We must change the focus on climate change

The discussions among scientific experts regarding the prospects for sea level rise provide insights into how science works in its relationship to issues of broad public interest.   In 2014, only five years ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the worst case warming scenario would raise sea levels by 1.7 feet to 3.2 feet by 2100.  Now, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reports that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica might be melting faster than once predicted.  The authors write that if emissions proceed unchecked, sea levels could plausibly rise 6.5 feet by 2100.  They came to that conclusion after coordinating the judgments of 22 experts on sea level rise and ice sheet dynamics as to how much rise there might be if global warming proceeds on a business-as-usual basis.  That is, assuming that global society fails to rein in greenhouse gas emissions as the global population increases.  

It’s tempting to consider the different conclusions of these two studies as disagreement. But we’re talking here about massive processes at different places on the planet that are not amenable to quantitative measurements. Further, we can’t be sure how much progress will be made in slowing greenhouse gas emissions.  Science must often proceed in light of such uncertainties in arriving at conclusions that can be drawn about complex systems. The 6.5 feet is an upper limit, predicted to have about a 5 percent likelihood of occurring; the lower estimate of somewhere between 1.7 feet to 3.2 feet is a near certainty. 

 Unfortunately most of the public can't imagine the consequences of either the high or low estimates.  The lead author of the new report, Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol is quoted as saying that the larger rise could spell disaster for some of the world’s largest coastal cities including New York, Miami, Shanghai, Jakarta, Osaka, and Rio de Janeiro, as well as many small Pacific island nations like the Maldives and the Marshall Islands. But it might be helpful to think of it this way: What would it mean if the subways and underground utility tunnels in New York were flooded, if the workings of major cities were impeded to the extent that they couldn’t function?  How would a society that depends on New York, Miami and dozens of other coastal cities continue?  

If we lived in a logical, well-functioning global society, studies of sea level rise would inform government planning on a worldwide scale; measures would be undertaken to control sea level rise, and the building of infrastructure to limit future damages would be undertaken. But that’s not happening, in large measure because there’s not a general sense of urgency. Even for those who consider themselves to be farsighted, 2100 seems a long way off. Eighty years from now, my spouse and I, our children and grandchildren will be gone.  Probably also all of our great-grandchildren, though some yet to be born could be around.  Should I have to worry about anything that far out? By then science and technology will be so advanced they’ll have figured out how to deal with the challenges.  Right? Yeah, that’s right.
The Dutch, who face immediate threats, as the opening picture shows, know that they can't afford to postpone taking action.  We should look to their example.

Thinking about forecasting the future  puts me in mind of Julian Simon, a colorful, stimulating friend with whom I associated in the 1970’s  He was a professor of Economics at the University of Illinois, and I was a Professor of Chemistry.  We were drawn together by the game of Squash.  I was a middling player, Julian was better.  For some time we pretty regularly played squash late on Friday afternoons. He almost always beat me; I was just good enough to make him work hard to win and to occasionally take a game.   He told me he liked to play with me on Fridays because it gave him a boost as he entered into observing the Sabbath. Julian's rather left-handed compliment didn't offend me; we were friends, and I sensed that he suffered from bouts of depression--perhaps I was part of his therapy. 

Julian was becoming famous at around that time for his economic writing. He argued that talk about the imminent dangers of population explosion and impending shortages of the materials needed for society’s continuance were misplaced.  He had highly public disagreements with many of his Illinois faculty colleagues, and even more visible ones with people such as Paul Ehrlich, author of a widely read book, The Population Bomb.  I served as a sounding board for some of Julian’s ideas; we frequently found ourselves sitting on the floor in the squash court arguing. I enjoyed our conversations, though I saw little evidence that my arguments had made much of a dent in the positions he spelled out in his best-known work, The Ultimate Resource.   Our relationship ended when he left The University of Illinois and moved to Maryland. He died in 1998 at age 65.  The Times obituary referred to him as the “optimistic economist”.  Julian was profiled in an article in Wired not long before he died.  Ed Regis nailed his man pretty well; Julian could wield data with an expert hand. In the face of a lot of pessimism, he insisted on optimism, even when he had to deny trends suggesting that society was on an unsustainable course. He believed that we needn’t concern ourselves with overpopulation or impending shortages of rare metals, nor should we be concerned about climate warming, which was beginning to receive increased attention.  In his largely sympathetic profile, Regis caught Julian’s irrepressible urge to challenge conventional wisdom. 

Julian Simon’s faith in human ingenuity and adaptability is exemplary of the approach many people take to coping with climate change.  The economic system on which much of the world runs is grounded in the notion of continual expansion, a conviction that GDP tells us all we need to know about how well we’re doing.  But it’s becoming increasingly clear that GDP is a faulty index in seeking human welfare generally. On the contrary, measuring our success in terms of GDP is a road to disaster.  Julian Simon was actually right in many of his short term analyses and predictions.  He embarrassed people like Paul Ehrlich, who overestimated their own short term predictive prowess.  In this instance, the key feature in predicting the economic and social health of society is the time scale.  Julian was often right in the short term, but he is inevitably wrong in the long term.  Joseph Stiglitz has it right: we need to change our focus. 

It will not be easy to persuade most people that we should change direction, but there are glimmers of hope.  The Washington Post recently ran a story on how the Green New Deal, or some variant of it, is finding audiences across the country.  The nation’s two largest cities, New York and Los Angeles, are moving ahead with ambitious plans, as are many progressive communities small and large.  But change doesn’t come easily. Just wishing for change will not get us to where we need to be. Understandably, people are wary of change that could negatively impact their social and economic prospects. It will take imaginative, open-hearted arguments to convince people that their interests will be protected. The powerful corporations and oligarchs who now hold so many levers of power will not willingly cede their control.  There will be much more to tell in this story. I hope to explore some of the themes in future blogs.  Please share the blog with your friends, and let me know your thoughts. 

Not-so-curious George

There has been a little tempest over George Will’s recent column on the subject of changes in sea ice and its relationship to global warming. For example, Rick Piltz got on it right away, writing in ClimateScienceWatch. Joseph Romm also put it rather strongly to Will on the Climate Progress post. The overwhelming response of the scientific global climate science community has been that Will doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That may indeed be so, but I’m not sure that this is all that needs to be said in dealing with conservatives of his ilk.

While George Will strikes many as an unappealing, opinionated curmudgeon, he is not a dummy. It behooves those who don’t care for his political and social views to at least respect his power to influence public opinion. When he writes about climate change he isn’t really examining the scientific evidence, but rather operating from a certain political, social and moral stance. In his way of looking at things, ideas that carry implications for change in the social order, particularly those that call for large scale actions, are tainted with the potential for limiting individual freedom, and are to be looked at skeptically.

An important part of the conservative stance on all such matters is a distrust of authority that emanates from sources other than a narrow canon of conservative orthodoxy. This makes for rejection of assertions resting on scientific premises. Conservatives love to go back to materials that seem to show that scientists have often been wrong in the past. In the February 15 column dealing with sea ice, Will runs off a bunch of quotes from about 35 years ago, when there were headlines claiming that the world might be heading into another ice age. He quotes widely from newspaper and magazine articles, though- significantly- not from scientific sources. The implication is that science was incorrectly crying wolf then, and is likely to be just as wrong now in predicting serious consequences of global warming.

Interestingly, Will also reprises the story of Paul Ehrlich’s wager with Julian Simon on whether the costs of five natural resources would increase or decrease over a 10 year period. Conservatives love to tell this tale; Erhlich lost his bet on all five of the metals he chose. This example is supposed to illustrate that social progressives such as Ehrlich tend to be drama queens, continually promoting notions of impending shortages, environmental distress and lowered quality of life. Ehrlich may be an appropriate target for ridicule; more than once he seemed to be too quick and a bit over the top with dire predictions. But whether one person in a prominent role occasionally makes a fool of himself has little to do with the broad issues at stake. Julian Simon was dead wrong in his idea that human ingenuity will always find a gainful pathway out of the cul-de-sacs into which it lurches because of improvident disregard for the planet’s limits. Ten years does not provide a test of the notion that there are limits to the availability of materials, of energy, of space for people to live in.

Years ago, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign I occasionally played squash with Julian. We sometimes ended up sitting on the squash court floor arguing about some of his ideas. I believe Julian simply didn’t understand basic science concepts. He had this libertarian, no-holds-barred view of how society should be run, and anything that didn’t fit within its laissez faire structure was dismissed as being of no essential consequence. He was fun to be with because he challenged one’s assumptions, but it became obvious that the laws of nature were not going to get in the way of his vision.

There is some of that stubborn determination to let ideology take precedence over the facts in George Will. On matters relating to science’s interface with society, as in the climate change debate, Will seems to simply deny the authority of science to pronounce on the basic science involved. Nitpicking one’s way through the voluminous literature on climate change provides plenty of opportunities to note inconsistencies in the claims issuing from various sources, or to focus on some short term weather changes or more localized changes that have little weight in comprehensively assessing the overall direction of global change. The global climate is the product of an enormous number of variables, many of them interactive with one another. Science has been making steady progress in building reliable models for this incredibly complex system. It is noteworthy is that predictions of the increases in the planet’s temperature that will result from a given amount of carbon emissions have not really varied much over the past few decades, as the models have become increasingly sophisticated and reliable. The implications of significant climate change are there, and they are sufficiently dire that responsible scientists who understand this particular area of science feel obliged to call for responsive actions.

Ah, at this point they have stepped on George Will’s toes. He does not seem to be truly interested in where this global experiment in climate change will eventually take the human race. Like Julian Simon, he simply has the idea that if we just don’t limit people’s free choices the challenges will be met and all will be well. His reluctance to accord science an epistemic authority in matters that bear upon societal affairs is but one more example of the manifold ways in which science’s epistemic and moral authority are contested. The irony is that if we were to follow George Will and Julian Simon down the path they advocate, science would be our only source of rescue from the horrible messes that would result.