a good adapter...
# 26 | TokyoTom | June 9, 2006 1:58 AM
Kevin, thanks for your note. Pollution cases are a little more complex than simple resource exploitation cases (and in my view at least theoretically justify a government role), but it makes sense to attach the locus of responsibility with those whose are best positioned to control the exploitation of a resource or to limit the harmful emission. This may not always be clear and an economic analysis of who the least cost controller is may be helpful.
Alternative arguments can be made in the case of fossil fuels; the first being that fossil fuel producers exploit the resource - in the same manner that fisherman catch the fish even if they don't eat them. It is becoming clear that the key to solving overfishing problems is to let the fisherman own the resource, as Ron Bailey discussed last year: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb092805.shtml. In this case, emissions can be restricted by requiring producers to purchase GHG emission rights based on the carbon level of the raw material produced. This would inevitably restrict supply and raise prices, which would cause economizing downstrea, but would create no incentives downstream for users to find ways to reduce carbon emissions (as doing so would not reduce the emitters' costs), unless energy producers could generate additional GHG emission rights by investing in or purchasing offsets by others, such as through carbon sequestration. The advantages would be that the regulatory scheme need deal only with a fairly limited pool of resource producers/importers.
Alternativley, seeking to control carbon midstream by distributing transferrable GHG emission to industrial users and retail fuel suppliers, who would have incentives to limit their GHG emissions (so that they could avoid the cost of purchasing permits from others or in order to generate excess permits to sell) or to invest in recognized offsets.
The Senate Energy Committee right now is considering various approaches; there are many interesting proposals from industry and commentators at their web site. In any case, the point is to create some type of property right that can be traded, in order to allow least cost reductions and to create incentives for continuing investment in technology that minimizes GHG emissions.
Taxes may theoretically have a similar ieffect as permits, but the big strike against them is that they are much more susceptible to politcial manipulation, and move funds into the Treasury that are also subject to inefficient, pork-barrel use.
Regards,
Tom
# 27 | kevin v | June 9, 2006 11:52 AM
Jeff -
I'd be interested in your reaction this statement: Given the very real potential for serious and lasting consequences to the world's people and ecosystems, the US response to AGW has been and continues to be grossly inadaquate, especially given our large contribution to the world's GHGs.
Agreed. My personal position for a long time has been that this should primarily be viewed as a risk management situation. A risk (implying both knowledge and uncertainty) has been identified and we need to deal with that risk. So far we've done very, very little to directly address the risk. Even saying "we know the risk exists but we're choosing to ignore it for the following reasons..." would be preferable to the current course.
# 28 | kevin v | June 9, 2006 11:57 AM
Brian - a lot of people at IRI are doing that kind of work. Or at least you'd get that impression walking down the corridors of the building, which is filled with photos of third-world ag and forestry scenes. http://iri.columbia.edu/
The point of locating IRI on the Lamont campus was to foster the sort of collaboration between working climate scientists and people working directly with farmers in the 3rd world.
TT - good comments again. The Bingaman/Domenici conference and White Paper was a good start (search the archives here, I wrote a post or two on it) and we'll see what the Senate derives. My prediction is that after the '09 inaguration, barring some major 9-11 like distracting event, we're going to start seeing a lot of policy movement on hashing out the ideas discussed at the Bingaman/Domenici hearing.
# 29 | Brian S. | June 11, 2006 2:27 PM
Thanks for the IRI link, and you're right - they research food insecurity, not just commercial ag in the 3d World.
Not clear where they stand on AGW as a crisis - a search pulled up a dead link to this topic:
"Dr. S. G. H. Philander, Chair,Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University "State of Fear about the Day After Tomorrow: The Global Warming Controversy from an African Perspective" (Abstract) Wednesday, June 07, 2006"
Not a lot of references otherwise though. I'd admit it doesn't provide much support for my expectation that a malnutrition-focused climatologist would consider AGW a crisis.
OTOH, they really seem to care about sea-surface temps as determining precipitation patterns. Not sure what to make of it.
# 30 | Brian S. | June 11, 2006 6:11 PM
Okay, I spoke too soon:
"Global climate change is the single greatest challenge to sustainability. Millions of people are affected by
climate, including floods and droughts. Victims are most often the poor-with the least resilience to manage
variability. It reduces their capacity for development, and exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Even though
the uncertainties related to climate change are diminishing with the advance of scientific knowledge, more
extreme weather events are now experienced more than ever before.
It is likely that these extreme events may increase in frequency or intensity. Much of the new evidence
points to anthropogenic causes. Changes in climate have already affected biological and social systems.
Projections indicate that an increase in temperature of 1.4 to 5 degrees over the coming century will lead
to increases in sea level, demise of reefs and estuaries, catastrophic flooding from glacial lake overflow,
more extreme events, and an increasing impact on human health.
Countries have the opportunity to work together to use the findings of science to reduce vulnerability. It is
imperative to take a precautionary approach. An important step at the global policy level is to realize the
objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change through the implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol."
http://iri.columbia.edu/outreach/publication/irireport/JapanMeetingreport.pdf