A Little Perspective on Global Warming and Other Forms of Scientific Pessimism
I was reading Jessica Mah’s post on how a lot of her high-school and college-age friends are really scared about global warming. Here in the U.S., it’s often reported that folks in other countries are more concerned than the average American, but little attention has been given to how the issue is impacting younger Americans.
It occurred to me that they need a little perspective on this. I grew up in the 1970s, and for those of us Americans who went through this period when the U.S. was in a severe technophobic angst, and there were constant pronouncements about all the terrible things that were going to happen, I suppose we’re just not so quick to be convinced the world is coming to an end every time scientists start preaching doom and gloom.
This was a very long list of crises that 1960s-70s experts insisted were soon to befall us, most of which I’ve probably (thankfully) forgotten, but which included such calamities as pollution, endangered species, population, overcrowded skies, the San Andreas and yes, even a looming ice age. I guess being terrified of nuclear armageddon just wasn’t enough anymore. The funny thing was, very few of these scientists were talking about an energy crisis.
Of course, even the “energy crisis” didn’t last long, once investors started pouring hundreds of billions into oil, which was $35 when I got out of high school but less than $10 when I got out of college. Jessica titled her post “Scared of Global Warming? Bring in the entrepreneurs!” and so yes, I think she’s right that entrepreneurs and the free market are a lot of the answer to global warming.
In general, though, I think we ought to stop and notice something. It sure seems to me that scientists can get into a negative funk about stuff, and end up focussing too much on the problems rather than the solutions. In fact, I can’t help wondering if it’s sort of the same dynamic as with investment newsletters - negativity and fear apparently sell a lot more newsletters, and a crisis may, sadly, be the only thing that will finally garner a research project any funding.
Now, this is certainly not all the scientists’ fault, nor is the business world off the hook. Just look at the American car industry, one of the most pitiful examples of research budgeting in modern history. Perhaps GM, Ford and Chrysler may be excused for being caught unprepared on fuel economy in the early 70s, since they were already struggling with new emissions restrictions. On the other hand, here we are again thirty years later and, sadly, it seems that only the recent combination of high oil prices, a dropping dollar, and concerns over carbon emissions was finally enough to get them serious again about improving fuel economy.
Amidst all the prognostications, it’s still not clear how global warming is going to play out. Besides the many questions of specific effects in specific places, there’s at least three basic questions involved. First is the question of how fast temperatures will go up. Second, how much will they rise long-term (or is it a runaway increase with no end in sight)? Third, if temperatures can be stabilized, will (can?) they then head back down?
We hear virtually nothing of potentially beneficial effects, but clearly there’s going to be some winners among the many losers from effects of global warming. Interestingly, so far the Russians seem to be the only ones thinking ahead about any positive outcomes from it. As Jessica suggests, entrepreneurs ought to be also. Again, though, we must keep a proper perspective - a long-term perspective.
While there’s a lot we don’t know, we can say that at least for practical purposes, whatever we can do will take place over decades. Realistically, it’s far too late to do anything about changes that may take place within the next decade or so. In other words, whatever research and changes - technological or political - that are to be made must be done consistently over a decades-long time frame.
This is, for example, why I strongly disagree with the basic Kyoto (Treaty) framework. Already China is producing as much carbon emissions as the U.S., and will likely continue to increase. Kyoto might be effective in reducing the emissions of Western industrialized nations, but given these reductions and the continued growth of China, India and other large industrializing countries, within a few years this extremely costly plan will prove ineffective in reducing the bulk of emissions.
We’ve heard from the scientists on global warming, but have yet to hear from the engineers, who are going to be the folks who have to make reductions in carbon emissions actually happen. We need to think about cost/benefit ratios. We also need to think about sustaining research investments over decades, which as the history of NASA indicates, is awfully difficult to do when you start out with crash-program type overbudgeting.
I think it’s a good bet that a lot of these new technologies are going to come from both big American businesses (such as Boeing with its new 787) and American entrepreneurs. This realization may not play well overseas, but any approach such as Kyoto that hobbles the American economy is going to be counterproductive.
Like it or not, the U.S. is still a (if not the) major innovation engine in the world. Companies in Silicon Valley (1, 2, 3) and elsewhere in the U.S. are working on hundreds of different technologies, everything from emission controls to cheap solar to electric cars to wind power and so on. Here in Texas, it’s become common to see the giant parts of wind turbines rolling down the highway on their way west, where hundreds are being put up.
We must remember that innovation, not political decrees, is the only way to solve the problems from global warming, and while we’re at it, let’s not forget to also think about taking advantage of the benefits.
Hi Gordon,
Amazing post! It was really nice to get a different perspective on this issue. A lot of kids my age have always thought that the solutions are easy and straight forward, blaming capitalism for all of our environmental problems.
I’ll keep this in mind and bring it up wherever this topic may arise. Innovation will drive people to create solutions; not penalties and government threats.
I think I read in a book that you can do two things to make people slow down:
1) Have a SLOW DOWN sign that says “traffic highly enforced”
or… 2) Add speed bumps and people will be self motivated to slow down. No patrol officers required.
Comes to show that there ARE solutions that involve less threatening and involve more self motivating :)
Thanks again for the perspective.
Jessica Mah
Comment by Jessica Mah — September 24, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I can’t vouch for this book because I haven’t seen it, but some of its basic arguments deserve consideration: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.
There’s a lot to be said both ways, and it’s ridiculous to say the debate is over. It’s disturbing to think that the debate is somehow getting in the way of dealing with the problem. We need to hear from both sides.
Maybe later I can write some more about the difficulties of understanding a complex system like the global climate. Clearly, there are some pretty strong damping mechanisms that we don’t yet understand, and quite possibly a lot of other stuff is going on beside simply a rise in surface temperatures.
Just a couple of examples: 1. Melting of the ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, one of the seemingly most obvious examples of warming, may actually be the result of the drier climate in Africa in recent times. 2. While the Arctic ice cap is thinning, a rise in temperatures may lead to greater precipitation, which may lead to greater ice accumulations elsewhere.
It’s a complex issue … you’d think the supercomputer makers would be screaming for the government to buy more to model the climate better!
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — September 28, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Here’s a blog post that gives a little better sense of the scale of these wind turbines.
You really have a hard time from photos grasping how big they are. It’s been a long time since I saw any up and running, in California last I guess it was, and I think the new ones are probably much bigger, but don’t really know.
The best way to get a sense of how big they are is to see the giant parts rolling down the highway. Just half of the support structure is huge, as are the blades.
This Old House had a good segment on some wind turbines a week or two ago, though I don’t remember where they were located. I was hoping I could find that on YouTube or the TOH site, but not yet anyway.
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — October 2, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle’s SciGuy blog has written an interesting article:
William Gray: global warming is a religion
Gray is Professor Emeritus in atmospheric sciences at Colorado State. Berger gives a few quotes and then notes, “Most practicing research scientists would dismiss Gray, but in my experience he gives voice to a lot of the frustrations that meteorologists have with climate scientists who say they can use computer models to project the future.”
As I note in my post, we need to hear all points of view - dissenting scientists, engineers and other technologists, business leaders, labor, everyone (including taxpayers) - and not just shut everyone up and go on some crazy wild ride destroying what’s left of our economy.
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — April 3, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Disturbing, but apparently at least one australian teen really is taking global warming too seriously:
“Australian doctors have published in a medical journal the case of a 17-year old held for observation, suffering the first observed case of ‘climate change delusion phenomenon’ (CCD). It seems that he suffered from fears that ‘due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead to days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies.’”
Yeah, everyone really needs to ease up. Usually it’s not the thing you’re worrying about that ends up being the real problem. Half a century ago, everyone was worrying about nuclear warfare. That didn’t happen. Indeed, now there seems to be little concern about that among young folks, even compared to the “nuclear winter” protest days of the 1980s.
I’m not sure that makes me feel any better.
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — July 18, 2008 @ 8:25 pm