Any discussion about climate change should be framed by two questions. First, is global warming actually happening? And, if so, is it the result of human activity?
To date, neither of these questions has a conclusive answer. Yet, companies are being forced to comply with costly, productivity-robbing regulations handed down by an overly powerful Environmental Protection Agency as if these issues had been settled. Worse yet, the solutions themselves have never undergone rigorous cost-benefit analysis and they are, for the most part, based on totally outdated approaches to dealing with the problem.
Despite decades of research, there are varying opinions on whether global warming is, in fact, taking place, as well as the extent of the warming. And, a growing number of experts are beginning to acknowledge this reality.
A paper recently published by Dr. Nigel Fox of The National Physical Laboratory, the UKs National Measurement Institution, explains the weakness in relying on complex measurements to understand climate change and basing forecasts on them.1 These measurements include ice cover, cloud cover, sea levels and temperature, chlorophyll levels, and the radiation balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth.
For the purpose of forecasting, these measurements need to be taken from space and they need to be made over long time periods. These constraints face two major problems. The time scales needed are beyond the life of the typical space mission, and at launch, instruments, particularly optical ones, typically lose their calibrations and then drift further during their time in space. Fox does not doubt that there is climate change, but he believes the speed of this change is unclear and is currently not measurable.
At present, the best research seems to indicate that global temperatures have risen 0.5 degree Celsius since 1979. While it seems reasonable to accept this historical result, its a lot harder to get people to agree on any climate change forecasts.
Because of this inherent limitation of precise measurement of any change, predictions vary wildly about how quickly ? or even if ? temperatures will rise. Estimates range from less than 2 degrees Celsius to 10 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Thats a big uncertainty on which to base expensive solutions today.
If the historical evidence and forecasts about global warming are unclear, the question of human involvement is even murkier. The centerpiece of the argument for human-caused warming, known as Anthropogenic Climate Change, is that we are causing an increase in the amount of airborne carbon dioxide. This increase is then creating a "greenhouse effect," which is causing global warming. Most climate models not only assume this speculation to be a fact, they also assume that airborne carbon dioxide will increase because of our activity. Predictions of future changes are based on these assumptions.
In 2009, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol conducted research to determine if the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide was indeed increasing. He reanalyzed atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data available since 1850, taking into account the uncertainties of the data. He concluded that there has been no increase in the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide over the past 150 years ? not even in the most recent 50.
How can this be? Knorr concluded that the bulk of the carbon dioxide released through human activity does not stay in the atmosphere. Instead it is absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. This means it is improbable that man is responsible for global warming.
For those who have long bought into the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, many seem to have a hard time accepting that it might not be true ? as if there could be no other explanation for warming.
The truth is, the Earths climate is quite capable of very rapid transitions and has been making them since long before man began driving cars and burning fossil fuel. An international team of scientists, led by Dr. Stephen Barker of Cardiff University has offered evidence of this through the study of drill cores taken from Greenlands vast ice sheets. According to the research, which was published in the September 2011 issue of the journal Science,2 abrupt climate change has been a recurring feature of the Earths climate for thousands of years.
Studies, such as the one from Cardiff University, provide strong evidence that there are indeed factors beyond human activity that explain climate change.
§§§§§§§§§§
In spite of the lack of concrete evidence of human-caused global warming, a general perception remains that its a real problem well-supported by "settled science." Alone, this perception would not in itself be destructive, especially since there is some chance that its actually true. However, when this perception becomes a de facto "article of faith" enforced by a powerful government agency, namely the EPA, the negative effects on our economy can be profound.
Thats particularly true when the economic drag undermines societys ability to ameliorate the consequences of climate change, regardless of its cause.
Today, this agency is reaching way beyond its original charter to assess and manage the risks posed by pollutants. It is expanding its power to regulate businesses, communities, and ecosystems in the name of "sustainable development."3
§§§§§§§§§§
The agency takes its cue from the Obama administration, which defines sustainability as the ability "to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations."
In a recent study put out by the EPA, it is stated that sustainable development "raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy." Among them: "how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls."
In its rationale for making and enforcing policy not fully addressed by U.S. law, the agency has claimed legal authority to foster sustainable development in the wording of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, all without further Congressional approval.
§§§§§§§§§§
So the EPA, under the guise of creating conditions where humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, has been forcing unneeded and costly solutions on American industry.
In the face of possible warming for which there is a lack of evidence that man is a causal agent, implementing policies that put the brakes on our economy is a response that is totally irrational and irresponsible.
A more helpful and productive response is to focus on adaptation.4 The Earth has experienced rapid natural climate transitions many times before, and it is quite possible this is whats happening now. Furthermore, regardless of whether the cause is human-based or not, stopping it is likely cost-prohibitive and even counter-productive. Therefore, a growing number of experts are recognizing that adaptation is the wisest strategy.
Thats why outmoded thinking by slow-thinking bureaucrats is so dangerous. Consider, for example, the assertion that global warming will cause a 7 percent decrease in crop yields in the developing world in the coming century. The knee-jerk reaction of bureaucrats is to minimize fossil fuel use, which would then cripple the economic development of these countries and doom their citizens to continued poverty.
The obvious alternative is to develop technologies that will increase overall yields in spite of climate change ? and this is exactly what will happen if the Luddite regulators will simply get out of the way. The best estimates indicate that world food production will increase by 270 percent by 2100. Nothing could be more foolish than jeopardizing this 270 percent growth by restricting fossil fuel usage in the hopes of avoiding a 7 percent decrease in yield. Yet the UN and the EPA think that this makes perfect sense.
An example of the type of adaptation that offers a real solution is drought-tolerant crops. These crops are being developed for regions where climate change might reduce precipitation. Sean Cutler, an associate professor of plant cell biology at the University of California, and his team have been working to develop such plants.5 Theyve discovered that a plant activates a set of protein molecules called receptors when it encounters drought. This reaction helps it cope by closing guard cells on leaves to reduce water loss and temporarily stops plant growth to reduce water consumption. The team has discovered a way to rewire a plants cellular machinery to increase this stress response. This discovery is being used to create crops that can thrive under drought conditions, actually increasing yields.
Other research is being conducted to produce crops that can better cope with sudden changes in weather conditions.6 This solution will avert any problems that might arise if climate changes alter weather patterns in what are now the worlds prime growing areas.
Another discovery may actually provide a cost-effective way to deal with global warming by directly removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.7 Its a bowl-shaped molecule that could be genetically engineered into CO2 catching microbes. Widespread production of these molecules by the microbes could be quite useful as an industrial-scale absorbent for removing carbon dioxide.
This is just the beginning. As weve explained previously in Trends, the upcoming phase of the Fifth Techno-Economic Revolution, playing out by 2030, will provide cost-effective solutions to hunger, poverty, and disease that will make adapting to natural or man-made climate change almost trivial. In fact, technology is developing so briskly in the fields of nanotech and biotech that the worst decision possible is to let bureaucrats undercut economic growth, forcing us to rely on expensive solutions from the previous century.
Considering this trend, we provide the three forecasts that follow:
First, consumer and business frustration with the EPA is likely to lead to its demise in the coming years.
Voters are already approaching the tipping point where they will say enough is enough; environmental regulations that dont pass the cost/benefit test must go. This will be especially true the longer the economic recovery continues to lag, and regulations are increasingly seen for what they are: job killers. Depending on who wins the presidency in 2012, this demise could come sooner rather than later.
Second, the longer the argument for man-made global warming goes on without irrefutable proof, the stronger the "adaptation-only" case will become.
The consensus is slowly, but surely, growing that Anthropogenic Climate Change was simply another product of "apocalyptic fantasy" like the "population bomb" and "depletion of the worlds oil supply in the 20th century." As adaptation is embraced, well see solutions emerge that are job and business creators, in contrast to attacks on business masquerading as environmental solutions. Rather than being a drag on the economy, these adaptation solutions will provide an economic stimulus, in addition to dealing with any potential effects of higher global temperatures.
Third, every country will need to assess how prepared it is for adaptation ? and then take action.
Fortunately, a research organization is already focusing on this issue. The Global Adaptation Institute, with former World Bank Managing Director Juan Jose Daboub at the helm, issues the Global Adaptation Index to depict how vulnerable countries are to global warming and how prepared they are to respond to it. As Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School professor and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist,8 points out, "The first step in focusing on adaptation is measuring it. . . . The challenge lies not merely in reducing vulnerability but also in getting the structures in place so governments and investors can tackle adaptation in the most effective manner possible. The good news is we can improve lives today while building the crucial infrastructure needed for tomorrow. . . . If our concern is with saving lives and helping the planets most vulnerable populations, then we need to focus first on how we can build more resilient, adaptable communities."9
References List : 1. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, October 28, 2011, "Accurate Radiometry from Space: An Essential Tool for Climate Studies," by Nigel Fox, et al. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by The Royal Society. All rights reserved. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org 2. Science, October 21, 2011, "800,000 Years of Abrupt Climate Variability," by Stephen Barker, et al. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. http://www.sciencemag.org 3. FoxNews.com, December 19, 2011, “EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power in Name of Sustainable Development," by George Russell. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by Fox Network News, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.foxnews.com 4. The Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2011, "Global Warming and Adaptability," by Bjorn Lomborg. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. http://online.wsj.com 5. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 20, 2011, "Potent and Selective Activation of Abscisic Acid Receptors in Vivo by Mutational Stabilization of Their Agonist-Bound Conformation," by Sean R. Cutler, et al. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. http://www.pnas.org 6. For more information about the development of crops that can cope with sudden changes in the weather, visit The University of Edinburgh website at: http://www.ed.ac.uk 7. Energy & Fuels, April 2011, "Oil Shale as an Energy Resource in a CO2 Constrained World: The Concept of Electricity Production with in Situ Carbon Capture," by Hiren Mulchandani and Adam R. Brandt. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by the American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. http://pubs.acs.org 8. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg is published by Cambridge University Press. ⓒ Copyright 2001 by Bjorn Lomborg. All rights reserved. 9. The Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2011, "Global Warming and Adaptability," by Bjorn Lomborg. ⓒ Copyright 2011 by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. http://online.wsj.com
