A VC« Little Owl | Main | Brainstorm Bits - Ray Ozzie Nails It »
A Conversation About "Climate Change"
This post is about a conversation my friend Steve and I had on "climate change" that I mentioned in my post on John Doerr's comments at Brainstorm yesterday.
My friend Steve sent me a WSJ editorial from Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT saying that "there is no scientific consensus on global warming".
I read it and put it right next to all the counter arguments on climate change I've heard lately. And then sent I Steve an email saying "and what if the situation is irreparable by the time we reach consensus?"
Steve sent me back this reply which I am publishing in full with his approval.
there is no such thing as irreparable. the earth and the climate change constantly. "greenland" is so named because it was green when it was explored. the vikings had to abandon their settlements there many decades later when the glaciers advanced and covered greenland. the ocean levels were radically different when people walked across the bering straits. etc. we can't freeze time. and there never was a garden of eden... so we can't go back there.
so -- if there is some fundamental changes in our mother earth coming (even if caused by CO2) well, c'est la vie. manhattan didnt exist in nature, we created it. if we have to adapt to new climate conditions, we will. no one (no one) is saying the earth will be uninhabitable. just that it will be different. remember, we deal regularly -- regularly -- with climate disasters now -- katrina, the pacific tsunami, mount st helens, etc. there is simply no way to create some non-turbulent, none-changing, softer or mellower eco-system. nature is fucking brutal. period.
and therein lies my basic problem with so-called "moral crusaders" like al gore. they obviously have altruistic motives, but they obviously are also massaging their own egos (hey everybody look! i'm here to save the human race!). and because of that, they can't review the data or the scenarios or even the plain everyday reality clearly and calmly: they can't save the human race if it doesnt need saving. and it doesn't. which doesnt mean we shouldnt have a meaningful debate about the possibility of global warming and make plans accoridngly. we should. but we should approach the problem not as a "save THE environment" issue but as a "save OUR environment" issue. no one wants to return manhattan to a pre-human or pre-european-settlement state. but a strict "environmentalist" approach would want to do just that. luckily, saner and calmer heads prevail, and we instead say, hey, we love manhattan and we're gonna keep it, but we want it to be a balanced sustainable environment for human beings, and maybe a few other species too (say, elm trees, a few birds and domesticated pets) and we focus on that as a goal. not on worrying that urban development is "bad for the environment". which of course it is, duh. it literally destroys "nature". but we say, thats OK, because we are focused on OUR environment, not THE environment. ditto the big cities of the southwest. hell, there's no natural water supply there. none. is anyone suggesting we dismantle the colorado river aqueducts? and if not, why not? why is the "environmentalist" and "moral crusade" so selective in their scorn? because they are self-righteous, not righteous, and they want everybody else to change, not themselves. (al gore flies around on private jets, vacations in humungous homes, owns multiple homes, sends his kids to private schools, etc.) physician, heal thyself. then maybe just maybe you can diagnose me, and the human race
then I said, "we didn't make a global policy decision to start burning carbon fuels, we just did it. so why can't we just decide to stop burning them?" and Steve replied:
on the contrary, we definitely did make such a policy. the creation of the fossil fuel business and economy was very specifically the direct result of various governments explicit open policies, dating back centuries. after the chimney was invented, buring fossil fuels basically became the ticket to modern life and rising standards of living. later, in the industrial revolution, after the steam engine was proved, the brits essentially mandated the radical expansion of the coal industry through various grants and tax laws and initiaves, etc. the USA Interstate Highway Act most certainly was a government policy advocating burning fossil fuels. ditto the goverment creation of Airbus. all of us share responsibility for these decisions and we shouldnt pretend otherwise. nor should we be ashamed: i for one think "westernization" and "globalization" are great things for the human race, and have been since Themistocles thankfully smashed the Persian fleet at Salamis. yes, its got downsides and scary risks and nasty side effects, but it also promotes human rights, democracy, literacy, better health and longer life spans, equal rights on racial ethno gender matters, less hunger and deprivation, etc. fossil fuels have played a HUGE DECISIVE POSITIVE role in that. if its time to move on from fossil fuel, so be it, lets go. we did the erie canal, the intercontinetal railroad, TVA, the marshall plan, the manhattan project, D-Day, apollo missions. we can work our way into the next energy era too. let's go! but not by flagellation and finger pointing and "moral crusades," please?
Then I said, "we should stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. i wouldn't wait for scientitsts to come to an agreement. because it will never happen."
And Steve replied:
here i disagree wildly. scientists come to agreement all the time, when there's data thats well, scientific (meaning experiements that can be repeated.) there is no scientific debate on whether AIDS exists or is a plague that needs massive resources. there is no debate that the earth circles the sun, etc., and scientists and governments from many nations routinely collaborate on scientific exploration of space, e.g. the current mars missions. there is clear consensus on cartography, ergo things like GPS works, regardless of whose satellite is being pinged. etc...
arguably on the first "earth Day" in 1970, the 1960s "tune in turn on drop out" and "dont trust anyone over 30" generation turned environmentalism from a critically important mission into a "moral crusade" and that is just plain replusive to me and we have been suffering the consequences ever since, the same way it is repulsive to me that fundamentalist religious wackos think "marriage" is a moral crusade and not an essential civil rights issue. likeiwse i am in favor of the war in Iraq for all sorts of historical and political and tactical reasons, but i cringe and am repulsed when i hear it called a "moral crusade" by bush or anyone. "moral crusades" are for religious zealots and lunatics, not rational modern humans and scientists. and as i said, look at nuclear energy in this country. or better, look at the management of yellowstone park. the so-called "environmentalists" have turned a good cause into a major debacle, and arguable have harmed the environment as a result. not sure if you love or hate michael crichton, but you can get a sense of the yellowstone debacle here
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
To me this whole conversation points out that this debate about "climate change" is a political debate filled with political baggage and a fight about words, not actions. And that is troubling to me because I think Steve and I agree about what has to be done, but not how to talk about it.
Comments (21) | Posted June 29, 2006 in Politics
Comments
Your friend Steve certainly sounds as if he has a better head on his shoulders than crusaders like Gore.
Gore's a dangerous man; don't listen to him.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 29, 2006 9:27:16 AM
Does your friend have an insurance policy on his house? Why? Is there scientific consensus that his house is going to burn down and he's going to lose all his stuff? No. There's a slight chance it could happen, but the consequences are pretty severe.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is like an insurance policy for the planet. The financial consequences of this can be hundreds of trillions of dollars, and play out in ways we can't imagine.
In this case there's complete and total scientific consensus that CO2's a greenhouse gas, that CO2 levels are steadily rising, that humans are creating the CO2, that temperatures and CO2 levels rise and fall in lockstep, and that CO2 levels are unprecedently high. The only controversy is the rate and consequences of temperature rise.
This is purely a risk analysis situation.
Posted by: Fraser | Jun 29, 2006 11:01:20 AM
FWIW many environmentalists believe Manhattan's current state is actually ideal in terms of environmental impact. Dense housing, broad use of public transportation, concentrated energy for eating and cooling etc. Out here on the Front Range of Denver, sprawl has a huge impact on air quality, gasoline consumption and especially water supply. The New Yorker did an excellent article about this a couple years ago.
Further, your ostensibly rational and reasonable correspondent sure is quick to question motives. Gore isn't just wrong, he's on a "moral crusade." This rhetoric is no better than the Left's calling Bush & Cheney the puppets of big oil.
And BTW Lindzen is certainly not beyond reproach: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/
Don't be fooled by the MIT in front of his title. MIT is not considered a major institution in climate research. My former neighbor is a climate researcher who recently finished her post doc work at the National Center for Atomospheric Research here in Boulder. Last year she took a job at Purdue. She told me that basically Boulder/NCAR, Purdue, UCLA and Cambridge are the places to be. No mention of MIT.
Posted by: Derek Scruggs | Jun 29, 2006 11:34:53 AM
Consensus on Climate Change is not 100% possible but to be honest for me the debate is over.
Action is happening and many will always disagree with it.
Namaste
Al
Posted by: cityhippy | Jun 29, 2006 11:42:24 AM
Derek, Al Gore has himself deliberately and publicly adopted for himself and his movement the specific description "moral crusade" -- for proof, go see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", or read just about any review of the film.
Posted by: steve | Jun 29, 2006 11:44:49 AM
Also, to say "there is no such thing as irreparable" is technically true, but it's kind of like saying "disease can't wipe us out." After all, we survived smallpox and the Black Death. He's setting up a false dichotomy: either we'll all die or we won't The debate is not whether the homo sapiens will go the way of the dodo: it's whether tens or hundreds of millions will die as a result of inaction.
Sitting here in the country where 5% of the world's people output 40% of the world's carbon - despite the fact we've outsourced a great deal of our pollution to developing countries - it's easy to be blase. "How bad can it be? We've got air conditioning, property insurance and an interstate highway system." Go live in India for a while and your view will likely change.
Jeez, every year over 3 million people die of tuberculosis in the developing world because the vaccination and treatment is too expensive and/or the distribution infrastructure is inadequate. You think maybe something similar could happen because of global warming? Maybe it is already? Tropical diseases thrive in heat, after all.
Posted by: Derek Scruggs | Jun 29, 2006 11:48:26 AM
Steve, I was wrong to suggest you assigned the term "moral crusade" to Al Gore. However, you did also say "but they obviously are also massaging their own egos (hey everybody look! i'm here to save the human race!)"
That sounds to me like you're questioning motives, which IMO is the main culprit behind the incredible partishanship in contemporary politics.
Political opponents are no longer wrong, they "hate America" and "want the terrorists to win."
Or if you're on the Left, they are "in the pocket of Halliburton" or "hate the poor."
Posted by: Derek Scruggs | Jun 29, 2006 12:06:34 PM
The New Yorker article to which a commenter referred is available here.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 29, 2006 2:16:19 PM
I agree with the comments above that point out the mismatch between Steve's call for rational debate and the tone of his replies which are pretty emotional, even inflammatory.
Dragging Gore into this is simply a cheap rhetorical trick - TRY TO discredit an prominent advocate for the other side and thereby smear the other side's arguments - and the use of red herrings such as "no one wants to return manhattan to a pre-human or pre-european-settlement state. but a strict "environmentalist" approach would want to do just that" is simply another variant of this. It's "Hey everyone, let's say that our opponent has radical, extremist opinions and then criticize them for such lunacy."
Bleh... people who trumpet their own side as the rational one are bad enough, but when they claim to want a calm, reasoned discussion while throwing verbal firecrackers I have a hard time listening.
There ARE good reasons to question some of the global warming predictions and it's open to debate whether the current warming is solely (or even mostly) human caused since the climate has varied widely in the past and will do so again. Dicussing these rationally would be useful. too bad the above exchange doesn't do that.
Posted by: rick gregory | Jun 29, 2006 6:35:49 PM
Derek, I agree that the debate needs be calm and that the opposition be considered the loyal opposition, not the devil. But I would argue that environmentalism has largely metamorphosed from a much needed debate over development and other essential strategies, into a "moral crusade" -- where anyone who doesn't go along with the conventional wisdom is branded a heretic or a right-wing-nut or worse.
Case in point: recycling. If ever there was a more ridiculous movement I dont know it. Paper glass and metal are renewable resources, so we 're not saving precious or shrinking commodities ("save a tree"? trees for paper are *farmed* like corn!) also, there is no shortage of landfill space available, completely a myth. worse, removing slow decompsoing materials like glass and metal from landfills actually defaets the whole purpose of landfill -- without the flow of air and water under the surface which glass and metal facilitate, landfills never decompose. dig up a landfill from the 1800s and you will find old newsppares still in pristine condition! worst of all, recycling consumes far more energy than not recycling. yet try telling all that to a dinner party of well-meaning but utterly uninformed (lazy? faith-based?) environmentally sensitive friends... and you will be treated with derision and scorn. why? because everybody knows we have to save the planet. and recycling is an essential part of the holy euchrist of environmentalism.
i dont question the motives of these folks -- i assume their motives are excellent, genuine concern for the well being of their fellow living creatures. but i constantly question how much of the movement is based on fact and rationale planning, and how much is based on faith, and the eternal quest for ego gratification... and the path of least resistance.
Posted by: steve | Jun 29, 2006 6:36:16 PM
to the insurance point: look at the cost of proposed programs and their projected effectiveness. How much does flood/earthquake/terrorism insurance cost? Do you have it? Why or why not?
most programs against global warming look to be a bad deal because they require massive spending for very little effect (Kyoto would cost hundreds of billions and is but a very small first step). It looks like it will be cheaper to deal with the problems of global warming than to try and prevent it. Problems aren't predicted for 1-3+ decades, but we're looking at a substantial fraction of destruction in GDP NOW to alleviate it. Taking into account time preference and foregone growth, not doing anything is dramatically better from a cost and lives perspective.
Look at what happens in floods and hurricanes. Bangladesh has thousands dead, US has 10s, maybe 100. Why? Richer people avoid problems (and why so much more problems in NO than other places in dealing with a hurricane), so why immiserate the world for essentially no use? Let's focus on economic growth so everyone can afford to move to higher ground (if we have to).
I'd definitely echo the comments that it seems that the environmentalists take a moral approach to this rather than an analytical one. Very similar to the debate on welfare reform. Conservatives are mean/evil. Liberal policies are nicer (and they do look nicer, more caring, etc.) What works? Eh, that's not as important as how the policies make us feel about ourselves. Oh. This is a bad attitude for social policy, but it is a disastrous approach to dealing with concrete problems like climate change.
Posted by: hey | Jun 29, 2006 9:08:07 PM
I'm pretty sure Greenland has never been, well, green -- from the Wikipedia entry: the first settlers "named the land Grønland ('Greenland') in order to attract more people to settle there."
The earth endures gradual temperature changes, yes, but I'm not sure we should be causing them knowingly. The "Little Ice Age," which killed off the population of Greenland as you mentioned, ... killed off the population of Greenland.
I'm sure if they could have avoided it they would have.
Posted by: Taylor Hughes | Jun 29, 2006 9:37:57 PM
as a self-described "environmentalist" who is also, i think, extremely analytical and rational, I’d like to add a few facts. strip out the emotion and name-calling, accept the best science we have, and maybe we can all agree on some tactics to save ourselves.
1. the science.
check out the real science - not the positioning, not the single convenient voice of dissent - in the consensus reached by the top 1,000 (ok, 995) climate change scientists in the world. the intergovernmental panel on climate change at http://www.ipcc.ch/ has some pretty accessible reports. a sampling of points made:
- “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
- “Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.”
- “The projected rate of warming is... to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years...
hello world - there is no question that it's happening and that we're contributing to it. we may not know what, exactly, it will mean, but if it's worse poison ivy http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/weekinreview/04fountain.html?ex=1307073600&en=1e06f666627ecd0a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss it must be bad. never mind losing all of our beach houses. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm
2. greenland. turns out that everyone is right – it was marketing, it is green, and it did get colder for some period. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/micegreenland.html
"The real story behind the name is given in Erik the Red's Saga, based on oral tradition and written down in the early thirteenth century in Iceland. After the Icelandic landnám was over, Erik the Red and his father Thorvald were forced to leave Norway because one or both of them was involved in killings (details are not given). After Thorvald died, Erik was involved in yet more killings, for which his punishment was three years' vacation--er, I mean banishment from Iceland. (And you thought O. J. got off easy.)
"He used the time to explore the rumored lands to the west. When his term of banishment expired, he returned to Icleand to invite his neighbors and friends to settle the new country with him. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading. Some parts of Greenland, especially the parts the Norse settled, really are green, as these pictures from the tourist board attest (www.greenland-guide.dk/outdoor_life_photo.htm)…
"The Norse settlements in Greenland died out eventually, but they thrived for at least three centuries and survived almost five. Five hundred years is nothing to sneeze at when you consider that Jamestown was settled less than 400 years ago. The exact reason behind the failure is still an open question, but worsening climatic conditions, with a very cold period in the early- to mid-fifteenth century, surely contributed to it."
anyway... the effect of the climate change on people might not be clear yet, and i have enormous optimism about our ability to innovate out of this. nonetheless, i'm not willing to argue politics for two decades with my fingers crossed and trust that it will all work out ok. my kids are too precious to me. let's all get on with it and do something.
Posted by: lucinda | Jun 29, 2006 11:02:54 PM
Here's some interesting comments on this article from a site run by climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
A point by point rebuttal is contained in comment #77
Posted by: rick gregory | Jun 29, 2006 11:33:07 PM
Others have done a good job of stating the obvious and referring to evidentiary sources on the scientific consensus and refutations of the WSJ article. There IS scientific evidence and consensus. But the opposition is running a well financed and coordinated conservative POLITICAL campaign. I would add Fred that its not just about political philosophy but it is about protecting financial interests as well which, as you've observed in the net neutrality debate, are often intertwined.
The issue I would like to raise is the concept that we can "adapt" to climate. Yes, as someone pointed out, we "adapted" to the black plague but it wasnt exactly a good thing.
The idea of "ecosystem services" means that natural systems are interdependent. Thus, warming means less glacier melt which means destroying the water supplies for 40% of the worlds people in who live of the 7 rivers emerging from the Himalayas. How do we adapt to that. What are the real economic and social costs? Where are the benefits? Shifting weather patterns means drought and desertification which leads to hunger and demographic shifts and accelerated urbanization (think 100x residents of new orleans forced to move to houston in india and china). If we can prevent this, why wouldn't we? Will we wait until it is too late?
For a sobering take on the state of our ecosystems, check out the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment at: http://www.maweb.org/en/Presentations.aspx
And for a less sobering take on Al Gore and the movie, check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eoliverwillis%2Ecom%2F2006%2F06%2F23%2Fal%2Dgore%2Dsays%2Dpimpmobile%2F
Posted by: jasonascott | Jun 30, 2006 4:49:03 AM
Jason, wow, thank you for the link to the U.N. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. That is the best single summary of our eco-challenges I have ever seen, calm, rational and wide-ranging.
Interestingly, that report certainly sounds an alarm about CO2 emmissions and climate change, but as a seemingly second or third tier problem. Much more important and alarming to the report authors -- in fact their number one priority -- is soil nutrient depletion from the mass scale conversion of the world's wildernesses into crop land and farms -- the result of which, the authors readily acknowledge, has been a massive rise in the standards of living for a huge segment of the human race. A paradox, to be sure. But the report argues that continued development of crop land could soon result in diminished returns (living standards will not be elevated as quickly or for as many) because of soil nutrient depletion and other negative impacts of modern crop production.
The point is, we have HUGE challenges ahead of us, requiring shared sacrifice and big visions and resource re-allocation. If we actually believe we have a crisis of epic proportions at hand -- and I do -- then thinking the solution is in separating our kitchen trash, or buying carbon credits with our capaccinos and business class airfares, or driving our Prius's to our large vacation homes, or buying organic shampoo at Whole Foods, or all of the above, is ineffective at best and destructive, perhaps catalcylsmic at worst.
Posted by: steve | Jun 30, 2006 10:03:25 AM
a couple quick points that steve's posts and commments above bring to mind:
-my understanding is that a signficant amount of the paper used in the US for mass mailed catalogs and other applications comes from trees cut in Canada's boreal forest. this is wild forest, not "farmed like corn."
-Al Gore went on record in Wired back in May that he purchases carbon offsets (buying either sequestration or carbon free electricity) sufficient to neutralize he and his wife's total carbon demand for transporation, power, etc.
-the enviro-hippies of the 60's interjected american society with a badly needed environmental ethic, one that has manifested itself in critical, life saving, quality-of-life enhancing policies like the Clean Water and Air Acts, Endangered Species act, and NEPA. yes, going "back to the land" is a rejectable value, but there is as much to praise about their efforts as there is to scorn. The new school of environmentalism is one tending toward pro-market, pro-tech approaches to solving problems that are causing impact. Conflating this approach with dirty hippies is a disservice to yourself. I am a staunch environmentalist, and also deeply interested in venture capital and expanding globalization. I feel like i couldnt exist if steve's stereotypes were actually held water.
-note that the most globalized countries of the world have the most comprehensive and well enforced environmental laws.
-resource managers in yellowstone are learning, and getting much better than what Crichton portrays. wolf reintroduction over the last ten years has caused what some scientists are calling a trophic cascade, in which elk herds are becoming more dynamic, new aspen groves are flourishing, beaver numbers are growing, and riparian areas and fisheries rebounding. The full story (to date) dulls Steve's point signficantly IMHO.
-Fred: thanks for the great forum.
Posted by: shiva polefka | Jun 30, 2006 3:37:26 PM
Rush Limbaugh probably said one or two things I agreed with in the early 1990's, but I didn't hear them, because his delivery was so offensive that I had to leave the room after ten minutes.
It's funny that Steve seems to be offended by those he considers self-righteous, yet he comes off as fairly self-righteous himself.
If the issue is important -- and I believe the/our environment is important -- it's worthwhile to develop a bit of tolerance for pesonalities we dislike. If we're zeroing in on the difference between "the" and "our" we probably ought to get off our high horse and do something productive.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: zilla | Jul 2, 2006 4:19:09 PM
I majored in Environmental Studies, focusing on Ecology, and even back in the early 90's, it was pretty apparent that the problem of anthropogenic CO2 emissions was going to have big climate impacts. The current debate of the quality of the science is, frankly, a bogus discussion.
Sure there are a few outliers who are generally funded by petro-chem companies and whose work is not peer-reviewed that disagree w/the overwhelming evidence. The press, in an attempt to be fair and balanced, give this dozen or so skeptics disproportionate coverage in relationship to the their numbers and despite their lack of peer-reviewed work.
These skeptics are always, falsely, held up as paragons of science by people who can't or won't wrap their heads around the scope and severity of the problems presented by abrupt climate change.
So I think getting into a discussion w/people who seem unwilling to critically examine the evidence is not, imho, a good use of time. I have probably spent a 100 hours trying to persuade various friends who are skeptics and none of them, to a person, seems that interested in actually learning enough about the complexities of the issues to make an informed decision. So I don't bother anymore. (you can lead a horse to water....)
Instead, I think a far more fruitful use of tiime/energy is to target the early adopters and early majority of people who grok the sccope of the issue. The skeptics are like laggards in the classic chasm model. Forget about them for now and focus on the growth market opportunities.
As a side note, Steve, at least, seems interested in learning which is more than I can say about most people I have talked to on the "right" side of this issue. Even he, however, seems to overlook the reality that any current environmental concern such as soil erosion is almost certainly trumped by any significant, abrupt climate change (which increasingly seems to be how things are likely to go down.) Worrying about soil erosion, etc in an area that will soon be a desert or flooded is like tilting at windmills.
Posted by: Gordon Gould | Jul 2, 2006 5:35:52 PM
Yes, the world is a changing, evolving place. Yes, we can't turn back time and have a permanently green "Greenland" again. But what we have to remember is that in the past it has been nature that has changed the world, not an "external" force that is making the change happen quicker than people, plants and other animals can adapt.
It is the speed of change that we need to be aware of - this is what we want to be impacting and reducing by living greener.
We've set up a site recently to discuss how you can reduce the speed of change by using local resources and generally "living greener"
Posted by: Jane | Jul 3, 2006 9:25:35 AM
The url is:
www.ecolocal.co.uk
come and join the discusions, add your suggestions and recommendations - after all, working together to share and build resources is the best way to have an impact on the environment.
Posted by: jane | Jul 3, 2006 9:27:47 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
