Pollutants ward off global warming, study finds
December 21, 2005
When reports like this come in every six months or so, anti-Kyoto forces rejoice–as well they should. How can grand-scale schemes like Kyoto be taken seriously when so much remains to be understood about the nature of mankind’s relationship with the atmosphere?
That is an interesting article that I think underscores the importance of the complexities involved when man-made activities alter the balance and equilibrium of the natural world. No one has much of a clue as to how our activities will ultimately effect the environment. However, it is clear that since the industrial revolution man has had a drastic influence on the natural processes and interactions that the planet has used for billions of years to achieve equilibrium. We don’t know exactly what the effects will be as the planet adjusts and seeks a new equilibrium that takes these man-made effects into account. However, we can be assured that as the Earth adjusts many of the climate and ecosystem functions that have been taken for granted as stable since humans first appeared on the Earth will be altered. Given that our life, our societies and our economic systems are based upon a stable natural world it is in everyone’s best interests to minimize our impact upon the planet.
To speak on the political side of this, I find it quite frustrating when conservatives use a study such as this to support inaction. A headline such as “Pollutants ward off global warming, study finds” is extremely misleading. The study found that one pollutant, aerosol, might have a cooling effect on the climate; but another pollutant, carbon dioxide, is responsible for warming the climate. According to the article, “If the cooling influence of aerosols is larger, it implies that the warming from the carbon dioxide must be larger than we think to match the warming we’ve seen in the past 100 years”. The misleading headline seems to be a common tactic for the right on this issue since at times the results of global warming can seem counter-intuitive. For example, just a few weeks ago I saw a CNN article stating “Greenland’s snow pack hits record level despite global warming.” However, the study found that the increase in global temperatures and the melting of Greenland’s ice-caps led to more precipitation, which falls as snow in Greenland. At first glance no one would think that global warming would lead to higher snowfall, but in fact that is exactly what happens in certain areas. Yet some people take the fact that snowfall is at record levels in Greenland and use that to cast doubt upon the validity of global warming.
As you stated, “How can grand-scale schemes like Kyoto be taken seriously when so much remains to be understood about the nature of mankind’s relationship with the atmosphere?” We will never fully understand the nature of mankind’s relationship to the Earth. However, to use a lack of full understanding as a justification for inaction is reprehensible. Our future generations will pay the price for our actions. Every day that we do nothing will only increase the cost and effort that we pass to them. I doubt they will look back kindly at our generation if we are one of the first to realize the negative influence we have had on our planet and yet decided to nothing to address it.
I don’t put much faith in the Guardian for any reason…heck, they carry Sidney Blumenthal for crying out loud. Honestly, I don’t put a whole lot of credence into this headline and really only linked to it to draw out the true believers.
And here we are. . .
Before you suggest that the right is misleading the debate on such matters, I submit that the skeptic’s voice is mostly absent in the typical headlines of the daily media cycle. I challenge you to find a top 10 media outlet that continually perpetuates skeptical (read: right-leaning) views in its climate headlines.
If you’d like to talk about misleading terms, nothing is as misleading as the term ‘global warming’. In any event, I think the correct nomenclature for such climate change, is, well, ‘Climate Change’.
I’m not suggesting that man doesn’t affect the environment in, more often than not, negative ways. And I’m certainly not suggesting inaction. We will always have to live with the challenge of solving pollution problems. But why is someone who is anti-Kyoto automatically designated ‘pro-pollution’?
I personally oppose Kyoto because it was a sour deal for American interests. Can arresting the growth of the world’s preeminent economies for the sake of (theoretically) curbing average world temperatures by a COUPLE OF DEGREES be really worth the costs to implement? Heck, it may not even work, but at least we tried!
What other large scale UN-led restrictions have succeeded in the past? Rent control? HIV-prevention? Poverty elimination? Population control? Anti-violence programs? Oil for Food?
Nearby my home, I notice the sculpted Midwest landscape and wonder how powerful the forces must have been to carve the rolling hillside with massive frozen ice boulders, only to rapidly liquefy them into vast lakes of refreshing cold water.
I read online that the solar flares are acting up again, and there is talk that this month will be pretty bad for solar activity. Seems to be part of a cycle, but nobody really knows for sure.
In sum, don’t we need more comparative evidence proving humans cause greater climate change compared to other natural forces before we misdirect the engines of our economy towards a tilting windmill? Not more evidence that the world is getting warmer in some areas (it is) or that our climate is changing drastically in Greenland (it’s supposed to). Evidence that sets a true context of man’s coexistance with much more powerful forces–the kind of which has kept the Earth in healthy flux for billions of years before some asshole with a thermometer decided to write the rules.
First off, I’d like to keep the discussion on Kyoto to a minimum. I do think that there were definite shortcomings in the proposal and it’s now virtually a dead issue anyways so continuing to discuss one failed proposal comes at the expense of actually talking about the underlying issues. And I don’t think anyone who is against kyoto is automatically “pro-pollution”. But if the US is going to reject a proposal to deal with the degradation of our environment it would be beneficial if we had some alternate proposal that doesn’t involve doing absolutely nothing and maintaining the status quo.
In response to some of your points:
- “If you’d like to talk about misleading terms, nothing is as misleading as the term ‘global warming”. Huh? Over the past century the average temperate of the earth’s surface has risen by 1 degree F. How could it be misleading to term that global warming? (I will say that it’s very much a matter of debate how much of that increase is due to a natural warming cycle and how much is due to manmade causes).
- “I’m not suggesting that man doesn’t affect the environment in, more often than not, negative ways. And I’m certainly not suggesting inaction.” That’s good but you then say, “don’t we need more comparative evidence proving humans cause greater climate change compared to other natural forces before we misdirect the engines of our economy towards a tilting windmill?” That seems to endorse inaction.
Honestly, do you really need evidence to prove that humans have an outstanding impact on the natural world above and beyond its natural cycles? Just think about the fact that there are now 6,486,897,568 humans in this world and we add over 200,000 more every single day. The number of people grows exponentially in a world where there are finite limits to the natural resources it can provide. To make matters worse, as the population grows it cause a further degradation to the environment which in turn reduces the quantity and quality of natural resources. Also, the vast majority of the population aspires to a first-world lifestyle and the inherent increased consumption patterns. As far as humans’ impact goes, consider that:
- Plants and animals now go extinct at a rate over 1,000 times greater than before humans arrived on the Earth.
- At our current rates of extinction we will have caused over a fifth of all species to become extinct by 2030.
- For the last 15,000 years CO2 levels have fluctuated between 200 and 300 parts per million. In the last sixty years CO2 levels have increased from 300ppm to 600ppm.
- Humans have caused over half of the forests that existed when we first appeared on the Earth to disappear. Rain forests are now being cut down at a rate of 1.5 acres every second.
- Deforestation and inefficient agriculture has caused over 1/3 of the topsoil in the US to disappear. The Mississippi River washes out a dumptruck load of our soil out to sea every second.
These random facts alone mean little until they are tied together to present a fuller picture of how human activity threatens the environment and the quality of life we’ve grown accustomed to. You feel we need to prove that humans impact the climate in ways greater than natural forces do before taking action. I feel that any human interference in such an intricate and complex system as our natural world will result in a new equilibrium for the world that will have many unpleasant aspects for humanity and the civilizations and societies we’ve built. It is therefore in our best interests to do everything possible to minimize our impact and interference.
Sure, an alternate proposal has been a long time coming (enter McCain-Lieberman in 2005).
I promote the term ‘climate change’ only because there have been periods of both ‘global warming’ and ‘global cooling’ (”Little Ice Age” most recently). We just happen to be in a warming period so my coinage is technically accurate, like it or not.
The only ‘inaction’ I suggest is an avoidance of engaging in bad policy. I suggest other information gathering activities that can lead to more balanced and realistic strategy. Relying on curbs on *very specific* atmospheric outputs while failing to acknowledge other (overwhelming) influential factors is extremely shortsighted. And this isn’t even the reason the US has stayed out of this circle-jerk.
M, trying to be on your side here–I’m just a little wary of the hyperventilation usually exhibited by the overanxious. ‘Been there. The thoughtful points you’ve included seem to be leftovers from issue of the moment stories from years past, like the overpopulation debate from about 15 years ago. ‘Do it for our children. Do it for THEIR children.’
I’m not waiting around for the ‘right’ evidence to present itself. I am waiting for a reasonable explanation from people like you on how a small percentage of reduction can save the planet from — oh god, fluctuating sea levels!
I don’t blame you for a bit of your skepticism considering how the issue has been presented in the past. I think many skeptics view the environmental problem as a real problem but they balk at the perceived costs involved in addressing it. I believe that one shortcoming of our economic theories and models are that they all tend to discount the true cost of the capital provided by the natural world. This made sense because until now, natural capital was in such abundance that economics could treat this natural capital as a constant and worry about the more variable factors such as human capital, manufactured capital, etc. However, this natural capital is not unlimited and is of the utmost importance to the functioning of our society. We need to revise our economic models to take this into account. For example, a country could clear-cut all its forests, over-fish its waters, and lose most of its most fertile soil in over-intensive agriculture and by our current standards of progress, such as GDP, the country would show very large gains in progress and prosperity. However, such practices would be suicidal and an overall measure of progress should take into account the condition and/or degradation of this natural capital too.
A recent study tried to estimate the monetary value for all of the services that our ecosystems provide human societies free of charge (such as the purification of fresh water, soil formation, crop pollination, lumber production, detoxification of wastes, atmosphere and climate regulation, etc.). The estimate came in at $33 trillion in 1997 dollars, which is nearly twice the 1997 GNP of all the countries in the world combined ($18 trillion). While that’s just an estimate, I think it’s clear that there will be phenomenal costs involved if we interfere with the planet’s ability to provide these services.
Many of our environmental problems are caused by waste and inefficiencies in our production and consumption processes. A business that reduces or eliminates these wastes will have a competitive advantage. To date, I think the main obstacle to more business innovation is illogical gov’t subsidies. In many sectors, the gov’t subsidizes inefficient and environmentally damaging practices (such as oil and coal, nearly free lumber in national forests, below market water values to agri-business, etc.). I think that a gov’t doesn’t need to have overly restrictive policies to protect the environment in most cases, instead they need to reexamine their subsidies and policies in light of their ecological consequences.
I believe an increasingly enlightened citizenry, an understanding of the true value of natural capital, and a fair and free market for new technologies will allow us to make major progress in tackling our environmental problems. I only hope that if the issue is presented in economic terms such as this, then even the most ardent pro-business people and the extreme enviromentalists will realize that in most cases their interests ultimately align.
Are you running for office somewhere?
I’m a little concerned that you’ve shown an inclination to recast time-tested economic models in order to deliver a desired effect. Economic models have measurable real world tests applied to them daily, to the benefit and detriment of the people living in the economy. On the other hand, climate models aren’t accountable—-they’re simply simulations. So much of today’s controversy is because of bias in modeling, whether intentional or unintentional. And even as the widely accepted models claim an accuracy in future projections of +/- 5 degrees, none can explain any of the absolutely drastic climate shifts the earth has experienced relatively recently. I know a lot of smart people are confronting the problems our climate’s future, but we are simply not that smart yet, and our work is handicapped by the limits of human comprehension. Imagination should not attempt to extend this shortcoming.
Trying to keep on the topic of climate but. . . . . regarding resources. . . . . . Some successful economies earned their prosperity without any abundance of natural resources to begin with. Others have been devoid of such resources for centuries. How did they handle the prospect of depleting their resources? They simply remained dynamic. The only dead end paths with environmental policy are taken by ideologically-driven command economies who prohibit and crush the instinctive behavioral response of markets. Can you name one free-market economy driven past the breaking point because of an elimination of resources? Although there may be shortsighted decisions here or there,
free markets seem to be able to anticipate scarcity, even when shortages occur beyond its own borders.
Basic economic theory already accounts for the inputs you mention and supplies the triggers for action. Markets use futures to determine destiny. You’re looking for a handbrake to stop the overutilization of resources which, you’re correct, doesn’t formally exist in the emperor’s toolbelt. But it does exist in an unfettered market which realizes trends more accurately than any government (even better than organic coffee-drinking intellectuals). My point is no command bureaucracy needs to exist just so it can subsidize incompetence and retard prosperity.
So, it seems we agree on one thing at least—I agree 100% with you that illogical government action is the main obstacle to more businesses innovating and helping consumers better serve the environment and themselves.
It seems like we’re not worlds apart here, which is good. I appreciate the debate and the chance to hear your perspective. In regards to your comments on markets; first of all, I am a product of the biz school educational process and I do believe our free-market economy is by far the best economic method and model available. However, some supporters treat free-market economics as the Holy Grail that will solve all problems if allowed to function purely. We must remember that they are simply the tools we have devised that best attempt to solve many of the problems we face. Market economies exist to allocate scarce resources efficiently over the short-term. This they do quite well, but there is a real blind-spot in our models and theories when it comes to the valuation of natural capital I wrote about earlier. I think we need to remember that our current economic theories are a relatively recent intellectual development and as a result we should expect to have to modify them as real world results come in. They are not infallible laws that cannot or should not be amended. I’m not suggesting large, wholesale change in our economic structure; rather we need to improve the theories to help secure our long-term stability.
My other criticism of free-market over-exuberance is that many of the principles are sound in theory but the conditions these theories prescribe are never present in reality (perfect information, perfect competition, no market-movers, no externalities, etc.). I think most discussion of economic theories should be grounded in their real-world results and consequences and not overly-emphasize what markets are theoretically supposed to do, since the assumptions underlying these theories will never be wholly present in practice.
Like I said earlier, I think free-market economics is the best method available to cure many of our ecological woes. I mainly am throwing out the above for the sake of discussion since I take my free-market beliefs with a dose of skepticism. The laws of nature are billions of years old and frankly do not give a damn about our current economic laws.
One last point in regards to your questions and examples about successful economies and nations facing a lack of natural resources. Whenever the ecologically arbitrary borders of nation-states leave a society at a disadvantage, they try to successfully trade with other societies for the deficient resources. If they are not able to acquire critical resources these societies either are forced to use substitutes or are not able to progress further and become stagnant, enter a decline, and/or ultimately perish. The example of successful societies in this regard does not fully apply to our debate since we’re talking about the potential for absolute scarcity on a global level and not relative scarcity within the context and limits of a nation-state or society.
yes, yes, and . . . yes. Free markets cannot, of course, be expected to perform by the book given certain conditions, but my point was that markets left untethered most likely are not predetermined for chaos when faced with absolute scarcities. Conversely, we already know the practical limits of well-intentioned but naive government policy.
I guess you know now why I oppose Kyoto, which was your original question. I still do not know why you think Kyoto is an appropriate measure for seemingly so little return.
It’s time we put this thread to rest but you definately need to post some new headlines for this site so we can start anew. This was fun.