« Would anyone like a cut in income tax? | Main | Obama's cool climate moves leave opponents floundering »
Climate sceptics are wrong - episode 4,356
So, oil is back above $80 again and officially the International Energy Agency (IEA) is warning that deep cuts in emissions are needed not just to tackle climate change but to avoid a doubling of energy bills by 2030, while unofficially a whistleblower at the agency thinks we are already in the "peak oil zone" and only behind the scenes lobbying stops government's admitting as much.
There are many reasons why climate change scepticism and a refusal to accept the need for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is a sure fire indicator of a mind deep in the throes of intellectual atrophy - the inability to discern between one off data points and long term trends, the support for theories that have been comprehensively debunked, the unedifying victim mentality - but now we can add peak oil to the list.
As we've argued before it is possible to construct a water tight case for action to tackle climate change without an expert understanding of climate change science - all you need to do is undertake a risk analysis. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are more than 95 per cent certain that human actions are leading to potentially irreversible climate change, then we should act now to tackle the problem on the not unreasonable grounds that it is stupid to gamble with the future of civilisation when the odds of doing nothing and getting away with it are so slim.
It's intriguing to ask what would have happened had the vast majority of the world's economists warned that we were heading for financial crisis? Or imagine what would happen if the world's intelligence community was 95 per cent certain that Iran had the bomb and was readying to use it? Then again don't, it's not a pretty picture.
The very real threat of peak oil further tilts this climate risk equation ever further in favour of low carbon action.
A bit of back-of-the-envelope game theory makes this plain. Imagine the stake is two per cent of GDP and the proposal is to invest it in rapidly transitioning to a low carbon economy.
If the climate scientists are right this would provide us with a reasonable chance of avoiding climatic breakdown and an economic and humanitarian crisis unprecedented in its scope and scale. But look at what we still get if they are wrong (which all the evidence suggests they aren't) - we get rid of the risk of peak oil, and as a result we get massively improved energy security, an end to unpalatable relationships with petro-dictatorships and reduced energy price volatility. Not to mention increased employment as a result of renewables higher level of labour intensity, and a massive fall in the hidden health and economic costs that arise from air pollution.
Now flip the equation around. What happens if we do nothing? Some climate sceptics argue the money would be better invested in poverty reduction and development in poor nations, but anyone who thinks the rich world will stump up a further two per cent of GDP for such admirable purposes is living in cloud cuckoo land (although many sceptics already spend plenty of time there dreaming up their scientific arguments, so perhaps they do genuinely believe this will happen). The reality is the money would be invested in the same old manner and would deliver the same old returns.
If the sceptics are right and there is no climate-related reason to switch to low carbon technologies we get these same old returns - and we still have to find a way to deal with escalating energy security. But if they are wrong, we get something akin to the end of civilisation.
In the complex world of futurology, economics and risk, the low carbon transition option is as close as you get to a no lose scenario, while the do nothing option results in a very high chance that we lose everything. Even the most booze-addled Vegas punter could assess the odds and pick the best option.
I would call it a no-brainer, but given the level of intellectual rigour the sceptics apply to tackling climate science I'm not sure that would preclude them from continuing to argue against action.
Wow ... what a passionate rant!!
I'm sure I can't utter anything that will make any difference to your opinion on this matter.
Your impassioned plea seams to assume that IEA has an ability to forecast the path of future energy prices in a decadal time frame. I contest this assertion absolutely, the IEA have no such ability. The IEA came into existence in 1974 after the oil crisis of 1973 ... a crisis that the worlds energy experts didn't manage to predict. In the last thirty years the IEA has never demonstrated any ability at predicting future energy prices. Indeed they have often been criticised for over-stating the current global oil reserves. My statement can be easily contradicted by posting the past IEA energy predictions.
Of course the rest of what you say is groundless too ... but I just make the one point.
Posted by :Nickname | November 12, 2009 1:22 PM
Given the pro's and con's for climate change, the one thing that we hear nothing about is the effect on the climate if we suddenly stop venting carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere. This could cause weather systems to go haywire or not, as the case may be.
It seems our climate change scientists have ignored the possibilities.
Posted by :Dan Capp | November 12, 2009 2:57 PM
Hey thanks for the story. You are right. Doing nothing risks losing it all. Doing something has benefits even if the nothing happens.
Of course, my take is more animalistic. Humans whom rely on war and oil for their power and finances actually control the policy of the 1st world.
Since we have no ability to shuit down oil, they will continue to drill until the last drop is gone.
I understand their business perspective: Oil makes us money and the wars that are needed to keep the oil flowing and secure in its transport make alot of associated industries money.
In 1973, EF Schumaker wrote "If it is economically feasable to destroy the world, we will."
I'm not sure he was aware that climate change would contribute so much to the overall collapse, he was probably thinking it would just be warfare and nuclear meltdowns.
I'm hoping to golf all winter. At least I'll try and enjoy these unusually warm winters while the golf course is fiscally sound.
Posted by :Earl_E | November 12, 2009 3:35 PM
"- but now we can add peak oil to the list."
..as a reason to be a climate sceptic? Wow, that's a new twist.
I'm sure there are a few who do, but I think you would be missing the usual point of PO doomers.
They would say:
1) that GW is a mid- to longterm problem and PO is an immediate problem. The world economy is about to be hit with or has already tanked (since ca. 2005) 'cause of PO
2) that the ICCP calculations have hardly taken into account that the carbon game is about to change 'cause of PO
It's only a matter of prioities, generally..
Cheers from Munich,
Dominic
Posted by :GermanDom | November 13, 2009 10:20 AM
The motives of the sceptics range from an honest questioning of the data and a wish to clarify the science through egotistical mischief making and green-bashing to downright dishonest propaganda. Unfortunately the latter contingent is very well funded and is deploying the type of PR tactics beloved of the tobacco industry in order to discredit the climate scientists and those seeking to address the problem.
I wouldn't say they lack brains as you imply. Rather their calculation is a Machiavellian one. When the sh*t hits the fan those with the most money and power will be able to take over the still habitable parts of the world for their own, and the rest of the population can go hang. In this scenario it makes sense for them to drill, clear and burn as much as they can now in order to accrue more wealth.
Posted by :Simon Jones | November 13, 2009 2:14 PM
Three days ago I would have congratulated you with a rousing "hear hear" but I've just begun reading Flat Earth News by Nick Davies and I have to ask you whether you've actually personally examined the evidence for yourself and whether you're confident that the 95% of scientists you place so much faith in have also tested the evidence themselves?
I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just concerned that much like Y2K, experts and non-experts alike are adding to the debate in a sort of positve feedback loop of perpetual doom-mongering, whether they have any true knowledge of what the problem would look like if there was one.
The story has become so safe that journalists now accept they can write about climate change without checking sources and talking to opposition...this is not ideal. I personally don't know what to think and need to make a concerted effort to read as much background info as I can. What is your background knowledge? It would be interesting to know.
Having said that, I agree whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not, greening society can only be a good thing.
Posted by :Drake Jones | November 13, 2009 6:24 PM
I understood it isn't so much peak oil that poses the near-term threat to oil supplies, but the fact that we lack refining capacity, or the capability to bring new refining capacity on-stream quickly enough as growth in demand picks up.
The other thing is that you must distinguish between "climate change"TM sceptics who don't want to have any truck with the narrow perspective on climate change (as purveyed by the IPCC), and say not a word more, and those who also agree with the falsity of the narrow perspective but do want action taken on adaptation and much more thorough research into how humans actually impact climates at different spatial scales.
It is this latter group who have the most nuanced views of the lot and, by staying close to actual observational science, are likely to remain those most worth listening to.
In contrast, the IPCC's view of climate is corrupted by the "consensus"TM approach, which it has allowed to become utterly biased.
Remember about 50 scientists authored the key Working Group I "Summary for Policymakers" for the 2007 Report and it really is an agenda-driven exercise: let us show that anthropogenic CO2/GHGs are the things we need to worry about because these are what will potentially cause dramatic climate change, and let us downplay everything else. No enquiring into what might be the factors involved in changes in climate and to what extent they are anthropogenic rather than natural. No, let us point the finger in a simplistic way so that politicians have got a take-home point that can be wielded in political argument to deliver the UN lots of tax-generating power, via a lovely carbon market in which our banking friends can also clean up. The IPCC don't point out they've never predicted anything when it comes to future climates - they've just delivered projections (in themselves highly fudged and pay no respect to starting conditions that actually occurred at any point) and have not demurred when others take them as predictions of what will happen.
It really is time to ditch the IPCC and go back to the body of actual climate scientists (from ALL the relevant fields that impinge on the topic) for richer perspectives on how things are likely to develop and the range of possible policy responses (locally, regionally, globally) that could address the worst of those potential changes.
This will mean politicians actually having to get their hands dirty and understand different aspects of this area of science and policy: possibly rather traumatic for them.
Posted by :Andrew Robinson | November 13, 2009 11:02 PM
Whilst agreeing that there are commercial benefits to managing carbon emissions, I don't understand why it is necessary to invent pseudo-statistics to support the extent of man-made climate change eg "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are more than 95 per cent certain ...". Where is the evidence for such claims? When was there a poll of the world's scientists?
Secondly, when has it ever been beneficial to stifle scientific and public debate?
Posted by :Graham Perry | December 2, 2009 12:17 PM