Climate Change Discussion
You may (or may not) have noticed my almost total lack of blogging over the past few months. I have been devoting all of my time available for writing to my book.
I did, however, do a bloggingheads discussion over the weekend with David Orr, an academic who has written a very hard eco-left book on climate change and related subjects. He is also charming, smart, well-informed and well-intentioned. The subject was his book, so I tried mostly to explore his views rather than yak about my own, but I spent probably half the time on various iterations of a question that I find to be the key one with climate change action advocates: “What is the maximum price you would pay to avoid deleterious effects of climate change?” That exchange starts at about the 20 minute point.
How interesting to have a discussion which is on the one hand, reasonable and collegial, but also quite frustrating.
Orr is given approximately 100 chances to simply answer the question: “I get that we are buying insurance for a disaster, is there an amount which is too much?” And he just keeps not answering it. But this is a basic question that needs to be answered in order to make the case to the “reasonable middle” — someone who believes that global warming is real, but wants to know how much we should do about it. Every answer is “there might be a free lunch” or “Tuvalu will pay more than Switzerland” or “maybe we don’t gain any value from economic gain after all.” This is deeply unhelpful.
— Ben A · Nov 9, 06:03 PM · #
What a terrific conversation. Manzi makes it clear that those who propose caution and discretion about how we respond to climate change are not necessarily glib deniers, ala Will. Orr makes it obvious that those who encourage action on climate change are not simply shrill advocates of a doomsday trend. If only media outlets with a broader reach could support more conversations like it. Outside of internet niches, NPR is the only place you’d have a hope of hearing such an interesting discussion. Thanks for the link.
— turnbuckle · Nov 9, 06:03 PM · #
the thing i found unnerving about the discussion was how professor Orr seemed to think not only was state action necessary to prevent ecological disaster (fair enough, classic collective action problem), but to have an almost principled position in “governance” as an end in itself. most creepy of all was when he basically said that the fairness doctrine ought to be used to censor everyone who disagrees with him. this is is pretty nasty even if you accept for the sake of argument that his opponents are acting in bad faith.
more broadly, every time Mr. Manzi asks him some variation on “what’s your reservation price for the direct cost / opportunity cost” Orr’s answer is something along the lines of “but our current socio-economic structure doesn’t make us happy anyway and CO2 mitigation it’s a marvelous pretext for centrally planning our economy, so it’s really a win-win.”
— gabriel · Nov 9, 07:06 PM · #
To Ben A, suppose Orr had stated an amount that was too much for us to pay for climate disaster insurance. Would it really be that helpful?
It’s obvious that his figure, if it existed, would be much higher than Manzi’s. But to know exactly how high his figure goes seems academic.
Imagine a researcher of thirty years ago who is compiling evidence of nicotene addiction and its connection to lung cancer. Would you want to know how much he thinks is too much to spend on a public campaign to discourage cigarette smoking? It only becomes a relevant question, doesn’t it, if that individual becomes more directly involved in crafting government policy? In the meanwhile, his role is more urgently one of exposing to a wider, lay audience a scientific consensus about pending danger, not to calculate an actuarial analysis.
That Manzi presses for that kind of analysis is not unreasonable. During the bloggingheads segment, the ways in which he tries to re-frame the question in order to stake out a certain kind of position from Orr makes for an interesting exchange. Equally compelling, though, is the way in which Orr resists the question because in his interpretation, the more urgent decision is to divest ourselves of fossil fuels. Following that, we can determine where and how much to invest in alternative energy.
— turnbuckle · Nov 9, 07:40 PM · #
suppose Orr had stated an amount that was too much for us to pay for climate disaster insurance. Would it really be that helpful?
Fair question, turnbuckle. I suppose what I was looking for from Orr wasn’t so much an answer, but rather some sense that a) it’s a legitimate question, and b) he has some idea of a process for how to get to the answer. I didn’t hear that from Orr. I understand that he thinks there’s not just a cost that will be imposed, but a chance of a really bad outcome that the scientific consensus isn’t (currently) predicting.
It’s that latter part that makes the lung cancer analogy problematic. If the danger is “some people are going to die” then we can do normal political risk management. If the danger is “irreversible species-threatening catastrophe” we really can’t. The policy implications surrounding this issues are not marginal: limits on political speech, changes in governance structures, reduction of economic growth that will, in turn, cause human suffering and death. And on this, I’m with Manzi. If the science suggests a 10% risk of human extinction and democracy is getting in the way, let’s suspend democracy. So we do need some way of answering the “how much” problem.
— Ben A · Nov 9, 08:20 PM · #
To gabriel, I don’t think Orr is advocating censorship. Rather, he’s discouraged that disinformation about climate change is so widely tolerated, when not encouraged, over public airwaves.
It’s not a problem of those who merely argue the level/extent of reaction necessary— as Orr and Manzi do— but a problem of those who dispute the entire premise of AGW.
By and large, within the scientific community, the debate about whether rising global temperatures are tied to human activity is settled. In much of the media, however, this debate hangs on. For you, gabriel, perhaps the topic indeed remains debatable. Fair enough. But for Orr, this is frustrating. He believes as the majority of scientists do that climate change is real, and that we’re implicated. To continue rehashing this with people who have no scientific training is counterproductive. In fact, it’s dangerous if it stymies remedies.
Think of the so-called debate over vaccinations. Bill Maher and Jenny McCarthy are free to parade their ignorance, but imagine how frustrating it is to the medical professionals— the experts— who are expected to debate them as though they merely have a disagreement?
— turnbuckle · Nov 9, 08:22 PM · #
turnbuckle,
On the planet I live on, there is almost zero tolerance of information skeptical of AGW. No major media source questions it, and the schools indoctrinate it from a young age.— BrianF · Nov 9, 08:48 PM · #
“By and large, within the scientific community, the debate about whether rising global temperatures are tied to human activity is settled.”
Indeed?
Says who? A computer model?
Don’t know if anyone has told you but the earth has been cooling off since around 1999 and with sunspot activity at its lowest level since America was still a colony of Great Britain, it’s probably not going to warm up anytime soon.
Not saying that sunspots = global warming…just pointing out that not everyone is as piously certain as you are that IT’S ALL THE HUMANS’ FAULT.
— tomaig · Nov 9, 09:31 PM · #
“the debate about whether rising global temperatures are tied to human activity is settled.”
I’m not a climate scientist, but I simply don’t believe this. For example, see these news reports that came out a few months ago:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
QUOTE: “The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago – and could be even worse than that.”
So these mainstream researchers apparently found that there were factors previously unaccounted for that completely swamped the previous estimates of warming. These factors happened to be in the direction of more warming rather than less, but the point is the same—that there may be very large and important factors that are not properly accounted for in the models. How can the science be “settled” if mainstream researchers are still making such big adjustments to their predictions?
Furthermore, it seems obvious that currently researchers will be (perhaps unconsciously) biased in favor of finding the factors that make climate change look bigger rather than smaller, and that such research will get more funding and wider dissemination.
So how can you be so confident that there aren’t other factors out there that will make climate change look much smaller than we might think?
— ed · Nov 9, 09:37 PM · #
Jim,
Your positions and arguments have changed the way I think about carbon mitigation legislation. Thanks for asking the simple questions — don’t stop.
— wfrost · Nov 9, 10:12 PM · #
ed,
I think you’re really getting to his point – the remaining question is just one of degree. I too am pretty skeptical of climate modeling because there are so many unpredictable variables (eg: cloud cover). But the question of whether carbon emissions have some effect on climate is effectively settled. I don’t think Manzi would disagree.
tomaig,
“Don’t know if anyone has told you but the earth has been cooling off since around 1999..”
The fact that it was in a George Will column does not make it true. The decade from 1998 to 2008 was warmer, on average, than the previous decade (or any previous decade for a long long time). Conclusions drawn on the basis of year-to-year comparisons are meaningless.
— GC from Virginia · Nov 9, 10:14 PM · #
To tomaig and ed, I wasn’t suggesting that human industrial activities are the only foreseeable factor in climate change. Nor did I say— and certainly not piously— that scientists have settled on a warming scenario that is predictable or steady over the short term.
I think it is fair to say that most scientists who study the climate concur that we have experienced a general increase in global temperatures since the late nineteenth century, and that carbon emissions are the likeliest cause. That much is indeed settled. Is it possible the scientific community has settled on the wrong conclusion and that it will change course in the face of new evidence? Yes, but for now it’s settled, and I believe the findings of the IPCC, referenced by Manzi as well as Orr, bear that out.
— turnbuckle · Nov 9, 10:30 PM · #
turnbuckle,
Here’s my transcript of the relevant bit (32:01-32:49). The context is that Manzi asks about what if climate change legislation proves to be politically unpopular and Orr describes two structural reforms, first campaign finance reform then:
“Enforce the fair and balanced provision of the Federal Communications Act of 1947. The public airwaves are being corrupted by unbelievable lack of balance in the information that goes out to the American public. There’s a very sizable segment of the airwaves — that are the commons that you and I, are public property— that are serving up misinformation and distortion if not outright lies. In the case of climate change, the public doesn’t have nearly the scientific background and sophistication that one would hope they would have (coming through a public schooling system) and so people are vulnerable to misinformation.”
First, it doesn’t sound like Orr actually understands the Fairness Doctrine that well. The Federal Communications Act passed Congress in 1934, not 1947, and it contained a very narrowly drafted equal time rule for political candidates. The much broader fairness doctrine (which applies to all public debates, w/ or w/o an election) was created as an administrative ruling by the FCC in 1949 (and repealed by the FCC in 1987).
Second, it’s a little hard to tell whether he is calling for climate change denials to be completely kicked from the airwaves or (more consistently with how the fairness doctrine actually worked) whenever such a person does give an opinion, a person who believes in AGW could demand the right to make a rebuttal. If it’s the former, he’s calling for straight up censorship. If it’s the latter this is very dubious strategy since by the same legal logic an AGW denier could demand a right of reply every time someone who describes AGW appears on the air. It’s fuzzy, but given the parenthetical about how the public lacks the scientific sophistication to adjudicate legitimate vs ridiculous positions, my guess is that he wants just straight up censorship. Nonetheless, I would also be uncomfortable with a right of reply interpretation as this can bleed into censorship in practice (see Fred Friendly’s book on the subject).
Third, my objection does not come from sympathy for AGW denial but from a principled belief that the first amendment applies even to ideas that completely go against my opinions, your opinions, Orr’s opinions, the scientific consensus, etc. That is, freedom is the freedom to be wrong, even on the air. I understand how this is frustrating to people who are right, but I believe the state’s role is to protect freedom not truth.
— gabriel · Nov 9, 10:56 PM · #
“we have experienced a general increase in global temperatures since the late nineteenth century,”
I agree that much is settled.
“and that carbon emissions are the likeliest cause.”
There is very likely more than one “cause,” since many factors affect global climate and the global climate fluctuated long before human carbon emissions. The contribution of carbon emissions relative to other factors over the last century is not “settled.” The effect on future trends is even less “settled,” as demonstrated by the link I provided.
(I agree that carbon emissions will have some non-zero effect on climate, but that’s a pretty low bar, and doesn’t come close to the kind of thing Orr was saying. If that’s all you’re claiming, then fine, it’s settled.)
— ed · Nov 9, 11:41 PM · #
gabriel,
Thanks, that’s a pretty thorough reply. I wasn’t listening as closely as you were to the excerpted segment. I agree, there’s really no fairness provision in place in the 1996 Telecommunications Act— much less the non-existent 1947 Communications Act— to enforce with regard to public debate over the radio, television, innertubes, etc. . .
Orr must hear to the issue as it’s “debated” on AM radio and think, “There’s gotta be a law against this kind of disinformation.” But you’re right, there’s not and we’re probably better off.
Still, it’s hard for me to listen to the guy on bloggingheads and believe he wants to censor those with whom he disagrees. After all, Manzi disagrees with him, and he engages Manzi with depth and civility. Perhaps he just wants to censor Limbaugh, and I’m on board with that even if it is illegal, not to mention un-American.
Ben A, it’s true, the lung cancer analogy definitely has its limits. The concept of weighing the cost of action in the face of climate change is a different animal with greater uncertainty and potentially dire stakes. This is why I don’t think Orr is dodging Manzi’s questions— or not entirely, anyway. I think he’s acknowledging what a massive issue it is, how difficult to quantify. In Orr’s estimation, we need to start overhauling our energy infrastructure sooner than later, and that’s obviously an incredibly expensive undertaking that’s perhaps best viewed as an investment.
— turnbuckle · Nov 10, 12:14 AM · #
Of the top 5 hottest years ever recorded – by NASA, bu HadCRU, by basically everyone – 4 of them have been after 1999. (1999 and 2005 are the hottest.) Of the top 10 all have been in the past 10 years.
Is that consistent with a cooling trend? I don’t see how it can be. A quick glance at a temperature chart, by year, dispels any notion of the Earth “cooling since 1999.” This nonsense cooling claim is nothing but a denial nostrum.
— Chet · Nov 10, 02:47 AM · #
As to the price to pay, it’s a stupid question. What would a Bangladeshi farmer pay to avoid the destruction of his way of life? Or the Chinese government to avoid the loss of Himalayan glaciers? What would shipping companies pay to have a reliable Northwest passage? What would Californians pay to avoid the loss of their snowpack? How about Nevadans? (And do you think there might be a range of answers among the members of those communities?)
More generally, why should anyone have to pay for the privilege of continuing their historic lifestyle? By what right do Westerners get to tell the rest of the world that they need to suck it up? We’ve got nukes. So do other countries. What price would you pay, Mr. Manzi, for the assurance that China will not nuke the US as a result of disputes over geo-engineering and global climate change?
— Francis · Nov 10, 06:43 AM · #
Chirony:
Thanks, and will do.
Francis:
As to the price to pay, it’s a stupid question.
OK. So, to be concrete about this, you believe that there is literally no limit to the reduction in consumption that U.S. citizens should be expected to experience in order to reduce the risk of climate change? Is it your recommendation that Congress should pass a law that makes it illegal to burn oil or coal starting December 1, 2009? If you find this ridiculous, please describe the decision logic by which you determine a “reasonable” course of action that, as far as I can see, would create incremental climate damage risk versus this alternative.
— Jim Manzi · Nov 10, 05:32 PM · #
But what gives us the right to burn coal?! What gives us the right to shit on Bangladeshis? What the HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY?
Oh, sorry Mr. Barista, yes, I’ll take non-fat milk with that.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 10, 05:40 PM · #
Jim, I note that you did not posit any answers on the part of the various hypothetical interested parties, nor did you answer how much you’d be willing to pay to avoid war with China. I also note that we spend about $750 billion on defense-related expenses annually.
That said, the nice thing about our experience with other environmental laws is that we now know that we can go through iterative processes whereby we learn the true cost of various alternative solutions.
My personal take: impose a $20 per ton tax on the emission of CO2e, levied at the point of actual release. Use the proceeds to buy out, and retire, the most inefficient mobile and stationary sources across the planet, plus grant funding for the development of ultra-low emitting technologies. Try that for a few years and see just how much emissions have dropped.
KVS: we get to defecate on the planet and its occupants because we have more guns than anyone else.
— Francis · Nov 10, 06:43 PM · #
Francis:
Why $20 / ton? How do you come up with that number? Why not $10, or $30, or $50 or $200 or 1 cent or just make it illegal? Why do you care about an “iterative process to elarn the true cost of solutions”, unless this cost matters as compared to something else (i.e., the damages we would otherwise incur)?
You udnerstand, right, that almost any forecast (and common sense) indicates that we will still emit at least about 50% of our current level of CO2 for decades in the presence of a price of carbon at $20 / ton. By your logic, what gives us the right to put the world at risk?
— Jim Manzi · Nov 10, 06:52 PM · #
And real football.
A, bet on nested feedback and modeling error. Two, man is limited by his nature and infinite in his desires; if your game is global asceticism, good luck mon ami. And ‘d’, the language of Universal Rights and Obligations is so 1788. We don’t owe anybody anything we haven’t bargained ourselves into. At least, that’s what we told Georgia when they came after our water.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 10, 07:11 PM · #
Not to answer for Francis, but:
Because that can probably be passed.
Because that probably can’t.
— Chet · Nov 10, 11:39 PM · #
I deeply enjoyed ‘a’, ‘2’ and ‘d’ as items in the list. Really, an awesome comment in every sense. KVS, you’re doing the lord’s work.
— Ben A · Nov 11, 04:03 AM · #
Jim,
Have you seen the “East Anglia” emails? (Ed Morrissey link below)
You have been extraordinarily careful to base your critiques of global warming legislation on cost-benefit grounds, assuming that we have a consensus on whether warming/change was occurring.
Do these emails start to change the way you approach the subject? Or are you still concerned that if you focused too much on problems with the global warming data it would distract from the largely separate cost questions?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/
— tom · Nov 20, 03:37 PM · #
I’m aware that global warming deniers think these emails are some kind of “smoking gun” but they’re really just being ridiculous. “Trick” and “hide the decline” refer to specific – and esoteric but hardly concealed – issues with specific aspects of climate reconstruction, not to a conspiracy to make up data.
The NASA data, the HadCRU data, basically any compendium of global temperature you care to look at, there’s no “cooling trend”, only a warming one. Look at the data yourself and see.
— Chet · Nov 22, 05:58 AM · #