Blog entry #1,200! Amazing how time flies! I wanted to muse a bit on the importance of critical thinking. I always have believed that a healthy dose of skepticism not only makes for a great freethinker, but a keen intellect that helps us remain objective. As is illustrated below, skepticism is a balance that is based on evidence. This moderate view falls between gullibility and straight-up denial, both of which are forms of being incapable of understand and accepting the world the way it is. The importance of skepticism and critical thinking skills are especially important when it comes to climate change in no small part due to the ubiquitous nature of climate change and the numerous public policy implications.
You would have to be living under a rock to not know that there is a fight against climate change. What is at the basis of the arguments for climate change advocates? Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been burning fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels emit a considerable amount of greenhouse gases (GHG). These emissions have increased over time with increased economic production, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. GHG emissions are generally believed to be harmful for the environment.
Unless something is done to reduce those emissions quickly and sharply, there will be catastrophic global warming sometime within the next century that will cause a global armageddon. This doomsday scenario has been used to justify and advocate for a variety of public policy choices, including water heater efficiency standards, carbon taxes, using regulations to encourage electric vehicles, and gas stove bans. Is such a heightened reaction warranted?
The debate is obfuscated with the very vague question of "do you believe in climate change?" Yes, I believe that climate changes. Almost everyone does. Most people also recognize that there is at least some human contribution to rising GHG emissions. The extent to which humans contribute to climate change versus natural phenomena (e.g., solar trends, cloud chemistry, ocean cycles) is up for debate. I am not here to say that there is going to be zero impact from the rise in GHG emissions because there will be costs and benefits, much like there is with anything else in life. What I can tell you is that climate change is not the crisis that advocates make it out to be. As I have brought up before, those advocating for drastic policy change have to rely on low-probability models fraught with tenuous assumptions in order to reach the apocalyptic scenario they think will happen but probably will not. Here are a few other points to consider.
The High Costs of Net Zero. Many activists talk about the need to global average temperatures less than 1.5° C of what they were in the pre-industrial era. Exceeding that figure would mean armageddon...that is, if you listen to the activists. Very few talk about what would actually need to take place to reach that goal. Last month, I took a look at what implementing Net Zero would entail. There would need to be a huge cut in fossil fuels, as well as a major ramping up of renewable energy and electric grids.
Not only would it be nigh impossible to achieve, but such an attempt would be tantamount to collective suicide. Making such radical shifts in a low-probability scenario makes little sense to me, but neither did letting fear and panic guide the decision to harmful COVID lockdowns instead of a cost-benefit analysis or standard risk assessment. The one-sided obsession with the harm of COVID ignored the harm caused by COVID regulations. Rather than repeat history, we really need to ask whether the benefits of climate action exceed the cost? The lack of forethought on Net Zero suggest that this sort of fear-based thinking has not left us as a society since the pandemic.
How does one measure global warming? This is something I touched upon while discussing heat waves last month because the U.S. has only been gathering global surface data since the late 19th century. It is hard to pull definitive historical trends from average global temperature data, especially when the data collection process began at the end of a mini Ice Age. Even the low-resolution data we have from beforehand indicate that the global temperatures were warmer than they are now (this includes the Medieval Warm Period of 900-1300 CE), which would imply that this planet has survived worse.
Fossil fuels are still popular. Fossil fuel consumption continues to rise globally. Furthermore, China remains the largest emitter of GHGs (Oxford). China continues to build more coal plants. In addition to China, southeast Asia, India, and Africa are using more coal.
Plus, here is another question: what evidence do we have that three decades of climate conferences have actually made a difference in lowering GHG emissions? France is one of the only countries that consumes less than 60 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. That is because France is a major consumer of nuclear power. Many climate change activists oppose nuclear power, even though it is the only carbon-neutral energy source that can meet global energy demand.
A Need to Look at Facts Versus Sensationalism. In the past year, I have examined hurricanes and heat waves on this blog. It turns out that in both instances, the media was exaggerating prevalence and magnitude because "if it bleeds, it leads." We should be asking whether a) there is an increase of natural disasters, and b) whether these trends show a correlation or causation with increased GHG emissions. This all points to the reality that the environmentalist movement historically has a habit of exaggerating threats, whether it was the Great Barrier Reef, polar bears, acid rain, deforestation, or nuclear winter. Decades of failed eco-doomsday predictions make me as wary as I would with a cult leader who continues to make lousy predictions about the Apocalypse.
Another point to consider is that weather-related deaths have dropped precipitously in recent decades. This would imply a resilience in which we can better weather what Mother Nature throws at us. We should focus on policy alternatives that continue to build that resilience, not on uprooting our lives as a form of secular self-flagellation. It is for that reason and more that I am firmly opposed to the extreme policy recommendations made by climate change activists.
I do not consider myself a climate denier, but rather a climate thinker. Facts should dictate our opinions and emotions on climate change or any topic, not the other way around. We need to think about climate change in a leveled fashion. Having such an exaggerated take on the problem is how people take the radical proposal of Net Zero. I am sure that climate change will come up as a topic again. For now, what I will say is that I prefer skepticism over the media's fear-mongering about climate change any day of the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment