Climate Change - A discussion

Climate change – this is described as the major issue of our generation, and it’s impacts are likely to be felt for years to come. Depending upon who you believe, if we do not take action immediately then we are faced with a grim future. There was a summary of the issues published on the ABC news web-site on 14/1/20 – which when I read it, was so simplistic that it finally triggered me to put pen to paper. This is an area that has been of great interest to myself, and I have attempted to read as much as I can to try and understand the complexities of the arguments. Sometimes it feels like falling down a rabbit hole. My assumption is that when reading this piece that the reader is au fait with the differences between the concepts of global warming and climate change, the two are not interchangeable.

In summary it is extremely complex, and given the gravity of the implications it is important not to simply follow the ideological arguments, or accept the debate is over. The intricacies of the problem(s) require careful consideration, and more importantly problems should not be conflated to an extent that it becomes impossible to disentangle all the threads.

This is not a short article, and it will try to go to some level of detail. From my research we need to consider two distinct areas. Firstly the science and secondly the economic and social impacts of climate change, and how any solutions impact the world economy. It is important to stress the world economy, as often the debate seems to be framed around first world considerations.

Let’s start with the science. This is nowhere near as cut and dried as we are often led to believe, and please do not fall for the ridiculous labels that are often assigned when this debate is presented – denier, sceptic and so on. Science should always be questioned, that’s normal and healthy.

Before we continue I will try to reference all my sources throughout the article, but there is so much research that it can be difficult. The intent here is to make anyone who is silly enough to read my ramblings, question, think, and then form your own opinion. Stressing the word own.

 Despite stating that this would not be an ideological piece, I do want to state the following, the evidence is overwhelming that humans are influencing the climate in multiple ways, not only through introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere but through deforestation, agricultural and industrial activities, and expansion of urban areas. There is another undeniable fact: the climate of this planet has changed profoundly, dramatically, even catastrophically and has done so repeatedly, on any scale that we care to measure, and it has done so without any help from humans. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the climate changes.

It might be argued that if you refuse to look at the palaeoclimatological record of natural variability, and choose instead to believe that a slight increase in an atmospheric trace gas is having such a catastrophic effect on the world’s climate that is a somewhat narrow viewpoint. That really is the crux of the debate with respect to the science.

There are many statements we can refer to which summarise the stated problem – I have chosen a quote from the US Global Change Research Program; “Global climate is changing. Most of the warming of the past half-century is due to human activities. Some types of extreme weather are increasing, ice is melting on land and sea, and sea level is rising.”

The first part of this quote cannot be questioned – but when has the climate not been changing? There does not appear to be a great deal of empirical evidence, independent of adjusted computer models, that most of the warming of the last century is due to human activities, when the global climate actually began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age (Loehle & McCulloch 2008 – Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies) in the mid-19th century. This is nearly a century before significant introduction of fossil fuel derived CO2 to the atmosphere.

Ice is melting - Glaciers began receding worldwide in the early to mid-19th century after having grown to their greatest extent in ten thousand years during the Little Ice Age. Throughout the second half of the 20th century they continued doing what they had been doing for at least a century, shrinking back from their LIA maximum. It should also be considered that all weather records which are referred to are barely over a century old, and hence must be considered a somewhat small sample size if we consider the age of the Earth.

Prior to the LIA there was a timeline which is referred to as the Medieval Warm Period that began approximately 950AD. Some studies point to a significantly higher sea level during the MWP , perhaps as much as 2 to 4 feet, which does imply reduced glacial mass relative to present.

Let’s now go back a little further in time.

The planet has undergone a series of glacial-interglacial ages, with the most recent great Ice Age ending only 10,000 years ago. The termination of that ice age was truly a global warming event. From a variety of proxies, most especially isotopic studies of ice cores extracted from glacial ice in Antarctica, Greenland and numerous mountain glaciers, it has become apparent that the warming that accompanied the shift out of the most recent ice age was extreme in its severity, and catastrophically fast, perhaps as much as 15 to 20 degrees C in less than a decade. This is many times more intense than the 0 .8 C – 1 degree warming of the last two centuries. In fact there were two catastrophic warming episodes at the close of the ice age separated by a 1400 year, equally fast, return to full glacial cold. At the time of writing there is no agreed upon explanation for this climate change event. One can imagine the effect the warming had to the 6 million cubic miles of glacial ice piled up over the North American and European continents, or the consequences of a very rapid, 400 foot sea level rise resulting from the melting of that glacial ice. This could be regarded as an extremely significant unresolved scientific question of our time.

 Ongoing studies of the palaeoclimate record are revealing numerous other extreme climate changes occurring over multiple time scales, none of which can be blamed on anthropogenic consumption of fossil fuels. Throughout the 10,000 years of the Holocene period the natural variability of the global temperature appears to have ranged from about 2 to 4 degrees C over time scales ranging from decades to centuries. From the ice core records it is apparent that at no time has there been any significant period of stable climate, rather it has been in a constant state of flux; and, human societies have frequently been the victims of the planets’ natural climate variability.

This may sound somewhat ridiculous, but it has proven problematic to actually measure the Earth’s temperature. So when figures are quoted please remember this. To calculate an average temperature typically three sources of information are used: ground based temperature sensors, weather balloon based sensors and satellite sensors. Much of the data we are fed is from ground based sensors. Richard Muller a physicist has based his work on ground based sensors for example. It is argued that ground based sensors have bias, models using this data will counter that point by stating they are adjusted for bias. Many ground surface temperature monitors face the risk of being compromised by the Urban Heat Island effect, whereby local temperatures increase due to changes in the environment. There are extremely detailed studies in this area – but the point is that a proportion of the data that is published may be tainted. When do we ever hear that in a debate?

 I am not an expert, but the models which are referenced do appear somewhat duplicitous when they conclude most of the warming of the past half century is due to human activities. Many of the models which are referenced are programmed only to factor in anthropogenic effects, specifically CO2, to the exclusion of other possible variables. This link provides some insight into the IPCC process and potential flaws in the research. Dr Tim Ball. Please be assured I have not morphed into some sort of climate conspiracy theorist, but have just tried to understand how the science has arrived at certain conclusions.

I have seen studies that indicate that the average land temperature has risen by 1-1.5 degrees C. BOM published figures which indicated that Australia has warmed by 1 degree C since 1910. When we look at these numbers essentially we are saying that prior to the 1940s (CO2 regarded as insignificant prior to this date) any increase in temperatures must have been caused by other factors outside of CO2.

Consider this: Carbon Dioxide comprises .0004 of the total atmospheric composition. The natural contribution to the total ambient atmospheric CO2 is 250 times greater than the human contribution, about 750 gigatons naturally compared to 3 gigatons of anthropogenically sourced CO2 residing in the atmosphere at any given time. So, the human contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is approximately 16 parts out of 10 million. CO2 is what is known as a trace gas, a gas, which, as we know is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. An interesting point is that the EPA in the US has declared CO2 as a pollutant under their own Clean Air Act. Somewhat difficult to understand that decision. Those pesky plants polluting our atmosphere.

Now I really could continue but realistically what I am trying to say here is be informed about the debate. I will finish with a quote, and a summary of what we need to think about.

Quote – Hermann Flohn (1984) – Regarded as one of the foundering fathers of Climatology:

“Climate –even under its natural development alone- varies continually. Each year, each decade, each century, each millennium, since long before any question of impact of human activity…It is important to gauge the magnitudes and time-scales of these variations, since planning should not be based on expectations of return to some non- existent norm. And the magnitude and extent of any changes attributable to Man’s activities –or even whether any such effects are occurring on more than a local scale-cannot be determined without knowing the range, and the likely timing, of changes due to natural causes.”

 What do you need to consider with respect to Climate Change science?

 There is widespread agreement on the following:

 ·        Surface temperatures have increased since 1880

·        Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere

·        CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

Points of disagreement – and hence where as individuals we need understand the science and form an opinion:

 ·        Has the warming since 1950 been dominated by human causes?

·        How much will the planet warm in the 21st Century?

·        Is the warming dangerous?

·        Can we afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and will any reduction improve the climate? – This is an economic question and we will address this a little later.

This debate is rarely broken down into its component parts. The more research that you do the more that you will realise that climate science is not as clear cut as many would have you believe. Do we ever hear from solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, palaeoclimatologists, geologists, glaciologists, astronomers, geochemists, oceanographers or a whole host of other scientists outside the IPCC who have raised valid questions about climate change. Remember Al Gore - Inconvenient Truth. Try that link. The Earth’s climate is extremely complex, so please be well informed with respect to this part of the debate. Many eminent climate scientists believe that CO2 emissions are only part of the equation when considering climate change. Here are a few names worth reading: Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Vincent Gray, Richard Lindzen, Richard Tol, John Christy, Robert Carter, Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) – the list really does go on – most of these people have been totally demonised, so you really have to go looking for their work. You may not agree – but at least you will be more informed with respect to the debate.

My more favourite area of study next – Economics.

As we begin this section of the article, please consider the first part of the article. You may or may not agree that CO2 emissions are driving all the climate change we are observing, however the focus of majority of the efforts globally essentially is placing all our eggs in that basket i.e. reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and our climate will return to an agreed norm. Also considering the quote from Flohn stating that there may not be an agreed norm.

Firstly we can look at some numbers – again do not fall into the political debate here – focus on the economics.

There is much discussion around trying to stop emitting CO2 by 2050 or sooner. New Zealand have made a commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The estimated costs for this revealed that getting to 50 percent below 1990-levels in 2050 would cost at least 5 percent of GDP annually by 2050. For New Zealand, the cost is similar to today’s entire expenditure on education and health care. What about getting all the way, rather than halfway, the estimated cost is 16 percent of GDP by 2050. That is more than New Zealand today spends on social security and welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined.

If New Zealand were to meet zero emissions in 2050 and stays at zero for five decades, then the greenhouse-gas reduction, according to the standard estimate from the United Nations’ climate panel, will deliver a temperature cut by 2100 of 0.004 degrees. In effect New Zealand is considering spending at least $5 trillion to -deliver a physically unmeasurable impact by the end of the century. As an ROI that is not particularly appealing. In the eyes of many this is regarded as the only approach, which should be replicated across all developed economies. The cost of this type of approach is somewhat preclusive for many countries.

So what do we need to consider?

For me personally we require a comprehensive climate policy, not one that is too narrow in focus, and it needs to be realistic. The Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreements have not managed to produce any discernible real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, so it is unclear if we continue with this approach if we will ever achieve the reductions which are being sort. It is interesting that the US easily leads the world in reducing CO2 output. Their reduction of 794 million tons over the past decade is a 1.4% annual rate of decrease. Improved energy efficiency has partly driven this reduction. More recently, cheap natural gas, combined with regulatory constraints on coal-burning utilities, have favorably altered the mix of hydrocarbons burned to produce electricity. Note that the cheap gas is providing an economic advantage to move away from fossil fuels.

It does not appear to make sense to compare climate change to other environmental challenges that we have faced and solved. Climate change is much more complicated, involving open, complex, and imperfectly understood systems. I am hopeful that the science sector of this article provided some insight into that statement. Unlike, say, acid rain or smog, it is not a conventional environmental problem. It is as much an energy problem, an economic development problem, or a land-use problem. That is a more pragmatic view, and one which is founded on economic factors.

Climate economists widely acknowledge that there are only four policy levers that can be used in an attempt to lower carbon emissions: reducing the world’s population, shrinking the global economy, increasing the efficiency of energy consumption, and decreasing carbon intensity (meaning that we create less carbon for each unit of energy that we produce).

Reducing global population is implausible, and deliberately reducing the size of the global economy would result in increased hardship for billions. That leaves a strategy that identifies a number of ways of pulling the levers of energy efficiency and carbon intensity.

We do require to set basic climate related goals – some which have been proposed are as follows:

 ·        ensuring secure, affordable energy supplies for everyone (which means developing alternatives to fossil fuels);

·        ensuring that economic development doesn’t wreak environmental havoc (which means not just reducing CO2 emissions, but also cutting indoor pollution from burning biomass, reducing ozone, and protecting tropical forests)

·        making sure that we are prepared to cope with whatever climate changes may occur, man-made or natural (which means recognizing, at last, the importance of adapting to climate change). Very relevant when considering the current Australian bushfire crisis for example.

This means in economic terms in order to be successful, our approach to climate policy should offer obvious advantages (“rapid and demonstrable pay-back”), appeal to a wide variety of people, and produce measurable results. The current approach, does not seem to do any of these things – just look at the numbers from the New Zealand example.

We need a co-ordinated approach to a number of issues which are often conflated. It is not just about closing coal fired power stations for example. Clearly as coal fired power stations reach end of life they should not be replaced by new ones – that would be total folly. Instead of single-mindedly trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, a counter suggestion is that we pursue a number of other worthy goals – for example, adaptation, reforestation, encouraging biodiversity, and improving air quality – each of which is important, and all of which may also reduce carbon emissions. The all-inclusive ‘Kyoto’ type of climate policy needs to be broken up into separate issues, each addressed on its merits and each in its own ways. An example of this would be the adoption of CET as proposed by Alan Finkel in Australia. This would have the potential to address the use of fossil fuels, and also address air pollution issues. (I did write an article in 2017 on this). So when we look at all the rhetoric, please be mindful that as policies are proposed we can start to apply an economic lens. This should examine cost and payback with the ultimate goal being providing an overall benefit to the environment. By taking this approach we start to become removed from ideology and focus on being pragmatic.

We must also recognize that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can provide developing economies with affordable alternatives to the fossil fuels on which they currently depend. Very rarely is this point discussed. For example from 2006-16 Indonesia’s CO2 emissions grew by 3.1% annually, the Asian average. It’s no coincidence that in 2016 Indonesian life expectancy reached 69, up by 17 years over the previous half century. As in much of the developing world, Indonesians are living longer. This is because increased energy use supports cleaner water and food, improved hygiene and better medical care, staples of any developed country. As fossil-free energy is not yet price-competitive, its adoption implies using less energy. This in turn may mean shorter life expectancy for Indonesians and citizens of other developing countries.

It would then make economic sense to perhaps invest far more in research to in effect create an energy technology revolution as opposed to spending large sums of GDP to try and artificially reduce CO2 emissions. Also bearing in mind the point above with respect to developing nations, they are unlikely to have the investment opportunities to always contribute to creating alternative sources of energy production.

It should also be remembered that we cannot focus just on energy production, it can be argued that mass improvements are needed across many technologies, requiring the determined participation of governments. The research to support technology improvements could be potentially partially funded by a carbon tax that would avoid undermining economic growth. We have however seen in Australia that this a very divisive approach. As with all investments though we go back to our earlier point of rapid and demonstrable pay-back.

This next part of the article is not designed to belittle individual efforts, but more to be realistic with respect to the problem we are facing. Fossil fuels currently meet 81% of our global energy needs. Even if every promised climate policy in the 2015 Paris climate agreement is achieved by 2040, they will still deliver 74% (IEA World Energy Outlook) of the total. The IEA estimates that by 2040 – after we have spent $3.5 trillion on additional subsidies – solar and wind will still meet less than 5% of our energy needs.

Significantly cutting CO2 emissions without reducing economic growth will require far more than individual actions. It is absurd for middle-class citizens in advanced economies to tell themselves that eating less steak or commuting in a Toyota Prius will rein in rising temperatures. To tackle climate, we must make collective changes on an unprecedented scale. Being more environmentally conscious is of course a very good aspiration, but these decisions alone will not solve climate change issues.

The one individual action that citizens could take that would make a difference would be to demand a vast increase in spending on green-energy research and development, so that these energy sources eventually become cheap enough to outcompete fossil fuels. That is the real way to help fight climate change. That is an economic view devoid of politics. You may or may not agree.

If you have made it this far, and are still awake well done.

This is such a crucial area of debate – and we owe it to ourselves to really understand the issues. This is designed to get you thinking. Do not just follow what you are spoon-fed, question, question again, and then form an opinion which you can use to then examine what is being proposed in the political debates, and see if that makes sense to you. I really do understand the passion that this debate can create, but we must ensure that pragmatism outweighs emotion.