Climate Change and Global Warming Debate

Global warming and climate change has been the main topic of environmental debate in the last decade. Almost every other category of debate about the environment is usually isolated to a specific locale or region, i.e. a factory polluting a local stream, a lumber company cutting down trees in Brazil, etc.

Global warming by contrast is an issue that involves the entire world and requires a global consensus to make policies and decisions that will be effectual.

Because global warming is such a heated debate, I will discuss this topic first and then go on to general environmental issues, i.e. clean drinking water, air pollution, waste, etc. I will first summarize the most current science of global warming and climate change, and then discuss the policy strategies being debated.

There is a consensus now among scientists and politicians that global warming is indeed occurring. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a division of the UN Climate Panel, has reported that we will see an increase in global mean temperatures by 2.6 degrees C (4.7 degrees F) during this century, at a global cost of $15 trillion. The main cause is attributed to greenhouse effects caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

The implications of such a rise in the climate will have damaging results. There is a belief that we will see sea-levels rise, causing wide-spread flooding, erosion of shorelines, and the potential submersion of entire islands. The current prediction by the IPCC is a span of 18-59cm (midpoint 38.5cm) rise over the next 100 years.

It’s important to note here that the IPCC has progressively downgraded their estimated sea-level rise from their first estimate which was at 65cm in the 90’s to 48.5cm in 2001 and now is at a little more than a feet.

Other costs of global warming include increase in the spread of malaria, heat deaths, hurricanes and species extinction. It is widely understood that the poorest of the world will be hit the hardest by these catastrophes.

World consensus on the reality of global warming and climate change is no longer being debated. Everyone agrees that global warming is indeed occurring. There is still some debate, isolated primarily to the US, on whether global warming is man-made or a natural cyclical occurrence. The rest of the world now believes that global warming is both real and man-made.

Global Warming Solutions: Mitigation vs. Adaptation

This is where most of the heated debate comes in. The two basic categories of policy strategy are mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation involves attempting to hinder the progress of global warming by cutting CO2 emissions. This is the main strategy that almost all liberals and some conservatives advocate. The media has given the impression that this is the only strategy that exists.

The Kyoto Protocol is the best example of mitigation policy. It was signed in 1998 by over 160 countries. The US and Australia did not sign, and China and India were not required to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

The UN Climate Panel, IPCC, also ascribes to a mitigation strategy. The most recent deal reached on May 4, 2007 is targeted to keep global warming to within 2 degrees Celsius. It’s criticized by opponents who say it would require a 3 percent cut in global GDP, which would cause a global recession. We would also need the equivalent of 40 Kyoto-type treaties to make a significant impact on global warming.

Another problem is that manufacturers in countries with strict emissions standards, which is what Kyoto calls for, would just move to China and India where Kyoto does not require cuts. And China has said that it would never sign a Kyoto-type treaty.

They also criticize the IPCC for being a politically motivated agency with a liberal bias. There have been reports of scientists who were pressured toward a “green” bias in their research. The final summary is negotiated, not by scientists and experts, but by diplomats. The summary, which is the only portion that the media looks at, is not representative of the body of the research done, according to Richard Lindzen, a scientist at MIT and a member of the IPCC.

Adaptation, in contrast, involves helping those who are the most vulnerable to climate change, i.e. the poor, adapt to the harmful effects of global warming. The most prominent research to date was done by the Copenhagen Consensus Center at the Copenhagen Business School. The director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, testified at a US Congressional committee hearing on March 21, 2007.

Although Lomborg agrees with IPCC’s findings about the causes of global warming, he starkly disagrees with their policy recommendations. His view is that trying to mitigate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions would come at an extremely high cost with minimal effects.

He points out that current mitigation strategies, like the Kyoto Protocol, would delay global warming by only 5 years and would be enormously costly. He recommends a number of adaptation strategies that he claims would save more human lives and at a much lower economic cost.

All sides of the debate in the US concede that global warming is a scientific fact. Where they differ is whether climate change can be attributed to human activity. Almost all liberals believe that global warming is man-made. The landscape of views on the conservative side is yet to be determined. Many conservatives are skeptical that global warming is man-made, and are unwilling to take the drastic mitigation strategies until they can see compelling scientific evidence to that effect. This widespread skepticism is unique only to the US.

Many alternate theories say that global warming is mostly due to natural causes. One theory that has shed doubt on man-made causes is that temperatures have been rising steadily, even before the industrial revolution began. Many point to the drastic global heating that occurred during the middle ages. Another point that skeptics like to make is that sea-levels rose about a foot (30cm) in the last 150 years. They say if sea-levels are expected to rise only 38cm (IPCC Report) in the next 100 years, that isn’t a significant enough rise to attribute the cause to industrialization.

Other popular theories include solar flares, volcanoes and natural climate cycles.

It’s only in the US that this debate is still considered valid. I base this opinion on statements made by republican politicians in the US, Stephen Harper, and Tony Blair. Bush and other republicans have stated clearly that they are skeptical about the man-made causes of global warming. Harper and Blair, both conservatives, have admitted they believe global warming is man-made and have made pledges to reduce CO2 emissions.

It can be scarcely argued that media is a biased and money-motivated sector. Although objectivism is the ideal premise of their activities and the appearance of such an ideal lends to their credibility, any close examination of their reporting of hotly debated issues shows their extreme bias. I found that to be the case in this situation.

For example, the most recent Congressional hearing on global warming called on two witnesses to testify. Democrats called on Al Gore and Republicans called on Lomborg to testify. Al Gore’s testimony was heavily covered by the media and extremely well attended, although he offered very little support for his extreme policy recommendations, and his testimony was mostly full of rhetoric. His written testimony was only 3 pages long.

Lomborg, the director of the Copenhagen Consensus, an unlikely witness for Republicans because he is politically center-right in Europe - which might cause him to be viewed as a socialist in the US, submitted a 23 page testimony full of peer-reviewed economic analysis from top researchers, including four Nobel-laureates. His testimony was full of scientific research along with very sensible policy arguments. Lomborg’s testimony, however, had very sparse attendance, no press coverage, and had only 1 democrat (who also happened to be the chair of the committee) present during his testimony.

The media tends to over exaggerate the consequences of global warming. They want to focus in on the worst case scenarios and want to only report on extremist and alarmist scientists. There are many scientists who never make their way into the newspapers because they don’t predict catastrophic consequences. In fact, many scientists have complained that the media is grossly skewing the debate.

Here are some examples of exaggerations made by the media. Heat deaths are highly publicized as consequence of global warming, especially after heat waves like the one in France in 2003 that killed nearly 15,000 people. What’s not reported is that global warming is likely to considerably reduce cold deaths. For example, a study in the UK predicted that they would see 2,000 more heat deaths should the temperature rise 2 degrees Celsius. But they found that they would simultaneously see 20,000 fewer cold deaths as a result.

Another popular exaggeration comes from Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. In it, there is a popular and dramatic scene where he states the following: “If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea – or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20 feet.” Scientists say this scenario would be highly unlikely. Although, technically, what Al Gore is saying is correct, he is grossly misrepresenting the scenario as likely and imminent.

On March 19, 2007, Stephen Harper announced that he would respect the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed under the Liberal government. This was a stark change in policy from someone who was once hostile to the idea that global warming was man-made and stated that Kyoto was a “socialist scheme.” His critics say he is a political opportunist and is taking this new position to keep his government in office.

On April 6, 2006, an open letter was sent to Stephen Harper, signed by over 60 Canadian scientists, urging Harper to revisit scientific research on climate change, calling it an “emerging science”. They also challenged the conclusions made by the IPCC and Kyoto, saying it was based on “alarmist forecasts” and would have insignificant results even if their forecasts were correct.

They called for “balanced, open hearings” and that “while the pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation”. The letter also mentioned that they made a similar appeal to the former Liberal government, without a response.

The overwhelming consensus in Canada is that global warming is man-made and that we should go toward mitigation strategies to curb CO2 emissions. The drastic policy change of Harper’s government reflects that consensus.

Another example that this is a widespread belief is the Vancouver Sun’s recent invitation to David Suzuki to be its first ever guest editor for their Saturday, May 5, 2007 edition of the newspaper. David Suzuki is a famous and iconic figure on environmental issues in Canada.

He’s widely popular and travels all over Canada to speak on environmental issues. He is a strong proponent of cutting CO2 emissions. If this was a debated and controversial issue in Canada, the Sun would have never given such an influential role to him.

It again goes to show that most people in Canada believe global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, with the sole assumption that limiting CO2 is the only way to deal with global warming. In fact, as I’ve already noted, there are other policy views that seem to make more sense, or at least just as valid, but get very little press.

Through the combination of the media, liberal politicians, and popular environmentalists like David Suzuki, the man-made CO2 causes of global warming is settled in the public consciousness. There is no other alternate view that even comes close to public acceptance.