The ongoing furore over global warming has me both amused and dismayed. Advocates on all sides of the issue express an insane degree of fanaticism. Indeed, the fanatics on all sides are shouting so loudly that more moderate voices are drowned out completely, regardless what side of the issue they are on. In fact, the same can be said for all facets of the environmental movement.
First, let me say that I have not done detailed climatological research. I am not a climate expert. I do not profess to know anything novel about the situation.
Before I begin, defining terms is important. First, global warming itself simply means that the Earth is, on average, getting warmer. The term “global warming” does not say anything about how or why the warming is happening. It is merely a name for the phenomenon.
On the other hand, “anthropogenic global warming” is the theory that the earth is getting warmer due to the actions of humanity. In this case, a cause is implied in the term. In fact, other causes can be implied as well. For instance, “solargenic global warming” could be used to describe global warming caused by increased solar output.
For the remainder of this commentary, I will use the abbreviations GW and AGW for “global warming” and “anthropogenic global warming”.
Most commentators on the issue of global warming conflate GW with AGW. There is a surprising amount of sloppiness in terminology among all commentators. The implication that all GW must be AGW is absolutely false. There are many factors that can lead to an overall change in global temperature. The sun could put out more or less energy in a given time frame. Greenhouse gas concentrations could increase or decrease. There may be more or less dust between the Earth and the Sun. Human activity could release additional heat into the atmosphere. The global climate is not a simple mechanism and accurate records are only available for a fraction more than a century, and even then, many of those are of dubious accuracy or woefully incomplete.
The Earth’s climate is changing. Indeed, I agree with the experts that it is probably warming. Thus, I am clearly not in the camp denying GW. However, I am realist enough to accept evidence that disagrees or casts doubt on GW, on on the magnitude of the change.
The sticky issue is AGW. Is AGW real? I would be surprised if humans have no effect on the climate. The mind boggling number of us all putting out whatever amount of heat and CO₂ via metabolism must have some sort of effect. So, too, must deforestation, industrialization, mining, and so on. So I agree that AGW is real.
The primary factor cited in AGW is greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO₂. Certainly, humans put out a substantial amount of CO₂, but does it even measure compared to the emissions from forest fires, volcanic activity, and other ongoing natural processes? It seems human activity is small in comparison. However, in a complex system such as the global climate, a small change in initial conditions can lead to a marked change in the results. So I am prepared to accept that CO₂ emissions may well be making a substantial impact on the global climate.
CO₂ is not the only greenhouse gas. Water, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. And, indeed, it may contribute substantially more to the greenhouse effect than CO₂ does. Water may also be responsible for other climate effects simply due to its vast ability to store heat ,however obtained. So why all the concentration on CO₂? Because it is something we can change. Even so, it’s not clear that we can actually make a marked difference in the overall climate even if we did so.
Of course, I have ignored so far whether we should even bother doing anything about GW, even if we can.
Most commentators assume that there is One True Temperature that must be maintained. This is such an ingrained assumption that most are unaware of it. It is also patently ridiculous. There is credible evidence that the Earth has been both warmer and cooler in anthropologically recent times. That means that modern humans or their recent ancestors have survived both warmer and cooler periods. So we must throw out the One True Temperature assumption.
Once we discard the notion of One True Temperature, it would seem obvious that GW should be allowed to run its course. This, too, is patently absurd. Suppose natural or anthropogenic (or both) climate effects push the global climate to the point that it impairs the survival of humanity? Should we not do everything in our power to survive? That is, after all, how humans are wired. So, while the One True Temperature notion is absurd, it does not mean that we should not attempt to engineer the climate such that it is advantageous for human survival. Indeed, humans are engineers and have been since the first cave men began to use tools.
So, should we do anything about AGW? Perhaps. But exactly what will be effective is unclear. Reduction in CO₂ emissions may be practical or it may not. Reforestation may be practical or it may not. Massive population reduction would almost certainly help but is unlikely. Other activities may prove helpful as well. Let me examine the three above briefly, however.
First, let’s examine CO₂ reduction. It gets all the press on climate change and there is actual action being taken on the matter, though the long term effectiveness those actions will have is unclear. Many of these actions will have substantial economic cost which must be borne indefinitely. Are those costs warranted in the name of preventing GW? (That is not a typo; even if AGW is not the prime moving factor, reduction in anthropogenic factors could still have an effect.) Probably not, since eventually humans will come up with a survival solution, even if there is great pain in the mean time. However, many of the sources of CO₂ emissions generate pollution of other sorts as well. These pollutants, CO₂ included, reduce air quality and make life less pleasant. I submit that improved air quality is, perhaps, a better reason for the current CO₂ reduction efforts. Indeed, on those grounds alone, I am in favour of reasonable efforts to reduce emissions. If it turns out to have beneficial effects on the global climate, all the better. And local air quality is something I can see on a daily basis and the effects of emission reduction on air quality are often apparent almost immediately.
I mentioned also reforestation. By this, I mean increasing vegetation in general. This will usually be reforestation, particularly in tropical climes. When sold as simply a climate change mitigation measure, it is of dubious merit, although it should have an effect. Replanting forests and other vegetation prevents loss of habitat for animals as well, a reason that is easier to sell. But the most selfish reason of all is that it opens up more natural areas to enjoy. That’s right, I’m talking about tourism. If tourism can be a motivating factor to do something right by the environment, or at least more right, and possible improve the climate in the long term, then why should we stand in the way?
The last action I mentioned was dramatic population reduction. This would, no doubt, be very unpopular with most people. An immediate population reduction is trivial to engineer but not terribly legal. However, rapid population declines are not required to have an impact. The global population could easily be reduced substantially over the course of several generations by restricting the number of children permitted to a breeding couple. This would be a tough sell, culturally, in many parts of the world, but such a policy is not a novel thing. As far as the impact on the global climate, it seems fairly obvious. A substantial reduction in the number of humans would obviously make a substantial reduction in anthropogenic climate inputs; there would be less land required for agriculture, cities, and so on. There would be less fuel consumption. And, as a major benefit, if the right populations were reduced, there would be a substantial reduction in starvation and disease. So long term population reduction or stabilization seems to be a clear win, even if it has no impact on GW.
The point of the previous three paragraphs is that there are a great many things that can be done to improve the climate. Most of these things have other beneficial effects. In light of these beneficial effects, it is surprising how much resistance there is to them. My contention is that most of the resistance is due to the particularly fanatical environmentalist camps which are promoting them at the expense of continued economic health. After all, if the economy completely tanks (more so than the recent “recession”), nobody is going to care one iota about the environment. I propose we implement what measures we can as quickly as reasonable without causing an economic crisis. If these measures prove ineffective or too little too late, we will simply adapt to the changing conditions as we always have.