Does it matter if global warming is real?
May 27, 2009 by Jennifer Chait
Filed under Green Living
Yesterday we took a look at some new research that says America is Unprepared for Climate Change. In that post I pointed out that if you believe in global warming, if you don’t believe in global warming, if you think make-believe elves started the global warming issue, it really doesn’t matter. While I do personally believe in climate change problems, I also believe that the things humans can do to prevent global warming are basic things they should be doing anyway for their personal health and their family’s health.
So no, in my opinion it really doesn’t matter if global warming is real or not because there are other reasons to go green. Now that said, in case you’d like a good argument for why you should take action against global warming in particular I’ve got a video for you to check out.
I actually think that this theory is the best I’ve seen about global warming. He admits you can’t know the truth about global warming, but he also has some general conclusions that make sense – at least in a basic risk management vs. debate way:
His sort of conclusions are below (although he notes these are not absolutes and that you should also consider other reasons to go green):
- We don’t believe in global warming, we do nothing to stop it, it never comes, and we’re all just fine.
- We don’t believe in global warming, we do nothing to stop it, it does come, and we’re all screwed.
- We believe in global warming, we try to stop it, it does come, but we’re better off because we tried to halt it.
- We believe in global warming, we try to stop it, we’re wrong, it never comes, but it’s mainly what, some time wasted and a cleaner planet to boot. NOT a big deal.
Oh and on a side note, while some think that just “tree hugging hippies” believe that global warming is a threat, it’s not true. Plenty of folks and organizations believe that global warming is a real issue, such as…
- The EPA’s advice about climate change prevention
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration believes there’s a major problem.
- NASA
- The United Nations
- IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
- The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- A multitude of earth scientists
- And more…
Also read, Is Global Warming Real? 5 Proofs That Urge Action.
Thats demanding a positive. You could replace those arguments for any imaginary threat, what makes global warming different from the monster is evidence.
Under his argument, you could posit any threat and demand action because if we’re wrong in the end we are all screwed. Whether global warming is real is very, very important to how we react to it.
Besides, modern civilization is the cleanest environment of all. We in the first world don’t have to deal with mass filth and plagues because we destroyed on the nature that was causing it. Clean does not necessarily mean natural.
I agree that there’s evidence supporting climate change I’m a stop global warming advocate (but not everyone is) I also agree that the precautionary principle can be applied to any old thing we like. However, for the most part I’m guessing that because not everyone agrees on the reality of CC, many people are moved by emotion rather than evidence. If folks will do green things that are better for themselves and also in the long run better for the planet, then that’s a good thing. Pushing green as JUST a climate change prevention technique is not going to work yet I see it all the time.
This “analysis” conveniently omits the COST of cutting CO2 emissions by (say) 50%. It’s been estimated (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=263) that it would cost a minimum of $45 *trillion* between now and 2050 to make such massive CO2 emissions cuts world-wide. It could be substantially higher than that, if China’s demands that developed nations “contribute” 0.5-1.0% of their GDP to developing nations to help them develop in a cleaner manner were to be adopted. And frankly, without such help, it’s hopelessly naive to think that China, India, etc will even consider sacrificing the increase in their population’s standard of living to some Green Altar.
Even at “just” $45 trillion, the opportunity costs for that money are enormous. I’ll leave it up to you to imagine just what could be done with all of that money, but even a fraction of it could make huge improvements in the human condition on Planet Earth – for all manner of issues which we know with absolute certainty to be both real and dangerous. No need to play any “what if” games with them.
Even the climate modellers will tell you that the biggest area of uncertainty in their models is how clouds are handled. What they won’t tell you is what a *huge* problem that is, because they are the main driver in terms of “climate sensitivity”… whether the feedback is positive, neutral, or negative. They currently all assume it’s significantly positive, magnifying the effects of CO2 by 2, 4 or even 6 times. But some scientists have seen evidence that it may actually be negative (which is certainly vastly more common for natural systems than positive feedback). If they’re right, a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere (without any change in solar irradiance) would only increase the temperature by about 0.3C. Sorry, that’s all way too uncertain for me to sign up for spending $45+ trillion to try and “solve”.