Background +
|
Background
In October 2006 the Climate Change Roundtable
produced a report, Australia Responds: Helping our Neighbours Fight Climate Change,
which drew upon earlier work by the CSIRO. Both reports are available at http://www/ccdr.org.au.
The CSIRO's report starts with the assumption that climate change is attributable to
CO2 pollution and then explores the economic / social / political impacts which would
follow from that assumption. The Roundtable then explores options available to Australia to respond on the basis of
the CSIRO's impact analysis, and its theme was seen to be
'No Time to Lose'..
A useful account of the consensus emerging amongst scientists involved in the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is John Houghton's
Climate Change: The
Science, The impacts and the Politics.
A
revised version of the IPCC's scientific assessment of climate change was
made available in early 2007. An (incomplete) Wikipedia
article on Global Warming
provides a brief introduction to the complexities of the issues
involved that seems more comprehensive than IPCC's presentation.
There seems little doubt that climatic change is occurring
(though the possibility that observed changes could prove cyclical can't be
entirely dismissed). Moreover it seems likely that a 'greenhouse effect' associated with CO2
emissions is (at least) part of the cause.
None-the-less, for various reasons the conclusions being drawn from
this seem overly simplistic.
|
Oversimplification?
|
Oversimplification?
The Science is Uncertain
Despite Al Gore's assertion (in An Inconvenient Truth) that
none out of a sample of 928 technical papers disagreed with the basic science of
global warming, it seems an inconvenient truth that only a very small percentage
of climate scientists fully support the interpretation of
the link between climate change and CO2 emissions that Gore assumed
to be beyond discussion [1] - presumably because
accepting that humanity is affecting the climate and that CO2
emissions are part of the story is not the same as accepting that CO2
emissions are all that matters, and that the mechanisms involved are adequately understood.
The residual uncertainties can be illustrated as follows:
-
some scientists clearly acknowledge the uncertainties of climate
models [1, 2];
-
many declare the science of global warming settled, because they
don't understand how science works. There is a lot of scope for better theories to emerge
[1];
-
climate change is understood to be occurring faster than predicted by
models developed by the IPCC [1]
- which highlights the limitations of the models.
-
[The IPCC's 2007 analysis suggested that
models were now becoming more accurate in 'predicting' the past - though if this
is achieved by inserting 'fudge factors' to achieve this outcome (as some
critics have alleged) rather than building models off physical laws, then this
does not guarantee future reliability of those models];
-
a large number of factors are now contributing to climate change [1].
Thus even if CO2 emissions were a trigger for change it may no
longer be the only issue that needs consideration;
-
CO2 emissions have been suggested to account for only 26.5% of
climate change (as compared with the IPCC's estimate of 48%) because numerous
other factors have allegedly been downplayed, such as (a) ozone (b) methane
emissions (c) albedo effect of soot on ice and snow (d) various aerosol effects
and (e) solar effects [1].
-
[IPCC's February 2007 analysis suggested that while
carbon emissions only accounted for half the positive forcings (ie those
contributing to global warming), there are negative forcings of about the same
magnitude. None-the-less methane, nitrous oxide and ozone were individually non-trivial
positive forcings, and collectively have an influence roughly the same as as
carbon emissions]
-
some experts have apparently seen a need to substantially upgrade satellite observation
systems to make reliable basic data about climate change available ("Satellite
Observation of the Climate System: The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
(CEOS) Response to the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Implementation
Plan (IP)");
-
evidence appears to exist of significant reduction in solar energy
reaching the earth - the
global dimming phenomenon - because energy is reflected by aerosol pollution
(which create some of the negative forcings IPCC identifies as roughly equal to
the positive forcings associated with carbon emissions). Reducing the use of
fuels that generate carbon emissions will also presumably reduce global dimming
- ie reducing fossil fuel use seems likely to have both a positive and negative effect on forcings;
-
students of long term climatic history (to which the IPCC seems to
have paid limited attention in its analyses) have suggested alternative theories, for example [1];
that
-
global temperature changes correlate with sunspot activity more
strongly than
with CO2 increases, and that sunspot activity (though not directly linked with
significant changes in solar energy output) does substantially reduce cosmic
radiation, which in turn is associated with reduced cloud cover and
significantly increased warming;
-
while greenhouse gases have an important impact on the earth's climate, water
vapour (which comprises 98% of all greenhouse gases) is the only one with any
significant effect. An El Nino event in 1997 significantly increased atmospheric
water vapour, and preceded the record temperatures of the next few years;
-
over the past 500 million years CO2 levels have been up to 16 times greater
than at present, and the peak occurred at the coldest stage of a major ice age. Over the past
400,000 years CO2 levels have correlated with temperature changes, but CO2
rises came about 800 years after temperature increases - apparently due to changes in biological
activity;
-
A New Theory of Climate Change suggests that the
effects of greenhouse gases are less than has been assumed - and solar
variations (which affect cosmic rays and thus cloud formation) may provide an
hypothesis that better matches observations [1] - a
view that has
critics;
-
Great Global Warming Swindle outlines the views of scientists
who believe that global temperature changes are driven by solar activity, not
greenhouse gases. [1]
-
the earth's climatic history (involving several ice ages in the last
million years with significant cooling and subsequent warming) suggests that there
are mechanisms for global warming (and cooling) that are unrelated to human
carbon emissions;
-
climatologists are said to realize that water vapour dominates global
greenhouse effects - and that the effect of gases released by human activity is
virtually insignificant - though water vapour is conventionally ignored by those
seeking to identify human contributions to greenhouse effects (see
Water vapour
rules the Greenhouse system). Others suggest that water vapour is correctly
ignored because it only persists for a short time in the atmosphere - and its
concentration is determined by other factors (see
Water Vapour: Feedback or
Forcing);
-
[An aside: surely, if water vapour is the 'elephant' in the
greenhouse room and its behaviour is determined by other factors, then there has
to be a huge amount of effort to make sure that those other factors are well
understood, and that none are neglected. The IPCC does not seen to have done
this].
-
polar ice caps have reportedly been observed to be melting on
Mars - suggesting that whatever is happening is not solely of terrestrial origin
[1];
-
global warming is not the only potential cause of climate change. It is understood that
current drought conditions in Australia reflect a southward shift in weather patterns (eg rain
that would have fallen over Australia in the past is now falling over the ocean
to the south). This seems compatible with Solomon's observations
that the rapid cooling of the atmosphere above the Antarctic (as a result of
ozone depletion) has apparently caused atmospheric circulation patterns around
the South Pole to narrow around the Pole - and this has shifted other circulation patterns
in the southern hemisphere south [1];
-
some observers claim that there is a 'law of diminishing returns' in
relation to the greenhouse effect of rising CO2 levels - with 60% of the maximum
warming effect being achieved by concentrations of 50ppm - and a quite
negligible increase in greenhouse effect from even a doubling of current CO2
levels and probable greater warming effects coming from other sources (eg water
vapour) [1];
-
it seems odd to assume that Pacific Islands are now likely to be
flooded by rising sea levels [1] - as those islands have been exposed to huge rises
in sea levels over the past 15000 years as continental glaciation retreated and the coral polyps that build many of them have apparently
managed to keep their heads at water level. The assumption that islands will be
submerged because coral can no longer grow due to higher temperatures is also an
assumption that reefs will not adapt to changed conditions as they have
undoubtedly done in the past;
-
the science of climate modelling is subject to vast uncertainties - as indicated
by the general inability of weather forecasters to look far into the future.
Though the systems involved are not identical, and forecasting has been
improving, this constraint should not be ignored; and
-
the is a need to recognise that the earth's climatic systems will
contain self-stabilizing (ie homeostatic) mechanisms;
Bias is Possible
The IPCC's conclusions are being treated as 'gospel' though:
-
the IPCC was established to focus only on the effect of human-induced
climatic change [1]. Moreover:
-
its 2007
February analysis
presents a refinement of that Panel's 'consensus' theory about climate change,
whilst not mentioning alternative theories - and thus, even if its theory is correct, the IPCC erodes its own credibility by
leaving many questions unanswered. Unfortunately such one-eyed behaviour is
characteristic of politicised, rather than professional, organisations. Where a particular answer is politically favoured, Daniel Ellsberg's
analysis of the Pentagon showed that selective staffing and evaluation of
evidence can result in that conclusion emerging [1];
-
20 years ago climate research
became politicised in favour of one hypothesis - based on study of greenhouse gases. Those
following different theories encountered impediments to their careers. It was
only in 2005 that funding could be obtained to conduct research on an
alternative plausible hypothesis [1];
-
the global warming scare has been described as scientific fraud [1]
-
it may have been a big mistake for governments to have exclusive reliance,
in matters of great complexity,
on a single source of analysis of the implications of climate change (ie the IPCC)
[1].
-
while the 'consensus' method used to develop the IPCC's conclusion on the
science of climate change is potentially powerful, it does not guarantee truth
(ie a 'flat earth' was once the established consensus view);
-
professional critique has been levelled at the IPCC's work [1]. For example:
-
likewise the Stern review of climate
change (which explored the economic consequences of assuming that the IPCC's
conclusions were valid) has been described as:
-
overly simplistic and perhaps
counter-productive [1];
-
based on unrealistic assumptions that maximize the estimated
damage from climate change and the need for immediate (rather than
deferred) responses [1];
-
a biased exercise in speculative alarmism [1]
-
the IPCC's methods have long appeared technically inadequate to the
present writer because the impact of global warming on sea levels was
presumed to be linear and related mainly to differential expansion of water
relative to the earth (eg a <1m rise in sea levels was forecast to result from a 2-3 degree
Celsius rise in global mean temperatures - whereas climatic history is
understood to suggest that sea level changes can be much larger (ie tens of
metres) and occur quite quickly - presumably because feedback affects emerge
as changes occur in ocean currents or atmospheric circulation patterns
which alter the way heat is distributed globally and thus the amount of water
locked up as ice. The Biblical account of the 'great flood' (which is shared by
many peoples worldwide and presumably refers to the 100m or so rise in sea
levels that followed the ending of the last ice age) suggested that water
covered the 'whole earth' as a result of something that happened over a short
period (eg sudden collapse of the then North American ice sheet - a type of
collapse which is now suspected to be possible [1])
-
[IPCC's February 2007 analysis suggested that:
-
sea levels had been 4-6m higher than at present during the last
inter-glacial period 125,000 years ago;
-
there were possible feedback effects (eg related to release of CO2
from oceans) that could increase warming which (a) made it difficult to estimate
the amount of CO2 emission reduction needed to achieve stability and (b) created
uncertainty about the extent of sea level rises;
-
dynamic processes associated with ice flow (which could also increase
potential sea level rises) might have an effect, but this was not taken into
account in forecasts because it was too hard to
estimate;
-
modest sea level rises over the next century (<1m)
were likely associated with thermal expansion and some ice melting - a conclusion
that ignored the
(uncertain) effect of feedbacks;
-
a 7m rise in sea levels might occur before 2200 if the Greenland ice
sheet were to disappear;
-
however its analysis made no obvious mention of the very large (100m) fall
and (apparently sudden) subsequent rise in sea levels during the last ice age;
-
but a forthcoming IPCC report may warn that it may no longer be
possible to prevent severe sea level rises (eg 4-6m) [1]
'Business as Usual' Solutions may not Exist
Even if it is assumed that CO2 emissions are the only significant
cause of climate change, it is not necessarily a trivial matter to reduce
emissions. For example:
-
practical alternatives must involve 'high grade' energy sources - ie
those which make a lot of energy available for use with little effort. There is
no shortage of energy in nature - but there are shortages of energy that is
readily / cheaply available for use. If very low-grade energy sources were all that were available
(ie those where the energy available for use is only (say) 2-3 times the energy
that must be expended in obtaining it which could apply to some renewable energy
sources - as compared with the 10-50 times that can be available from fossil
fuels) then the energy consumption / unit of GDP
would increase dramatically and it may be physically impossible to produce
enough non-fossil fuels to satisfy human demands;
-
It has been suggested that emissions might be stabilized by:
development of nuclear energy; increased energy efficiency; CO2
capture; and renewable energy [1,
2]. However, all
those options have limitations:
-
Nuclear energy is not an environmentally problem-free
option, though this might change if fusion proves viable. Nuclear power also requires access to water
which will tend to favour sites near cities that are still available because
they are of high conservation value. Sites would also presumably need to be at
least 10-20m above sea levels, if rising sea levels are one of the fears
prompting such developments;
-
Efficiency is a good idea but hardly novel;
-
CO2 capture would greatly reduce energy efficiency;
-
Renewable (ie ultimately-solar) sources
are less 'concentrated' (ie of lower grade) than fossil energy sources and are thus
likely to be much less 'profitable' to develop - both economically
and energetically - though some see light at the end of the end of this tunnel [1].
Also determined attempts by autocratic government to
replace fossil fuel use in vehicles in Brazil appeared to generate adverse side
effects, and to have only a marginal impact on overall oil consumption
[1];
-
various observers have questioned the feasibility and cost of
reducing CO2 emissions:
-
there is a great deal of rhetoric about climate change - but the problem is that there is no
solution. The IEA
did an audit of 1400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use, and found that global emissions might at
best only rise 30% by 2030 instead of 55%. To have any significant effect caps
on carbon emissions would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy [1];
-
decarbonisation of the world’s economy would cause huge economic
dislocation [1] ;
- the public is being misled about the cost of reducing carbon emissions,
as these costs will be very high and may not come smoothly; [1];
-
on the other hand:
-
potentially plausible options were suggested based on: phasing down
use of coal, oil and nuclear power; increasing use of natural gas to 2030; large
increases in energy efficiency; and development of new renewable energy
technologies involving solar power, wind and geo-thermal energy [1].
[[However this assumed rapidly increased global economic productivity of energy use based on past US experience,
though some of the latter was due to the shift
off-shore of energy intensive production]];
-
achieving large reductions in carbon emissions was suggested to be
easy - largely on the basis of the prospective development of clean coal
technologies [1];
-
huge business opportunities
have been perceived in tackling global warming [1]
[[a conclusion that will presumably be correct if (a) development of alternative
high grade energy technologies is possible and (b) CO2 emissions are the only
significant factor in climate change]];
-
it has also been suggested that the cost of reducing fossil fuel
usage will be inconsequential because future incomes will be greater than
today's. [1] However this assumption requires that
there be no economic shocks, and attempts to cut the use of fossil fuels (if it
proves impossible to develop other high grade energy sources) could give rise to
economic shocks which could dislocate growth. It is vital to look closely at the
physical relationship between the use of energy / machines and the creation of
wealth. This requires assessment by physicists and industrial chemists, rather
than environmentalists, economists or climatologists. The economic models cited in the above article deal with the economy in
abstract / money terms - and are only valid as long as there is a ready
availability of energy to do the mechanical work. At the time of the industrial
revolution capitalism allowed the mobilization of financial capital to invest in
physical capital (ie machines) that used fossil energy to increase efficiency in mechanical
tasks. Increased efficiency reduced costs, which led to an
explosion of demand and ultimately to self perpetuating economic growth (which
was initially largely a reflection of the value of the work done by machines
using fossil energy). Economics now recognizes that knowledge rather than physical
capital (ie machines using mainly fossil energy) or human labour is the key
component of wealth creation in financial terms - because it provides the scope
for firms or regions to change to focus on functions in which a competitive
advantage derived from that knowledge allows high productivity to be achieved
(in money terms). But there remains an unbreakable link with the escalating use
of fossil energy to power the machines that (a) help with knowledge 'work' and (b)
do the physical construction and the manufacturing that those with high
knowledge-based incomes buy (now often from the developing world).
-
many companies are falsely claiming to be carbon neutral for public relations
purposes - but to be truly neutral
there would be a need to consider the emissions in the entire production chain
which would be no easy task, and likely to be very costly [1];
-
the Business Council of Australia has argued that adjusting to
reduced carbon emissions will be difficult [1]
-
greenhouse gas abatement schemes promoted by Australian business would make
no measurable difference to climate change [1]
-
CO2 emissions are not the only environmental challenge that needs
attention, and unconditional determination to reduce emissions may make it more
difficult to deal with other hazards (see below);
-
because economic development in emerging economies is often energy
intensive, it would be impossible to have any significant effect unless any
efforts are global;
- Any trading system in carbon credits will result in a large international transfer of wealth
- to developed countries who can relatively easily increase energy
efficiency [1]
Non 'Business as Usual' Solutions could be Hazardous
While technological advances may allow high grade clean energy sources
to be identified, if this is not achieved then unconditionally slashing fossil energy consumption (which would be required to moderate the CO2
component of the greenhouse effect) could result in economic crises, conflicts
and perhaps billions of deaths over the next few decades.
Thus targets set for reducing carbon emissions, that are not
conditional upon the development of high-grade alternative energy technologies,
would be either unrealistic or potentially dangerous.
Why? The whole history of humanity for tens of thousands of years has
been one of population growth encountering environmental constraints that were
overcome by the more intensive use of energy.
Would it be possible to reverse this peacefully, or would less
overall energy use from now on mean fewer people - perhaps a lot fewer?
Early humans were hunter-gatherers. A key factor in the growth and
spread of their population was the domestication of fire (to exploit the solar
energy captured in wood) which allowed: an expansion of human's geographic range
into colder regions; better defence against predators; and improved ability to
use available foods.
However, while one can't be certain about exact figures, the
'carrying-capacity' of the earth for humans living hunter-gatherer lifestyles
was probably only something like 50m. When hunter-gatherers encountered environmental
limits (about 13,000 years ago) these constraints were overcome by the
development of agriculture which mobilized solar energy more efficiently.
When agrarian populations encountered limits to what could be
achieved by the use of solar energy - a few hundred years ago at densities roughly
equivalent to a global population of (say) 500m - fossil energy sources were
mobilized, and this allowed (a) more efficient mechanised agriculture and (b)
the development of vast cities productively involved in diverse other
industries.
In recent decades, solutions to resource limitations and adverse
environmental impacts of population and economic growth have been solved by more
intensive energy use. The recent shift into knowledge and service industries in
advanced economies, which has reduced their energy intensity, is somewhat
misleading because energy consumption on their behalf has merely followed the
shift of much manufacturing to the developing world.
There is a potential for highly destructive political instabilities
if the global economy were disrupted by reduced energy consumption through
unconditional cuts to CO2 emissions. Consider for example:
-
global financial imbalances that appear to be associated with a
'clash' of civilizations and have the potential unless carefully defused to lead
to a worse economic crisis (and consequent political conflicts) than in the
1930s (see Structural Incompatibility Puts
Global Growth at Risk);
-
the lack of any effective system of global governance, arguably due
to difference perceptions of the nature of a desirable global system - as
revealed by (for example) the failure of international community to reach
agreement on what to do about the risk posed by terrorists with weapons of mass
destruction (see The Second Failure of
Globalization?).
Moreover, even if short term crises could be avoided, the current global population of 6bn (or anything
like it) could probably not be sustained in the longer term in low-energy economies. Could enough food for 6-9bn people globally
be produced by neo-agrarian technologies? Soils are
depleted and water scarce in many places, and require energy intensive fertilizers, faming
methods and water supplies for current levels of food production. Also,
though in a neo-agrarian world, (say) 50% of people would work in agriculture
(as compared with 5% in industrial economies), what would the 3-4bn people
living in future in dispersed villages who were not engaged in agriculture do for a living
without cheap energy sources? It might be that they would be most 'productively'
be occupied if recruited into armies to capture others' treasure left over from
energy-intensive times (and wipe one another out until the global population got
back to a sustainable neo-agrarian level - say 500m).
There are many other environmental challenges that need to be met in
the longer term, for which energy-intensive solutions may be required that could
be rendered impossible if unconditional reductions in CO2 emissions resulted in
reduced overall energy usage. Examples of other challenges that appear to
require simultaneous solutions include:
-
the toxic effects of many
chemicals [1];
-
declining food quality that seems to be associated with first world
'malnutrition' as revealed by the escalation of obesity and the chronic
degenerative diseases that threaten to overwhelm health systems. This may
require solutions that include 're-engineering' the food chain to bring
producers and consumers closer in time and space;
-
loss of biodiversity, which may be an environmental challenge with more
serious potential consequences. Analysts have suggested that (say) 50% of species could
be lost in 50 years (Leakey R etal The Sixth Extinction, 1996). When such
events have occurred previously in earth's history they have been followed by
the emergence of new species to occupy available ecological niches. At
risk could be the Pleistocene environment in which human beings have become
the dominant species over the past 5m years;
-
human consumption of about 40% of global biomass - which leaves
limited biological resources for other species;
-
limitations of available fresh water and soils;
-
potential pandemics.
How is Success Determined? If emissions can be reduced effectively, it will take 10-30 years for
this to have any detectable climatic effect and 100-300 years to get the full
effect [1];
|
Conclusion |
Conclusion
In part the uncertainty of the climatic change equation is due to
the fact that those who fear the economic consequences of popular 'solutions'
are muddying the water. However, in part it is also due to the fact that the
water was muddy anyway - and some are ignoring this in claiming to have
identified easy solutions.
The present writer, who had taken as self-evident for years
that CO2 emissions were likely to drive global warming, now suspects that overly
simplistic claims may be being made out of a desperate desire to find a 'solution'
to climate change.
In particular the IPCC seems institutionally
susceptible to bias, and may not have examined the climate change
issue squarely because of its narrow terms of reference. It was asked to
evaluate only the effect of CO2 emissions, and focused upon short term (ie
about 50 year) correlations to make projections and appeared to pay insufficient
attention to the earth's long term climatic history and to alternative
possible explanations of recent events.
The present writer has had
previous experience where a political consensus developed behind an agenda
which has been incubating for decades (see
Towards Good
Government in Queensland). Beset with a fundamentalist zeal,
'reformers' punished anyone suggesting alternative viewpoints and treated
their long held ideology as 'the solution' to current problems though their
view of the situation was out-of-date and biased. Because politicisation
of the Public Service prevented any 'reality check' on the populist
proposals, the consequences were disastrous (see
Queensland's Worst Government).
Attention to alternative
possibilities related to climate change now seems to be at risk of being
stifled and ignored by political populism, and this could be just as damaging as the
overly simplistic assumptions that the US administration
apparently made about what was
required to create a politically and economically successful Iraq as a model for
the Middle East.
It will do no one
any good to put in a huge amount of effort to 'solve' the climate change problem if that
effort does not actually address the real current cause of the problem (eg if
carbon emissions are not the only significant factor in climate change) of if
reducing carbon emissions is not as trivial as enthusiasts assume. As
Mark Twain suggested:
"It ain't what
you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that
just ain't so."
|