{"id":4387,"date":"2010-08-01T09:52:08","date_gmt":"2010-08-01T14:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/?p=4387"},"modified":"2010-08-01T09:52:08","modified_gmt":"2010-08-01T14:52:08","slug":"abc-of-global-warming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/abc-of-global-warming\/","title":{"rendered":"ABC of Global Warming"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Teaching a course in Poetry & Ecology<\/strong> this fall. Friend John Maas forwarded this link here<\/a> \u2014 looks like very basic but useful (because of where it comes from, ideologically) text to start off a group of undergraduates, before moving to the more interesting stuff. This piece is clear middle-brow, pro-capitalist, “contrarian” as neo-liberal fare, even if, as bluntly stated in the postscript, the author has not yet found a way for making money out of pro-environmental concerns, he himself is forced to point out that by not believing that science does have something to say in these matters, “contrarians risk becoming \ufb02at earthers” \u2014 something I would suggest they already are & have always been. The blog on which it appeared is called The<\/strong> Big Picture<\/strong>! and sees itself as “a compendium of what a Wall Street money manager is looking at, thinking about, and writing on. It is written by me (& the crew) for people ranging from investment professionals to media to anyone else interested in investing, markets, and the economy.” “Me” being one Barry Ritholtz,<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes<\/span><\/h3>\n

Jeremy Grantham – Bailout Nation<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.\u00a0 It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year.\u00a0 This is certain and straightforward.<\/p>\n

2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth\u2019s temperature to rise.\u00a0 This is just physics.\u00a0 (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)<\/p>\n

3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major in\ufb02uences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured.\u00a0 They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.<\/p>\n

4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system.\u00a0 It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise.\u00a0 But, the past can be measured.\u00a0 The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased.\u00a0 But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century.\u00a0 A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, \ufb02 oods, and other extreme weather events.<\/p>\n

5) Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: \u201cWhy spend money when you\u2019re not certain?\u201d\u00a0 But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.)\u00a0 This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.<\/p>\n

6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an in\ufb01nite loss?\u00a0 And, he answers, \u201cIn\ufb01nite.\u201d
\nIn this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal?\u00a0 The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months\u2019 to one year\u2019s global growth \u2013 2% to 4% or less.\u00a0 The bene\ufb01ts, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased ef\ufb01ciency are more labor-intensive than another coal-\ufb01 red power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important.\u00a0 Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious:\u00a0 costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war.\u00a0 And, to Pascal\u2019s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: De\ufb01nitely life changing, possibly life threatening.\ufeff<\/p>\n

7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity.\u00a0 This features nowhere in economic cost-bene\ufb01t analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless.<\/p>\n

8) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks:\u00a0 As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise.\u00a0 In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons \u2013 seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation.\u00a0 Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science.\u00a0 Not a good idea.<\/p>\n

9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group \u2013 die hard contrarians.\u00a0 Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market.\u00a0 And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead \ufb01nance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market ef\ufb01ciency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged.\u00a0 The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was man-made.\u00a0 (See the attachment to last quarter\u2019s Letter.)\u00a0 Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same.\u00a0 Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy?\u00a0 At some point in the development of a scienti\ufb01c truth, contrarians risk becoming \ufb02at earthers.<\/p>\n

10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for \u2026 what?\u00a0 Being needled by nonscienti\ufb01c newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks?\u00a0 Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news.\u00a0 Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure.\u00a0 I have a much simpler but plausible \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of pro\ufb01 ts, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scienti\ufb01 c results.<\/p>\n

11) Why are we arguing the issue?\u00a0 Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy.\u00a0 Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments.\u00a0 In short, they are conservatives by training:\u00a0 never, ever risk overstating your ideas.\u00a0 The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot.\u00a0 They are also well funded.\u00a0 That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.<\/p>\n

We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable.\u00a0 The pro\ufb01ts of the oil and coal industry make tobacco\u2019s resources look like a rounding error.\u00a0 In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same \u201cexperts\u201d as the tobacco industry did!\u00a0 The obfuscators\u2019 simple and direct motivation \u2013\u00a0 making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to \u2013 combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down.\u00a0 I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: \u201cHave they no grandchildren?\u201d<\/p>\n

12) Almost no one wants to change.\u00a0 The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its de\ufb01ciencies.\u00a0 But for this problem we must change.\u00a0 This is never easy.<\/p>\n

13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news.\u00a0 They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax.\u00a0 They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics.\u00a0 This is a problem for all of us.<\/p>\n

Postscript<\/p>\n

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.\u00a0 But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me.\u00a0 In a fast-moving \ufb01eld rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures.\u00a0 Marketing a \u201cclimate\u201d fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Teaching a course in Poetry & Ecology this fall. Friend John Maas forwarded this link here \u2014 looks like very basic but useful (because of where it comes from, ideologically) text to start off...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,28,31,41,49,50],"tags":[431],"class_list":["post-4387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-capitalism","category-carbon-dioxide","category-climate-change","category-environment","category-global-warming","category-greenhouse-gas","tag-jeremy-grantham"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pierrejoris.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}