I walk my kids to school most mornings. It’s a short walk, but I love having a consistent time to chat with them. Today it was frosty out, about 32 degrees. My son thought maybe it had something to do with the hole in the ozone layer. He had read that the ozone layer was the part of the earth that kept our planet from getting too hot or too cold.
I demurred because: a) weather is different from climate; and b) I didn’t think that accurately captured the function of the ozone layer. Still, it brought home in a more visceral way the potential effects of climate change denialism. For me, the climate change debate has largely been an abstract debate. I know the vast majority of credible scientists say that climate change is observable, say that it is caused by human activity, and predict grim things to happen on earth because of it in the not too distant future. I also know that there are some that wish to disregard such predictions because it would unduly interfere with short term profits. And, there are still others that want to ignore such predictions as a part of the culture war I don’t fully understand. Near as I can figure, they are willing to endure flooding and unstable weather because hippies suck. Or something.
Still and all, it’s been a pretty abstract debate for me. I generally have the sense that the worst of it won’t take place until I’m pretty old or dead. But, there is a better chance that my kids will have to deal with the fallout. And, why do you want my kids to be collateral damage in your psychotic war against Al Gore?
Climate change is established science. My wife is a biology professor. Her expertise is in molecular biology, but she teaches other classes. This term, she is teaching environmental biology. The textbooks and the established science assume global tempature increase. It can even be observed in Indiana in terms of species migration. and loss.
Like you, Doug, I can understand those in the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists and indentured politicians denying climate change. It makes good quarter-to-quarter business sense. But the average low-rent right winger? They hunt, they garden, they fish. They must observe species migration, water tempature increases, longer growing seasons. But logic, discovery and reason seem an athemic to their world view.
Obama was right when he said that rural middle class and lower middle class folks, when challenged with economics setbacks, cultural events that seem chaotic, regressive state income tax schemes “mezcans” taking their jobs, Obama giving handouts to the N*****s, they retreat into gun worship and religion. Just as poor people with few opportunities in the Muslim world retreat into a post-Golden Islamic Age world view complete with Sharia law and Wahabbist notions of women as chattel property.
So burn that gas like you own it. And your grandchilren take the hindmost. We may be giving them a world where bedraggled peasants will pull horsecarts, dogs will aspire to the luxeries of wolfery, and the Hunger Games will supplant the Olympic Games.
So
Climate change is observable. Anyone that says otherwise is ignoring the facts. The next question seems to be, are we the cause of (a) all of it, (b) part of it, or (c) none of it? We know that global warming had plateaued for a couple years, which is an indication that we are not the sole cause. That being said, I also recognize that this year’s weather was record-taking (at least here in Indiana.
Going back to the question above, I am not sure we know the answer to that question any more than we “knew” that the sun revolved around the earth 600 years ago. But let’s say we “think” the answer is (a) or potentially (b). Ok. What next? Is “cap and trade” (which would hinder Indiana’s economy worse than potentially any other state) the best option? Are there other options?
Thinking this through a little bit, I think maybe the question of whether humans are causing the warming is only indirectly important.
The real questions are: 1) whether the climate change is going to cause hardship if we do nothing and, if so, 2) is there anything we can do that will prevent or mitigate that hardship. From there, it’s a cost/benefit analysis. Looking at whether humans are causing some or all of the change is helpful for answering number 2 because, presumably, we could stop whatever it is that we’re doing. But, even if we’re not causing the change, if we can do something to mitigate its effects, we should take that action.
Presumably we’re trying to fix the problem and not the blame.
Your statement is probably more precise than mine.
That being said, if human activity (increased CO2, methane, etc.) is not the cause of climate change, then we probably are not powerful enough to reverse/halt the change. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it might just require the kind of action reserved for science fiction movies (Armageddon, Deep Impact, The Core, etc.).
As a side note, my understanding of one of the largest potential causes of our current climate issues is methane gas produced by cows. I doubt the economy would be hindered much by our all eating chicken, fish, and vegetarian dishes. Plus, think of the correlated stock change of Chick-Fil-A!
You are correct that if human activity were not the cause of climate change, then you are probably correct, human activity may be ineffective in reversing the trend.
Your side note is a very important idea. I am a vegetarian. I have been a vegan at times, but it is very difficult to maintain such a diet outside of a Veg community of stores and restaurants.
As a young man I was a hunter and from a farm family, so my transition to vegetarianism was quite a transition. But because it was long and studied, I have thought about it in great depth.
If the world would cease eating produced animal products and move to vegatarian alternatives, the environmental effect would be legion and positive. Between 20-30% of fossil fuel would be saved. Much of our water quaility issues would disappear. And the supply of recreational land, land available for housing, and the return of wildlife habit would be amazing. We would use about 1/15th of the current farmland to grow vegetable and grain food.
We wouldn’t be creating a heaven on earth, but food would be abundant for all, cheaper, and we would begin to return to a world with cleaner air, cleaner water, and millions of acres returned to pre-industrial uses.
Given that there’s pretty good evidence that Indiana was once glaciated, I accept that climate change is observable.
Doug and Paul raise the key questions between them – I’m leery of those who tell us that these questions are already unambiguously answered.
Paul, you are conflating observbable weather conditions with long term anthorpogenic climate change. The increases in CO2 release align nicely with last 150 years of warming.
The average global tempature during the last Ice Age was 4 degrees celsuius lower than recent observable tempatures.
What is the answer? Ask first what might be the results? And what conduct are you willing to change to lower CO2 output?
To reduce it to a bare bones economic argument is to ask just how much money are we (as a scoiety) willing to put into mitigation strategies for a system we really don’t have a whole lot of control over.
For some, no amount of money is too much. For others, any monies that might mitigate problems outside of their own gated domains is money wasted.
A reasonable discussion would find some kind of middle ground where the two ends of the spending spectrum could compromise at some point. Today, there seems to be little interest in being reasonable.
Does anyone have a copy of Dystopian Hellscape’s first album?
No, but I saw them at Deer Creek back in the summer of ’90. Blew my mind away. Still have the tattoo to prove it.
Damn, that was before YouTube
Now putting things such as acceptance of a climate change into the current spotlight –the recent commentary on the congressman who says many facets of science are from the pits of hell AND the earth is only 9000 years old–the last glacial period according to the scientist (proporting things from hell) was 10000 or so years ago–then have nothing to worry about since it could not have happened. Human caused or not? A point worth considering is that this climate change (of many) is the first that humans could have an impact both in causing (at whatever degree) and able to take steps to “soften the blow”.
Here is an interesting take that gets at a root cause of the problem, for those that think man made climate change is occurring but also those that want energy security for the USA:
http://www.maggiekb.com/books/
The free chapter alone is worth reading. It goes into something that can be considered common ground among those of us who think we are causing climate change and those that “oppose” that view.
It frames the question well, goes into the problems, and starts work towards reasonable solutions. However, reasonable is still going to be somewhat painful but getting out of a 100 year plus hole we’ve made will have to be.
You’re right that the ozone layer isn’t really a factor in the cold mornings. If your son ever gets bored, I can give him more information than he ever really wanted about weather.