As for those of you reading who don’t believe global warming is happening at all, I should add that while I do not have a problem with you holding whatever political view you choose, as long as it does not harm anyone in the process, I also reserve the right to disrespect the content of that political view and it is not intolerant to do so. Actual tolerance also presupposes strong disagreements; otherwise what are you being tolerant about? Therefore for you I quote the following from Patrick J. Michael’s and Robert C. Balling, Jr., “Earth’s mean surface temperature is doubtlessly warmer than it was 100 years ago. Get over it” (11). Now that that is out of the way, let’s go over our knowledge and observations regarding anthropogenic global warming, also known as climate change, some economic principles to keep in mind when looking for solutions, some things to keep in mind regarding the evidence of global warming, and my views regarding solutions.
First, what do we know and observe regarding the subject of anthropogenic global warming. What seems indisputable among the scientific among the scientific community is that humans are producing CO2 emissions from our use of an extensive variety of fuels such as coal, petroleum, natural gas and wood. Another observation we have made that we can be certain of is that the global atmosphere has been slowly increasing in its CO2 content. “We are now about 40 percent of the way to a doubling of the pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide” (Spencer 81). While this might seem extreme, “today’s carbon dioxide concentration is still very tiny, amounting to only 38 molecules of CO2 for each 100,000 molecules of air. To those 38, mankind is adding about 1 molecule of CO2 every five years or so” (Spencer 81). There are also a few things to note about this point. It is dubious that this increase is because of natural processes, as “mankind’s burning of fuels produces more than enough carbon dioxide to explain the observed increase” (Spencer 81). Only around half of the CO2 content from anthropogenic causes stays suspended in the atmosphere. “The rest is ‘missing’---presumably absorbed by the ocean and biosphere, fertilizing plants and thus increasing vegetation growth rates around the world” (Spencer 81). Also, you might have heard that the Earth gives off much more CO2 content than anthropogenic causes, which while this is not false, it is also partly deceptive.
Huge amounts of CO2 are indeed continuously being both emitted and absorbed by the oceans and land, but presumably the amounts emitted by the ‘sources’ have been in balance with the amounts absorbed by the ‘sinks.’ That is, the system is assumed to have been in balance. The prevailing opinion now is that today’s gradual increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is evidence that humans constitute the new, additional source as carbon dioxide (Spencer 81).
We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, “which means that it traps infrared radiation and so tries to warm the lower troposphere to a higher temperature than if the gas was not there” (Spencer 81). However, two things to keep in mind is that “the existence of our weather depends upon the greenhouse effect” (Spencer 53) and “the cooling effects of weather have a stronger influence on surface temperatures that the warming influence of greenhouse gases” (Spencer 82). Lastly, the globally averaged surface temperature of the Earth is at least one degree Fahrenheit warmer now then it was about one-hundred years ago we are pretty confident of according to Spencer, and it’s indisputable according to Michaels and Balling, Jr. “As much as 40 percent of the increase occurred before 1940, which cannot be entirely blamed on greenhouse gas emissions simply because mankind had not used very much fossil fuel up to that point. The rest of the increase has occurred since the 1970s” (Spencer 82).
Both carbon dioxide concentrations and globally averaged temperatures have increased, but what is the extent that the former has caused the latter? It is very hard to say what causes(s) are responsible specifically without committing the fallacy of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is why attributing the current warming we’ve experienced to anthropogenic causes is more an article of faith, because it assumes the unknown i.e. how much climate variability has occurred during the same period of time. This at least one of the reasons many scientists believe the cause is anthropogenic, because human emissions are known while climate variability is mostly unknown. This makes the extent of the involvement of anthropogenic causes in global warming pretty much unknowable. E.g., a substantial decrease in sea ice in the Arctic sea ice during the summer has occurred, and the temperatures there have increased faster than anywhere else. This is often pointed to as evidence of anthropogenic causes by scientists and environmentalists, “but the available thermometer measurements in the Arctic region suggest that it was just as warm back in the 1930s, which couldn’t have been caused by the activities of mankind. What were the Arctic sea ice conditions back then? We don’t know because we’ve only been able to monitor that remote region with satellites since 1979” (Spencer 82). Spencer contends that the one degree Fahrenheit warming in the last one-hundred years is “somewhat uncertain” (Spencer 83) due to increased thermometer amounts during urban heat waves, which according to Michaels and Balling, Jr. also happened in France (10). However, he also adds “in summary” that “we are pretty sure of” it.
Spencer acknowledges that science cannot answer what ought to be done about global warming, anthropogenic or not, so he provides several economic principles to keep in mind. Why are economic principles important to know? Unless these are understood, a responsible view of what ought to be done about global warming isn’t possible. They are as follows:
A free lunch does not exist. “Unlike some truisms, this one is always true. Think radio is free? You pay for it through higher prices for goods and services advertised on the radio. Free health care? Someone has to pay for it. For many Europeans, their ‘free’ health care is paid for by charging $6 for a $1 gallon of gas” (Spencer, p. 105). Spencer goes on to talk about principles some people rarely think about, such as wealth, property and dependent people requiring work and resources (including a clean environment). Money alone does not have value. “It is simply a mutually agreeable and ready form of exchange of individual units of wealth between people.” (Spencer, p. 105) Printing more money creates inflation rather than creating wealth. Plus, “the only way to create wealth is for people to do useful things for each other” (Spencer, p. 106). When part of our wealth is used to address one problem, then it is not available to address other problems. “Thus, the cost of doing something to fix one problem needs to be weighed against the use of those funds to address other issues. It’s one of those ‘cost versus benefit’ things you might have heard about” (Spencer, p. 106). In other words, an infinite amount of resources to solve every problem that comes around is nonexistent. “This is a specific example of the more general economic truth that people have an unlimited source of wants, but only a limited supply of goods and services…This is what economists call ‘scarcity’” (Spencer, p. 106). Why is all this relevant to global warming? When our attention is on a lesser evil, the more serious problems are not going to be solved. So, when the media reports on issues that they think are important, they are shaping public opinion to support a certain policy, which can be dangerous. The question of whether we ought to do something about global warming depends on whether the solution makes economic sense.
The total amount of wealth is not constant. There are a lot of people that think there is a constant amount of wealth at their disposal, and have a ‘the ends justifies the means’ mentality. “In these folks’ minds, there are the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots,’ and life is an unfair struggle for everyone to ‘get theirs.’ People with this viewpoint are into class warfare; they are hateful toward, and jealous of, the rich” (Spencer, p. 107). What people do when they work makes a difference, not just that they are working; moreover, the actions and efficiency of spending money matter. The better people are at contributing the goods and services others need, the more wealth everyone has.
The people make wealth, not the government. “From an economic point of view, the taxpayers are the government. Generally speaking, the government doesn’t make any new wealth, the exception being it provides some services that everyone values (e.g. national defense), which is paid for through taxes” (Spencer, p. 108-109). The government gains money through taxes, and then redistributes it to others based upon priorities elected representatives’ judge as essential. “But the value of that ‘government money’ comes from commerce carried out between people, not from some sort of governmental blessing it has been given” (Spencer, p. 108-109). In a good economy, the people decide the quantity and supply of what they want, not the bureaucrats. It has been historically shown that people, not politicians, who are most effective at deciding what goods and services they need and want, and what the price of these things should be, also known as the law of supply and demand. Whenever a nation’s leader(s) attempt to regulate prices or supply, democracy is circumvented. “This is why political and economic freedom is so essential to the prosperity of a country, and why many countries, especially in Africa, are so poor” (Spencer, p. 109). Although the government does not create wealth, it certainly does encourage or discourage the use of wealth by citizens through its power of legislation and tax collection. “Thus, more tax revenue can usually be collected by encouraging economic growth rather than raising tax rates. Tax revenues are a ‘percent of the action,’ and whatever stimulates more action leads to more tax revenue” (Spencer, p. 109). When politicians strive to collect more tax revenue by increasing the tax rate, they usually damage the wealth creation process, resulting in the collection of less tax revenue.
A basic understanding of how a free-market economy works. To sum this up, how land is used depends on its’ monetary value. “Monetary value is simply an expression of how valuable something is to people compared to other things” (Spencer, p. 117). Spencer agrees that wilderness and parks should be kept free from development because this type of land is valuable to the public, and it is part of our “collective national wealth” (Spencer, p. 117). Whether or not we preserve the land is an economic decision.
And it is its monetary value that ends up actually protecting privately owned land. In order to maximize the resources that the owner can harvest from his land, the landowner is naturally incentivized to sustain its value. The land will be of no value to anyone if it is destroyed. In order to maximize and sustain his profits, the landowner must care for the land in a responsible manner. (Spencer, p. 117)
Many environmentalists might point to the energy corporations as the people that are destroying the environment, so let us examine their claim.
Are energy corporations the enemy? If cost was not an issue and simple alternatives to fossil fuels were available, switching would not be difficult. But there are not any practical large-scale alternatives to fossil fuels—yet. Corporations will implement an alternative-energy resource if and where it is economical, but support for alternative energies in non-profitable areas will die once achieved. The possibility of profit from an alternative energy may be determined by the amount of private money invested in its development. The free-market economy solves this issue itself; no government intervention is needed. As far as the “Economics of Pollution” (Spencer, p. 119-123), the cleaner people want an industry, the more it costs. Guess who’s paying that cost? The public is.
Two things to keep in mind regarding the evidence for climate change. One is that CO2 isn’t the only thing that influenced temperature, and “whatever that ‘something’ was, it had to enhance warming in the 20th century, and then limit it or cause cooling in the midcentury. That ‘something’ is hypothesized to be finely divided particulate matter, usually in the form of sulfate aerosol. It is thought that such particles reflect away the sun’s energy” (Michaels and Balling, Jr.). It is also currently the only resource currently that is abundant and inexpensive (Spencer 139). You probably guessed that it was fossil fuels by now. Second thing to keep in mind is that, according to Patrick J. Michaels and Balling, Jr., the United Nations International Panel on Climate Control’s (UN IPCC) predictions contradict both Gore’s and some of his supporters in the media’s claim the Earth is heating up at an accelerated rate, and that water in the oceans will rise 20 feet (Gore “Introduction”) by a rather large margin (9, and Ch. 4) Also, according to a recent article published in the International Journal of Climatology, “The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution” (Douglass).
Now for solutions, though I use the word solutions lightly as any solutions that can make a significant difference in the near future is not distinct (Spencer 139). I am going to leave off the Kyoto protocol for a few reasons. First, the only argument Al Gore made for it, in An Inconvenient Truth at least, is essentially ad populum, or a bandwagon argument (283). Second is that it probably caused more harm than good, at least according to Spencer (149-151). I should add that I agree with my biology professor, and disagree with Roy W. Spencer, that (so-called) clean coal is a “less dumb global warming solution” (160). According to Michaels and Balling, Jr., it also led to a second global warming “which continued through 1998” (36). I also disagree with him on biofuels as, also according to Michaels and Balling, Jr., John Haywood and Tiffany Groode proved, “that ethanol is a loser. It’s used as a substitute for gasoline. But it turns out that the overall production cycle results in more carbon dioxide emissions than if one simply burned gasoline” (5). However, Spencer does propose solutions which might be “less dumb” such as nuclear energy, hydrogen power, and solar and wind energy (160-171).
In conclusion, I agree with Michaels and Balling, Jr. that “the current state of global warming science is far from ‘settled’” (37) and with Roy W. Spencer that the solutions we do propose will largely depend on our values. Regarding the consensus on global warming, I end with the following from Michael Crichton:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . . I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. .” (“’Aliens Cause Global Warming’”).
No comments:
Post a Comment