econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 30 January 2017

Don't Fall Into The Trap Of Restarting Last Decade's 'Climate Wars'

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Myles Allen, University of Oxford

In the run-up to Donald Trump’s inauguration, many climate experts are expressing concern that his views and those of his senior appointees are at odds with mainstream climate science. They’re grimly preparing to re-enter the fray of last-decade’s “climate wars", which saw scientific knowledge about global warming come under intense and sustained attack.

I am as concerned as anyone by politicians’ newfound aversion to evidence - pioneered, embarrassingly, by populists in the UK. Obviously, if politicians say things that are simply false, it is our duty as scientists to point that out.

But we should also point out what they are not saying, which suggests that Trump and his appointees accept much more of the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change than they are prepared to let on - and, crucially, much more than most of their supporters probably think they do: a case of the footsoldiers not realising that their generals have abandoned them. And what those generals accept is already more than enough to justify continuing the relatively modest climate goals of the Obama administration.

I appreciate this line is asking a lot of Trump’s opponents: to characterise the president-elect and his appointees as straightforwardly anti-science seems like a political open goal. The problem is, it may also be an own goal.

Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, former ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson, claims “our ability to predict that effect [of greenhouse gas emissions] is very limited". But he carefully avoids saying whether he means effect on the global energy budget (which is nailed down to within 10% or so), effect on global temperatures (which is predictable, and predicted, within a factor of two), or effect on the weather in Washington DC. So when a helpful journalist adds that 97% of climate scientists disagree with him, all that members of the public hear is that 97% of climate scientists are idiots: of course climate prediction is uncertain.

So, what are these facts on which Trump and colleagues are so carefully silent? First, the idea that there is no connection between humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures seems to have been quietly abandoned. Trump himself acknowledges “some connectivity". Tillerson has conceded “an effect", while Scott Pruitt, who Trump is proposing to lead the Environment Protection Agency, has called for a debate about the “degree and extent" of human-induced climate change, not whether it exists at all. This is a long way from Senator James Inhofe and his snowball.

Second, no one outside the wilder fringes of the internet is publicly arguing that 3-4℃ of human-induced global warming (far beyond the range of climate fluctuations since the last ice age) is “acceptable". Perhaps some individuals believe it in private, but Tillerson has certainly been advised not to express this view in public lest Exxon gets landed with the bill for relocating the population of Bangladesh. So there may be more consensus than meets the eye on what constitutes “dangerous interference" in the climate system.

Third, everyone also agrees that how the climate responds to global emissions is uncertain, and how policies affect emissions is even more so. So as far as today’s policies are concerned, whether we are aiming to stabilise temperatures at 2.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, or the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of “well below 2℃", is largely moot: what matters is that we are aiming to stabilise temperatures at some point this century, rather than settling for indefinite warming.

And finally, no-one is contesting the other key conclusion of Paris, that stabilising the climate requires net global carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced to zero. This is significant precisely because there are other ways of stabilising global temperatures, such as “solar radiation management" where reflective particles are inserted into the upper atmosphere. I am not aware of anyone in the incoming administration advocating such geo-engineering - unsurprisingly, since to do so would acknowledge that climate change is a present danger requiring a globally coordinated response.

As secretary of state, Rex Tillerson would lead the US delegation to global climate talks. GongTo / Shutterstock

Put together, these facts logically imply that net global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to zero sometime this century - which is not that far from the UNFCCC position. Temperatures have already risen by about 1℃ since the mid-19th century (and, again, no one seems to be disputing this any more). If we are to stabilise warming below 2℃, every 0.1℃ of additional warming from now on must be matched by emission reductions equal to, on average, 10% of today’s emission rate. At the rate the Earth has been warming since the 1970s, 0.1℃ takes less than a decade, so 10% per 0.1℃ means emission reductions of 1-2% per year: and the longer we put them off, the steeper the required cuts become.

Perhaps Pruitt and Tillerson really believe that reductions at the modest end of this uncertainty range are all that’s required. We should all hope they are right (although it would be nice to see the evidence), because that would mean current plans might be just enough to meet the long-term temperature goals agreed in Paris, , rather than woefully inadequate. But it hardly makes a strong case for investing in new coal-fired power plants.

The Paris Agreement and the Obama government’s Clean Power Plan were hard-won successes. But, though it may seem disloyal to point this out, both actually had relatively modest goals that are more than justified even by the new administration’s more sanguine attitude to the climate problem.

Both scientists and liberal journalists may be reluctant to give the incoming administration credit for being right about anything. Much of what they are saying is indeed demonstrably at odds with scientific evidence. When Tillerson suggested that scientists were equally split on whether it was possible to trace a link between greenhouse gas emissions and some classes of extreme weather event, he was simply out of date.

But what they are not prepared to say tells a different story - one that shows how far the debate has moved on even among the most ardent disbelievers. Sometimes, as Sherlock Holmes would say, the most important clue is the dog that doesn’t bark.

The ConversationMyles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader of ECI Climate Research Programme, University of Oxford

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.




Econintersect Opinion


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Slow Economic Growth Will Be Around For A Long Time
The Job Guarantee, Wage-Price Inflation And Alternative Solutions: Part 2
News Blog
U.S. Top Source Of DDoS Attacks In Q4 2016
How Artificial Intelligence And The Robotic Revolution Will Change The Workplace Of Tomorrow
Amazon's Alexa Is A Fast Learner
What We Read Today 26 March 2017
NASA's Plan To Use A Giant Magnet To Make Mars Habitable
Mexico Faces Cloudy 2017 Outlook, Recent Data Mixed
Money Market Funds And The New SEC Regulation
Life Cycle Hypothesis
How Tight Is The U.S. Labor Market?
Infographic Of The Day: President Trump's Budget Would Make Big Cuts To Agencies Which Focus On Science
Early Headlines: GW Will Increase Rainfall, New Ohio Law Inhibits Wind Farms, Break Up California?, EU C Emissions At 22-Yr Low, Mosul Offensive Suspended, And More
The Cynical Game
Earnings And Economic Reports: Week Starting 06 June 201627 March 2017
Investing Blog
Earnings: A Lot Less Than Meets The Eye
The Week Ahead: Does The Demise Of The Health Care Bill Mean Anything For Stocks?
Opinion Blog
Fade To Black
Robots, Aliens, Corporate Drones - Who Will Be The Citizens Of The Future?
Precious Metals Blog
These Gold Stocks Will Produce Much Bigger Gains Than Gold Itself
Live Markets
24Mar2017 Market Close: Trumpcare Collapses But Little Affect On The Markets
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government































 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved