Even among my small circle of friends, there seem to be polarized beliefs about global warming, or climate change. I sampled six months of columns and editorials in the Wall Street Journal and discovered that the universal angle of the full sample was to argue about how expensive this or that action to confront climate change might be and to imply that there was nothing profound here to justify such an expense. (I randomly looked up and read about twelve such pieces.) I was looking for data, and all I could find was this kind of polemic. On the other hand, if you read EAARTH by Bill McKibben, his argument is that the case for warming is closed, the planet has already dangerously warmed up, and the challenges now are all about how we are going to adjust living in the new environment. Wow, is that a spread or not?
Along the way, I have sampled other sources as far stretched as Wikipedia, Michael Chrichton’s book, State of Fear, a recent cover stor yin the Economist on deforestation, googled dissenting views on global warming and processed through the many discussions I have had with people. I am in search for the common thread of sense that runs through this dialogue. Along the way, one is always trying to decipher among (1) who has facts, (2) who thinks they are conveying truth, and (3) who is interpreting their belief system as fact.
Am I now the one who will call my opinion fact? I hope not.
There is one saving grace to all these discussions. Most predictions of major catastrophe don’t come true. Why? Because once humans become convinced of such a negative outlook they tend to change their behavior. So, the goal of social debate on a subject like global warming, and perhaps all subjects found within Fourth Quarter (a Socratic dialogue website in development, 4thqtr.com) is to get to a conclusion which either makes people feel safe with the status quo or scares people into action to avoid the predicted outcome. (Unfortunately, I also know personally that reliance on this belief doesn’t always work. About 50 million people lived in Pakistan when I was there in 1965. There was great concern about population expansion and how extraordinarily difficult it would be for Pakistan to grow fast enough to support it. Growing at 2.5% per year, populations will double every twenty-five years. Lots of attention to this issue didn’t work. Today about 150 million people live in Pakistan, a country beset with innumerable problems.)
Along the way, I have sampled other sources as far stretched as Wikipedia, Michael Chrichton’s book, State of Fear, a recent cover stor yin the Economist on deforestation, googled dissenting views on global warming and processed through the many discussions I have had with people. I am in search for the common thread of sense that runs through this dialogue. Along the way, one is always trying to decipher among (1) who has facts, (2) who thinks they are conveying truth, and (3) who is interpreting their belief system as fact.
Am I now the one who will call my opinion fact? I hope not.
There is one saving grace to all these discussions. Most predictions of major catastrophe don’t come true. Why? Because once humans become convinced of such a negative outlook they tend to change their behavior. So, the goal of social debate on a subject like global warming, and perhaps all subjects found within Fourth Quarter (a Socratic dialogue website in development, 4thqtr.com) is to get to a conclusion which either makes people feel safe with the status quo or scares people into action to avoid the predicted outcome. (Unfortunately, I also know personally that reliance on this belief doesn’t always work. About 50 million people lived in Pakistan when I was there in 1965. There was great concern about population expansion and how extraordinarily difficult it would be for Pakistan to grow fast enough to support it. Growing at 2.5% per year, populations will double every twenty-five years. Lots of attention to this issue didn’t work. Today about 150 million people live in Pakistan, a country beset with innumerable problems.)
LET ME BEGIN WITH AN OVERVIEW
I do not believe that the correct question focuses solely on climate change, or global warming, and I think the educated majority would agree. That question misses a much wider point. This point is whether we have convergence of a handful of trends that when combined constitute a real threat to the way of life to which we have become accustomed. Let’s begin with world population. Thomas Malthus wrote an essay on this in 1798 and has since been generally derided about his worries about population expansion. In fact, his most primary arguments were pretty sound, namely, that as population expands you will run out of food, because population expends faster than food sources, and the population will contract because of starvation to get back into balance. Of course, this forecast doesn’t work if society responds to the crisis by discovering/inventing all new ways and forms to increase food production beyond the status quo model. This has been the case for the past 200+ years.
But, things can change. The Economist reports that population is forecasted to expand by half over the next four decades, to 9 billion souls. Most of the expansion will come from developing countries. And, here is the rub. They will want the good life. And, the good life comes from a barrel of oil that produces an amount of energy equal to eleven years of manual labor. Because, in today’s model, most everything related to the good life relates to energy. It is the way we live. Slow down population expansion and you slow down the demand for energy. Don’t, and you will need a whole lot more energy.
But, increased population also demands food. Generally speaking, the most common way to increase food production, particularly in the developing world, is to put more land into cultivation. Presumably, all farmers will exploit every form of input (i.e., chemicals) into the growing process. But, if you simply observe the world, you will note that there has been a historical trend toward clearing away forests to make way for land that can be cultivated and while that trend has slowed a bit, for example, in places like Brazil, it still continues at a material rate of forest reduction.
So, for the moment, I am suggesting that population expansion, the demand for food (and water), the demand for energy, and deforestation all converges against the topic of climate change/global warming.
But, things can change. The Economist reports that population is forecasted to expand by half over the next four decades, to 9 billion souls. Most of the expansion will come from developing countries. And, here is the rub. They will want the good life. And, the good life comes from a barrel of oil that produces an amount of energy equal to eleven years of manual labor. Because, in today’s model, most everything related to the good life relates to energy. It is the way we live. Slow down population expansion and you slow down the demand for energy. Don’t, and you will need a whole lot more energy.
But, increased population also demands food. Generally speaking, the most common way to increase food production, particularly in the developing world, is to put more land into cultivation. Presumably, all farmers will exploit every form of input (i.e., chemicals) into the growing process. But, if you simply observe the world, you will note that there has been a historical trend toward clearing away forests to make way for land that can be cultivated and while that trend has slowed a bit, for example, in places like Brazil, it still continues at a material rate of forest reduction.
So, for the moment, I am suggesting that population expansion, the demand for food (and water), the demand for energy, and deforestation all converges against the topic of climate change/global warming.
SO, WHERE DO WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION?
Let’s start with CO₂ since that seems to be a core issue with global warming. What is the issue with CO₂? The bottom line seems to be that CO₂ is a heat trapping gas. I am taking this as truth, but acknowledge that this is either true, or false. CO₂ absorbs and emits infrared radiation. For most of recorded history or deduction from scientific investigation, the average temperature of earth has been 59-60 degrees. This is either true or false. For most of recorded history our atmosphere has contained 275 parts per million of CO₂. This is either true or false.
Plant life creates oxygen, required for life, as we know it, which is the waste product of producing carbohydrates, which are turned into sugar. Plants absorb CO₂, combine it with hydrogen, to start the process, which is all part of the mystery of photosynthesis. Bottom line, plants absorb carbon and store it. Thus, when plants are burned or decay carbon is released into the atmosphere. When plant debris is compressed over millions of years it turns into oil. Thus, burning oil or coal or other by products of this process releases CO₂.
For most of the recorded history of mankind, all of this has been pretty much in balance. Humans had limited ability to alter the gas composition of air. (Deforestation in Europe occurred several centuries ago.) It was what it was. And even today, I believe from what I have read, the normal beginning and passing of life… human, animal, and plant… still is responsible for 95% of CO₂ composition in the air. (Or, to put it differently, it is responsible for an extra 3-5% of CO₂, requiring the point of equilibrium to change, or CO₂ content in air to grow.) But, like an ocean liner located 1,000 miles from shore, a navigation error of 1% will take the ship many, many miles off target from its point of destination. The essential question of global warming is whether the industrialization of mankind, and the increasing production of energy that creates CO₂ as a by-product, has the ability to alter the composition of this heat trapping gas in the atmosphere.
Most of the scientific community believes that the composition of CO₂ in the atmosphere is now 390 parts per million, and it is rising 1.9 parts per million per year. Presumably, that is a knowable scientific fact so I am going to allow that to be an assumed truth. A wide group of people believe that average world temperature changes, probably more than a full degree, at 375. I do not know if this is truth. But if this is true, the world is already warmer now than has been the case throughout the ages. (The dissension that exists in the public about this does not materially exist among the scientific community where there is over whelming agreement that the earth is hotter today than during any other time since human beings have dominated the planet.) Those concerned about global warming believe that even a 1-degree change will have a very material impact on weather patterns and ice formations at both poles.
Plant life creates oxygen, required for life, as we know it, which is the waste product of producing carbohydrates, which are turned into sugar. Plants absorb CO₂, combine it with hydrogen, to start the process, which is all part of the mystery of photosynthesis. Bottom line, plants absorb carbon and store it. Thus, when plants are burned or decay carbon is released into the atmosphere. When plant debris is compressed over millions of years it turns into oil. Thus, burning oil or coal or other by products of this process releases CO₂.
For most of the recorded history of mankind, all of this has been pretty much in balance. Humans had limited ability to alter the gas composition of air. (Deforestation in Europe occurred several centuries ago.) It was what it was. And even today, I believe from what I have read, the normal beginning and passing of life… human, animal, and plant… still is responsible for 95% of CO₂ composition in the air. (Or, to put it differently, it is responsible for an extra 3-5% of CO₂, requiring the point of equilibrium to change, or CO₂ content in air to grow.) But, like an ocean liner located 1,000 miles from shore, a navigation error of 1% will take the ship many, many miles off target from its point of destination. The essential question of global warming is whether the industrialization of mankind, and the increasing production of energy that creates CO₂ as a by-product, has the ability to alter the composition of this heat trapping gas in the atmosphere.
Most of the scientific community believes that the composition of CO₂ in the atmosphere is now 390 parts per million, and it is rising 1.9 parts per million per year. Presumably, that is a knowable scientific fact so I am going to allow that to be an assumed truth. A wide group of people believe that average world temperature changes, probably more than a full degree, at 375. I do not know if this is truth. But if this is true, the world is already warmer now than has been the case throughout the ages. (The dissension that exists in the public about this does not materially exist among the scientific community where there is over whelming agreement that the earth is hotter today than during any other time since human beings have dominated the planet.) Those concerned about global warming believe that even a 1-degree change will have a very material impact on weather patterns and ice formations at both poles.
SO WHAT MIGHT A REASONABLE PERSON CONCLUDE ABOUT CO₂?
I think this: you ought not mess around with Mother Nature. All other things being equal, more is not good.
If you agree with the above statement, then you might also agree that it would not be a good thing to increase the rate that CO₂ builds up in the atmosphere. But, all of the current trend lines point toward the risk of even a higher rate of expansion. Let us examine a few.
Carbon is stored in forests and the land beneath. According to the Economist article, “forests and the soil beneath absorb about a quarter of all carbon emissions.” In fact, there is evidence that primary forests suck up more carbon, because more is available, than they did previously. This is known as carbon fertilization. If you are worried about carbon in the atmosphere, this is a good thing. But, it is also a scary thing because, through deforestation, we are releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere, because there is more stored per tree, and of course, reduced stocks also reduces our storage capability.
There are many negative consequences to deforestation and one is that it materially contributes to the buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
Deforestation is largely the consequence of an increasing population and an increasing demand for food. All other things being equal, deforestation has to increase. Thus, the ceteris paribus model must be interrupted, and this is why there is so much attention being given to this issue by The U.N. and other world bodies, and by individual governments.
If you agree with the above statement, then you might also agree that it would not be a good thing to increase the rate that CO₂ builds up in the atmosphere. But, all of the current trend lines point toward the risk of even a higher rate of expansion. Let us examine a few.
Carbon is stored in forests and the land beneath. According to the Economist article, “forests and the soil beneath absorb about a quarter of all carbon emissions.” In fact, there is evidence that primary forests suck up more carbon, because more is available, than they did previously. This is known as carbon fertilization. If you are worried about carbon in the atmosphere, this is a good thing. But, it is also a scary thing because, through deforestation, we are releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere, because there is more stored per tree, and of course, reduced stocks also reduces our storage capability.
There are many negative consequences to deforestation and one is that it materially contributes to the buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
Deforestation is largely the consequence of an increasing population and an increasing demand for food. All other things being equal, deforestation has to increase. Thus, the ceteris paribus model must be interrupted, and this is why there is so much attention being given to this issue by The U.N. and other world bodies, and by individual governments.
LET US TAKE A MOMENT NOW AND EXAMINE COMMON SENSE ABOUT ENERGY
First, we all agree that fossil fuels of one type or another produce most of the energy we consume in modern society. Reasons being, it has been available in huge quantities and it is relatively cheap to extract and use. According to McKibben, sustainable energy sources – solar, wind, and bio fuels – produce about 1.7% of world energy needs. Second, we all agree that the burning of fossil fuels releases an amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere, which is over and above the natural decay of organic material (natural = 220 gigatonnes per year). McKibben puts the addition at about a 3% increase over natural forces, which may be a discoverable fact or not. So, we have a disequilibrium condition, as compared to most of time, and it is contributing to the CO₂ build up.
But, we should also be concerned about fossil fuel because the supply of these natural resources is not limited. Twenty years ago, Saudi crude was ten feet below the surface (or on the surface), and ridiculously cheap to gather. Today this is no longer the case. It is much deeper, less pure, and more expensive to extract. Perhaps more important, relating back to population, the competition for these supplies will increase enormously in the years ahead, ceteris paribus. This is why you hear so much political discussions about the national security implications associated with US dependence on foreign sources for energy.
As I have examined this, I have concluded that the major factors driving the groups that oppose programs to counter global warming revolve around cost of change, and perhaps redistribution of power, two very mighty forces. In fact, there are no easy solutions for any of this.
In the energy space, nuclear energy, which appears to be a way to create large amounts of energy, is generally acknowledged to be outlandishly expensive, in dollar costs specifically, and also in spillover costs (negative externalities). Also, uranium is in limited supply. The rush toward bio fuels has only revealed enormous spill over costs that directly impact deforestation and demand for food. In effect, it involves taking cultivatable land out of the food chain, without reducing the increasing demand for food. The notion of building huge wind farms, such as Boone Pickens has been touting, revealed that the cost of transmission over long distances has huge dollar cost and also huge waste as more and more energy is lost over miles of transmission. This is viable, but the consumption needs to be closer to the source, at least given today’s technological knowledge. This truth also relates to centralization of huge solar farms. About the only economically easy way to address energy supplies in the short run is through conservation. Of course, we all know that the sacred public wants very little part of that.
But, we should also be concerned about fossil fuel because the supply of these natural resources is not limited. Twenty years ago, Saudi crude was ten feet below the surface (or on the surface), and ridiculously cheap to gather. Today this is no longer the case. It is much deeper, less pure, and more expensive to extract. Perhaps more important, relating back to population, the competition for these supplies will increase enormously in the years ahead, ceteris paribus. This is why you hear so much political discussions about the national security implications associated with US dependence on foreign sources for energy.
As I have examined this, I have concluded that the major factors driving the groups that oppose programs to counter global warming revolve around cost of change, and perhaps redistribution of power, two very mighty forces. In fact, there are no easy solutions for any of this.
In the energy space, nuclear energy, which appears to be a way to create large amounts of energy, is generally acknowledged to be outlandishly expensive, in dollar costs specifically, and also in spillover costs (negative externalities). Also, uranium is in limited supply. The rush toward bio fuels has only revealed enormous spill over costs that directly impact deforestation and demand for food. In effect, it involves taking cultivatable land out of the food chain, without reducing the increasing demand for food. The notion of building huge wind farms, such as Boone Pickens has been touting, revealed that the cost of transmission over long distances has huge dollar cost and also huge waste as more and more energy is lost over miles of transmission. This is viable, but the consumption needs to be closer to the source, at least given today’s technological knowledge. This truth also relates to centralization of huge solar farms. About the only economically easy way to address energy supplies in the short run is through conservation. Of course, we all know that the sacred public wants very little part of that.
SO...
In the end, I have concluded that there is a lot of be concerned about in this space. CO₂ build up, deforestation, climate change, populations expansion, rising demand for energy, a public in self denial are all subjects about which, I believe, an educated public should be paying very careful attention. These will be major issues for the 21st century. (In a recent poll, only 19% of Americans and 17% of Chinese, the two Countries, which consume the greatest amount of energy, worried much about global warming.)
These are also issues for which there are no known quick solutions, but many promising ideas.
The economic consequences of change, moving to energy sources that are sustainable and do not create environmental externalities, are beyond imagination. But, on the other hand, demand creates innovation which creates solutions, which responds to demand, which creates jobs, and which produces products that people can spend their money to obtain. I have intuitively believed for a long time that the great jobs of the 21st century are going to relate to cleaning up the mess that a critial mass of humans were finally able to create in the 20th century.
Finally, as I examine the consequences of the factors addressed here I imagine these:
First, the primary consequences of global warming will be economic – more foods, storms, fires to clean up. Some parts of the world will be hurt; some parts will be helped. Fundamentally, no one knows with any precision exactly what the consequences will be. But, suffice to say, change always has costs and when you change something as universal as climate the impacts from the changes are likely to be very costly.
Second, lacking major transformation, the competition for energy among nation states will become very dangerous, probably well before a third of this decade passes.
Third, the people running the planet cannot allow world population to expand by 50% in the next forty years. Life simply will not be the same. While one always has to admit that shortage issues must be put within the context of known supplies, it is hard not to believe that we are pressing our luck.
Fourth, it is difficult to understand why a reasonable person would not support every effort possible and affordable to develop sustainable sources of energy. Given the state of the technology, it may take a couple of generations before alternatives to fossil fuels provide the majority of the energy consumed by the US.
Fifth, there will be enormous forces pitted against the search for a transformative energy paradigm because the money to create the alternatives must come from somewhere. If you put a $2 tax on gasoline, for example, it comes out of the public’s hide, both in cost and behavioral change. And then the reduced demand cuts back on oil company revenues, and profits. And then 401k programs, which depend on dividends from oil companies, will be hurt. And… on it goes.
Sixth, there are so many quality reasons to stop deforestation and to start rebuilding our forests – CO₂ build-up, reduced water, affect on weather (not counting CO₂), affect on drugs, species, etc – that it is hard to imagine why the world is not in total agreement.
Seventh, developing first world quality governments, throughout the world nation states, will never in time be more important to the total world’s health than now and onward because all of these changes require at least government awareness if not very active support.
All thoughtful, fact based responses are welcome.
These are also issues for which there are no known quick solutions, but many promising ideas.
The economic consequences of change, moving to energy sources that are sustainable and do not create environmental externalities, are beyond imagination. But, on the other hand, demand creates innovation which creates solutions, which responds to demand, which creates jobs, and which produces products that people can spend their money to obtain. I have intuitively believed for a long time that the great jobs of the 21st century are going to relate to cleaning up the mess that a critial mass of humans were finally able to create in the 20th century.
Finally, as I examine the consequences of the factors addressed here I imagine these:
First, the primary consequences of global warming will be economic – more foods, storms, fires to clean up. Some parts of the world will be hurt; some parts will be helped. Fundamentally, no one knows with any precision exactly what the consequences will be. But, suffice to say, change always has costs and when you change something as universal as climate the impacts from the changes are likely to be very costly.
Second, lacking major transformation, the competition for energy among nation states will become very dangerous, probably well before a third of this decade passes.
Third, the people running the planet cannot allow world population to expand by 50% in the next forty years. Life simply will not be the same. While one always has to admit that shortage issues must be put within the context of known supplies, it is hard not to believe that we are pressing our luck.
Fourth, it is difficult to understand why a reasonable person would not support every effort possible and affordable to develop sustainable sources of energy. Given the state of the technology, it may take a couple of generations before alternatives to fossil fuels provide the majority of the energy consumed by the US.
Fifth, there will be enormous forces pitted against the search for a transformative energy paradigm because the money to create the alternatives must come from somewhere. If you put a $2 tax on gasoline, for example, it comes out of the public’s hide, both in cost and behavioral change. And then the reduced demand cuts back on oil company revenues, and profits. And then 401k programs, which depend on dividends from oil companies, will be hurt. And… on it goes.
Sixth, there are so many quality reasons to stop deforestation and to start rebuilding our forests – CO₂ build-up, reduced water, affect on weather (not counting CO₂), affect on drugs, species, etc – that it is hard to imagine why the world is not in total agreement.
Seventh, developing first world quality governments, throughout the world nation states, will never in time be more important to the total world’s health than now and onward because all of these changes require at least government awareness if not very active support.
All thoughtful, fact based responses are welcome.
