Stopping Climate Change (or not)

Recently we posted a somewhat controversial article about four stages of Climate Change Denialism. Our fourth level of denial was characterized as "Global warming is happening, and it is a result of human actions, and it will be catastrophic, but that's okay."

Jamais Cascio then offered this as an alternate:

Global warming is happening, and it is a result of human actions, and it will be catastrophic, but it's too late to do anything about it other than adapt.

In retrospect, I probably should have chosen a word other than 'denial', because the ultimate point is not about acceptance or rejection of climate change as a real phenomenon, but about our response to it. As Jamais suggests, it is possible to accept everything about global warming and still reject proposed solutions as either unworkable, ineffective, or both.

That's the point of view expressed in a new article from Foreign Policy magazine on "Why Climate Change Can't Be Stopped."

Environmental advocates have finally managed to put the issue of global warming at the top of the world’s agenda. But the scientific, economic, and political realities may mean that their efforts are too little, too late.

As the world’s leaders gather in New York this week to discuss climate change, you’re going to hear a lot of well-intentioned talk about how to stop global warming. From the United Nations, Bill Clinton, and even the Bush administration, you’ll hear about how certain mechanisms—cap-and-trade systems for greenhouse gas emissions, carbon taxes, and research and development plans for new energy technologies—can fit into some sort of global emissions reduction agreement to stop climate change. Many of these ideas will be innovative and necessary; some of them will be poorly thought out. But one thing binds them together: They all come much too late.

For understandable reasons, environmental advocates don’t like to concede this point. Eager to force deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, many of them hype the consequences of climate change—in some cases, well beyond what is supported by the facts—to build political support. Their expensive policy preferences are attractive if they are able to convince voters that if they make economic sacrifices for the environment, they have a reasonable chance of halting, or at least considerably slowing, climate change. But this case is becoming harder, if not impossible, to make.

To accept the argument that climate change cannot be stopped, you have to agree with three premises:

1. A political solution isn't going to happen. Too many entrenched interests will hinder adoption of any meaningful steps.
2. Even if the most far-reaching political solutions could be implemented, it still would not be enough to make a substantial difference.
3. Not even the most radical proposals for a technological fix will be sufficient. It's simply too late, because the complex systems we've unleashed will prove to be overwhelming and intractable. Moreover, as Jamais Cascio has said, "we know nowhere near enough to make terraforming a plausible or safe option."

In the same article that I just referred to above, Jamais says, "Our best pathway to avoiding climate disaster remains the rapid reduction and elimination of anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

Note that he suggests two different actions: reduction and elimination of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The first step, substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is mainly what the most aggressive political solutions from Premise 1 would accomplish. But if only the first step is followed, then we run up against Premise 2, namely that it's too little, too late.

So we'd have to also work toward eliminating greenhouse gases already in the air. That likely would require one or more of the radical technological solutions currently being advanced.

However, here's the rub: if you accept Premise 3, that won't work either. It's quite possible, some might say probable, that even a powerful new technology such as molecular manufacturing could not be employed effectively to blunt the catastophic impacts of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and rapidly shifting weather patterns.

Are you with me so far? If so, it looks like we're screwed. Am I ready, then, to jump on the climate change can't be stopped bandwagon? I'm not, for several important reasons:

• First, we don't really know what effect political solutions that focus on reduction of carbon emissions might have. Although it seems unlikely, it is possible that a rapid and comprehensive switch away from fossil fuels could make a big difference.
• Second, as Brian Wang points out, even if such changes don't have an appreciable effect on climate change, they would have other big benefits, including reduction of deaths from pollution, from mining, and from war.
• Third, we also don't know whether or not ideas like mirrors in space to deflect sunlight can be of help. Further research into any such proposals that seem feasible should be encouraged.
• Fourth, we should not adopt any position that would further the aims of the industrial, commercial, and political forces (see monstrous hybrid) aligned against taking action. That can only make the problem worse.
• Fifth, not often will an issue arise that galvanizes a global population to call for action with only long-term benefits. This is a time to push for huge changes that will have lasting effects. It's not a time to encourage complacency or resignation.
• Sixth, since it appears that molecular manufacturing may be the only technology powerful enough to have a significant impact in ameliorating the effects of climate change, and since there are so many other great benefits to be gained through the development of molecular manufacturing, then we should strongly support research in that direction.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[ed]

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[hawkeye]

It is interesting. I guess I'm an agnostic on the religion of global warming. I still wouldn't be surprised if a few decades down the road we aren't hearing about global cooling again, but it mostly boils down to a high level of skeptism about the rapidity being put forward about "the threat".

I can imagine (or just go to lifeboat) other threats that are more likely, more urgent and more realistically addressed with today's technology.

Having said that, energy alternatives need to be created anyway for strategic reasons to achieve energy independence. This logic applies to most nations. Don't get so set on getting agreement for the"why" when those who are "anti-environmentalist" will frequently agree on the what. AND consider compromise on some possible short term items.

What would ANWAR be worth for real M.P.G.solution or Alt energy commitment like nuclear or solar, etc? A solar satellite commitment would be awesome.
my 2 cents...

[Jim Stark]

Reason suggests we must not accept the "it's too late" argument even if it turns out in the end to be right. But what kind of global political plan might provide a basis for the Herculean effort to neutralize "the threat," since the pitiful UN can't even get Darfur right.

We know from opinion polling that a global referendum on establishing a democratic world government (DWG) would pass, if done today. We know that the mandate emerging from a successful global referendum would be "binding" under international law. Common sense dictates that such a mandate would be politically compelling no matter what its legal status. We know that by utilizing the Internet, such a global referendum is doable even without the support of nation states, even in spite of their opposition (and many national governments won't object if they assess that their job of running a nation is made far easier by this new global political reality). And finally, we know how to use modern technology to assure ourselves that unlike all other governments, democratic or otherwise, the DWG can be protected against all corruption by being 100% transparent (no words spoken by elected Members of a Global Parliament are unrecorded and all words that are spoken end up posted on the Internet for watchdog groups to read or hear).

You won't get your garbage picked up if you don't have a municipal council, and we won't have a chance of stopping global warming or outlawing potentially omnicidal war without a new, global political center of gravity. The choice is not between world government and no world government. As the real fear of destroying our planet and ourselves sinks in, and as Tim Flannery points out, the real choice is between a really democratic world government and a Big Brother-type military outfit, sponsored by the multinationals, no doubt, that will try to save the planet without regard to how people feel or what people think about anything. Considering the profound lack of foresight exhibited by Homo sapiens in the past, we will likely dawdle until the latter option is the only option, by which time it may really be too late. For those who are repelled by that scenario, go to www.voteworldgovernment.org and vote ... and get everyone you know to vote too. It is surely better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all ... and who says we're going to fail? I think the human race will do this.

[M. Simon]

You might find this of interest re: climate change.
Criminals And Moralists Working Together

Enron Carbon Trading And Hansen

Enron And Carbon Trading

[Tom Craver]

I could support (though do not expect) a "democratic" world government of the sort needed to pass and enforce universal laws - e.g. on climate.

But NOT the sort where 4 billion people get to impose their will on 3 billion by direct vote. That's a recipe for global civil war.

Assuming nearly all people (other than dictators) could agree to the democratic principle "consent of the governed", I see three derivative principles necessary to sound and just government by true consent: Representation, Unanimity, and Limited terms.

Representation - Each individual would have an inalienable right to choose who will represent them - even murderers on death row. Representatives would choose the representatives to higher bodies of government. Laws passed by a body would be binding and enforced on all below in the tiers of representation.

Unanimity - This is the only way to prevent tyranny of the majority. Within any legislative body, laws could only pass with unanimous consent of all representatives. Representatives would be selected by unanimous agreement of small self-selected groups from the next lower level of government - starting with groups of individuals picking their representatives.

Limited terms - this would apply to represenatives as well as laws. While those who elected a represenatitive or passed a law could always unanimously agree to recall or cancel, sometimes a bad decision may be made and one person could block correction of that mistake. Term limits insures that no mistake will last too long.

Of course, that's far to simplistic - there are a multitude of details that would need to be worked out, such as to what degree represenatation is geographically defined, how borders are set and change, what happens when someone moves, etc. But I do think those principles would form a solid foundation.

[John B]

Jim Stark - You actually believe polls are truely representative? Or are you accepting these polls due to what appear to an ignorant observer to be your preconceptions re: world government?

Tom Craver - Sounds like you're up to recreating the League of Nations, or the Continental Congress. Both of which did so well, didn't they? *wry grin*

My 2c...
-John B