Coal

Thinking about Climate Change

Sep 20, 00:46 Politics

I haven’t given a great deal of thought to climate change in the past. I’ve dismissed it with a “Hurrah, it’s getting warmer!” and the belief that North American climate change activists are usually people who don’t want to bother with the great Whys of humanity, and give themselves purpose by latching on to the self-evidently good cause of preserving the natural world (and saving it from human self-destruction).

Not to say that I’ve ever been against Sustainability. Only a fool would deny that choosing a nature-friendly approach to human interaction with world will be the most beneficial for everyone in the long run, even economically. If only the rest of the world would follow the fine example of Cuban agronomy. And this, you know if you watch The Nature of Things, is precisely the kind of thing Dr. Suzuki wants to see.

I have nothing against Sustainability. Rather, I have little trust for the anti-consummerist, anti-religion, pro-spirituality, No-Logo, Adbuster emotivist crowd that seem to be the most vocal on these topics. I don’t trust their sources, their motives, or even their knowledge of themselves and their movements. I’m certain they are capable of trumping up charges to bolster the legitimacy of their causes without realizing their own deceptions.

On the other hand, there are people like Canada’s “most trusted scientist”, David Suzuki, who provide a vital link between the population and the scientific community that is so often encountered in random statistics and so seldom heard in a reliable capacity. “Scientists agree…” is the usual line. I don’t trust it. But when Dr. Suzuki says, “scientists agree” (and he’s been saying for some time, I know), I think I need to listen.

I also think I know unfair representation when I see it. The David Suzuki Foundation website provides information regarding the tactics and arguments of “The Skeptics.” The report may be accurate, but at the same time it is broadly and generally dismissive of skeptics, and fails to report, much less engage significant objections.

The writer affirms that “some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social problems” and then adds, “eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue.” Well yes, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. What I want to know is, if the skeptics are undeniably wrong, why don’t we ever hear the reasons? How hard could it be do address their objections?

The synopsis of the skeptics (1) uses the (in this case partly valid) ad hominem that many of them are not professional scientists who engage the questions in legitimate scientific circles, and (2) accuses them of inconsistency on the grounds that they have forwarded “a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change – some of which actually contradict each other.”

Both of these points require qualification. Consider the second first: perhaps there has been inconsistency, but an inconsistent diagnosis of climate change is still a diagnosis of climate change – and not really the point being made by the majority of the skeptics who are hesitant to take drastic action in any direction. The Foundation is confusing two groups of dissenter: those who believe in other forms of climate change with those who simply aren’t willing to put unlimited trust in the current scientific majority. More to the point is the inconsistency of the diagnoses within the scientific community itself which has resulted in the paralyzation of the group in question.

In the 1970s climate change activism was a big issue, but back then the warning to the populous and state differed in one very central detail. On April 2 of this year, George Will (not a scientist) made an attempt to jog America’s memory:

While worrying about Montana’s receding glaciers, Prof. Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”

The problem isn’t that people are unwilling to listen to the scientists. The problem is that the scientists themselves have failed to provide a consistent diagnosis of the problem. Which brings us back to the first point. The ‘skeptics’ may not be, in the majority, scientists themselves. But that doesn’t mean they can’t read a history book and see very clearly that scientists do not always get it right. Or that, in this case, they went from one pole to the other in a span of under 30 years – a number that hardly registers in climatological terms.

It is strange how the scientific community, which prides itself on it’s lack of bias and open-mindedness, has become one of the most reactionary and closed-minded of communities in actual practice. People like George Will aren’t saying they’re wrong about climate change, but they are pointing out that the sense of urgency commonly fed to the public is a rhetorical tool that clouds the entire subject.

I’m reminded of a Public Square snippet in First Things regarding one man’s drastic proposal regarding climate change. I’ve appended the entire paragraph to the end of the entry.

I obviously don’t know whether or not the Earth is heating up. I do know that some very respectable men and women believe it is. In light of this fact I’ve decided to begin informing myself regarding the issues surrounding this debate. It’s unfortunate that so many of the key players are unwilling to acknowledge that there is a debate.

One final thing. Ad hominem’s fly, sadly, both ways. The most common one leveled against the “Skeptics” is that they are afraid of the truths science reports because they are potentially damaging to the Coal and Oil industries. I can think of two objections to this accusation. It may be true that some in the energy industry use confusion regarding climate change to their advantage, but that does not invalidate the sincerity of the beliefs forwarded and the questions raised. Secondly, Will George points out,

perhaps the “problem” is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.

That’s all from me for now. I’d love to hear from people who have looked more into this kind of thing in the past.

To The End of the Entry

“Earth is hotting up, faster than ever before,” says Hugh Montefiore, former Anglican bishop of Birmingham, England. Things promptly hotted up for the bishop as he was excommunicated from leading environmentalist circles of which he had been a prominent member. His unpardonable sin is that he came out for at least rethinking nuclear energy as a response to the fear of global warming. In these pages, Thomas Derr recently offered a judicious assessment of the talk about global warming, suggesting that much of it is hot air (FT November 2004). Montefiore, by contrast, is fully alarmed, and his alarm leads him to some revisionist thinking. “Four hundred forty-two reactors across the world produce 16 percent of the world’s electricity. Modern nuclear reactors are of vastly improved design, approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The permissible dose for reactor operatives is far less than the natural radiation in Cornwall! Eighty percent of French electricity comes from nuclear energy.” He takes on the objections one by one, including this: “Then there is the problem of nuclear waste. In Britain, short-lived and intermediate wastes are safely contained in trenches of glacial clay compacted, containerized, and capped with water-resistant clay. Long-lived wastes which last for thousands of years need more extensive treatment. The total amount of these since Britain began using nuclear energy is only the size of a ten-meter cube in volume. After cooling, the waste components need to be compacted into a vitrified solid, sealed in a metallic container, together with a metallic or ceramic ‘overpack,’ and placed in stable rock at least three hundred meters deep, together with a backfill to minimize any water movement. How safe is this? A former natural nuclear reactor has been found in Gabon which has remained undisturbed for thousands of years. There is minimal risk of danger to posterity. The advantages far outweigh any objections, and I can see no practical way of meeting the world’s needs without nuclear energy. The predictions of the world’s scientists are dire and the consequences for the planet are catastrophic. This is why I believe we must now consider nuclear energy. The subject is so important that it should be a matter of informed public debate.” Among his former environmentalist allies, it would appear, informed public debate is precisely what is not wanted.