#69 Climate Change as Political Dogma

Contrary to the last few G8 summits, one of the main subjects of the recent meeting between the world’s top leaders in Heiligendamm, Germany, was Climate Change. In fact, it was the only environmental issue handled during the summit. In the summary of the summit it is stated that the leaders recognised that global warming is largely the result of human activity and only by limiting CO2 emissions will it be possible to stop global warming, concluding that “it is absolutely essential that global warming be limited to 1.5 to 2.5°C.” This is certainly a strong statement and it implies that we (humanity) know exactly what needs to be done. But do we really know? Do we really understand why the climate is changing? Do we understand the consequences of the change? And do we understand the consequences of channelling large amounts of resources towards curbing CO2 emissions?

If one were to trust politics and the press, then these would be rhetorical questions. After all, according to them, everybody knows the facts, discussion is closed and it is now time to act! But things are never that simple. Sure, the fact that there is global warming is known and agreed upon. But this is the only statement that enjoys consensus. The reasons behind the warming and its consequences are far from agreed upon. Roughly speaking, there are two camps. One camp is a believer in the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that have been adopted by mainstream politics and states that global warming is man-made and, unless urgent action is taken to reduce the increase of CO2 in the air, the world is heading towards a horrible catastrophe. The other camp believes that science is still far from able to understand global warming and its likely effects. The warming could be nothing more than a normal phenomenon caused by the same natural forces that make climate to be volatile and has nothing - or at least insignificantly little - to do with the additional emission of CO2 by humans. Moreover, the effect of warming is not necessarily negative. The picture of the calamity that the mainstream camp is painting is not based on any facts. So, if this is the case, spending so many resources to fight CO2 emissions cannot be justified.

The discussion between the two camps has passed from a pure factual discussion to a stage of dogma. Those in the camp that opposes the official opinion of the IPCC are called deniers, having even been compared to Holocaust deniers (though they prefer the label sceptics). It is true that there are more scientists on the side of the official camp, but that on its own is not so strange, given that it is the mainstream opinion. However, there are sufficient scientists on the other side as well and enough facts exist in order not to dispose of the opinion of the sceptics. Both sides have very convincing arguments and special sites to spread the word and defend their faith while combating the opponents (If you are interested, here are two sites to start you on your quest:
mainstream - environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462 & deniers - www.friendsofscience.org/). And, as is appropriate for a faith, each has their followers that fight each other with, very often, quite offending words.

Based on the existing knowledge, it is very difficult to claim that there is a scientific consensus on this issue. Nevertheless, politics decided that it is worthwhile to follow the advice of IPCC and elevate the climate change issue to the top of the agenda. The real question is why? It is difficult to believe that suddenly all members of the G8 decided to save the world. Politics in the modern world has a short term horizon. What will happen 100 years from now is not usually a relevant factor in political decisions. It seems more reasonable that this fits other goals they may have.

One reason could be that combating climate change is a way in which the various ‘green’ parties and pressure groups could be pacified without the need for handling less convenient problems. But the main reason is probably the painful dependence of the G8 countries on oil. Pushing the industry to find other energy sources could ease this dependency and by forcing all countries to participate, none of them should be too severely handicapped. If the money is used appropriately, we could perhaps see a breakthrough in alternative energy generation; which would be a major milestone in human development. What it most probably will not achieve, however, is a slowing of the temperature increase in a significant manner.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Tamara Fai