Global Warming: A precautionary approach.
Often, when discussing Anthropogenic Global Warming, there are references to, or appeals to, the “precautionary principle”, a relatively new buzz-phrase which basically means “When making a decision on what action to take, even if you don’t have the facts, the environment and health outweigh all other factors” and which is frequently taken out as a stick with which to beat those of us who don’t blindly accept everything the AGW true believers have to say. So let’s do that. Let’s apply the precautionary principle to the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Or rather, let’s adopt a precautionary approach. The distinction is subtle, but important. The precautionary principle comes in several guises, but the best known is the statement from the romantically named “Wingspread statement” (I’m sure they held the conference in Wingspread just because the name on their conclusions would look so “green”).
Anyway, the Wingspread Statement says:
… it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Now, I’m on the fence about Global Warming. I don’t know whether to believe the climate scientists who have recently been accused - with no small justification - of pseudo-science, or the other side - those who are convinced that AGW is hokum. I’m somewhere in the middle. Neither side has really convinced me, although I must admit I lean slightly towards the side which says that man’s activities are not affecting the climate - or at least, not in such a big way that we need feel at all threatened by it. I am willing to change my view, but only if I see a compelling argument for either side, and so far I’ve seen no compelling evidence from either side of the argument, although I *have* seen “evidence” such as Michael Mann’s famous “Hockey Stick” graph smashed into smithereens by a careful and studied an analysis by Ross McKintrick, a copy of which can be found here (PDF, 1Mb). And I have seen the climategate emails, which suggest very strongly that science is something the climatologists at CRU like to play at. But neither of these things are enough to say that the climatologists are wrong: sinply that they fudged their results to get to the answer they all agreed was the right one. That this isn’t science doesn’t mean they aren’t right. On the other hand, because it’s not science, we can’t have any confidence that they *are* right. So we are left with nothing but assertions.
But anyway, the “precautionary principle” ignores all of that. Basically it says that even if the evidence is slim or non-existent, as long as there might be a potential for harm to the environment or to human health, then we MUST take action. It doesn’t even take into account the probability of harm. The odds might be 100:1 in favour of harm, or 50:1, or even odds of one in a million AGAINST. But if there is even a slight possibility of harm, then we MUST take action to prevent or mitigate that harm. Is it only me who thinks that model is broken?
But fortunately, we have, as a counter-balance to the Precautionary Principle, the Precautionary Approach, which allows us to take other factors into account. These other factors must, it would seem sensible, include the probability of harm, and the potentially undesirable effects of taking the proposed action. So let’s apply the Precautionary Approach to AGW.
Just one more thing before we continue: let’s just throw the cost of mitigation into the mix. Summary from Wikipedia:
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range -1.0 to +3.5% of GDP, with an average estimate of approximately 1%[5]. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GDP.[citation needed] The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.
What does 2% of GDP mean in terms of our economic viability? I don’t know. But according to the CIA’s World Factbook, the recession of 2009 led to a reduction of 0.8% of GDP globally, although the figure for the UK was -4.8%. I know that hurt a lot of people badly.
According to Wikipedia again, in order to fulfil Carbon Emission targets for China, that country will have to reduce their Carbon output by 4.8%. Again, I don’t know the likely cost of this. For the UK, the figure is 53.2%. The USA, 76.7%. India can *increase* their output by 238%. Source: Wikipedia.
I don’t have the time to compute the world average requirement but it’s clear to me that countries such as the USA and the UK will have to do a lot more than e.g. China or especially India to reduce their Carbon output. And that means, inevitably, a higher price tag. If the global average is 2% of GDP, the UK’s and USA’s contribution might be 10% or 20% or even more - if anyone has accurate figures I’d be interested.
Anyway, what do we have?
1) We have an assertion by a cabal of climate scientists who refuse to publish their methods, software or even their data, that AGW is real, is a threat to the environment and our sustainability in it, and that we must do something to remedy that situation.
2) We have various non-climatologists who have worked very hard to show the flaws in the arguments of the climatologists, although they have been hampered by the climatologists tendency to hide or destroy their data and software in case anyone gets to see it.
3) We have the estimated cost of mitigating/reversing AGW, which I (rather informally and admittedly inaccurately) estimate as between 10% to 20% of UK/USA GDP.
If we believe the climatologists, then of course we MUST take the necessary action to save the planet from irreparable harm. But of they are wrong, it will be an expensive wrong decision. For example, if we decide to go ahead and pay for the mitigation, what will the impact be on other environmental issues, or on human health. What % of GDP does the NHS take up, for example? And what happens if those funds aren’t available? What happens to government grants to environmental projects, or even charities when the population can’t afford to make donations because they are too busy desperately trying to keep a roof over their heads and their children fed and shod, while they are taxed into poverty by a government desperate to meet impossible targets?
And once the money is spent, if Global Warming really is a problem, but it isn’t due to human activity, for example if Sallie Beliunas is right that it is caused by solar activity, we have no resources left to do anything about mitigating it.
Ok, but let’s put that aside. What form should that mitigation take? At the moment - in the UK at least - it seems to be composed of grants to install more energy efficient boilers (but to qualify you’ll most likely need to replace all the radiators in your house - what a surprise so few people have taken it up). Banning incandescent lightbulbs in favour of more expensive and environmentally-damaging fluorescent ones (which, it would appear, save energy by not putting out very much light). Penalising people selling their homes because their loft insulation isn’t two feet thick by giving their house a poor energy efficiency score. Astronomical taxes on fuel. Higher domestic energy bills. Building monstrosities such as Wind Farms in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Wind farms made up of scores of turbines who cost more in energy to erect, maintain and decommission than they ever generate in their lifetime. Tidal barrages which impact estuary wildlife. And building nuclear power stations which are, apparently, now green. Have we forgotten the lessons of Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Tokaimura? Oh, but Nucular Power is SO MUCH SAFER NOWADAYS. Yeah, right. That’s what they said about the Titanic. Four new nuclear power stations are currently planned for the UK, three of them in West Cumbria, which you might know better as the Lake District, on the so-called “Energy Coast”, at Kirksanton, Drigg and Braystones.
If we decide not to believe the climatologists and it turns out they are wrong, no problem. Everything goes on as it did. The NHS continues to be funded, environmental projects continue, the welfare state continues to support those less well off in our society, and so on.
But if we decide not to believe the climatologists, and they are RIGHT, then we’ve got a problem. We have a climate which is warming and which is going to cause adverse weather effects, crop failures, and other unpredictable effects (although probably not all the effects which are listed here). However, we also have shed-loads of money left that we didn’t spend on mitigating AGW which we can spend on mitigating the EFFECTS of global warming. And we haven’t strewn the landscape with monstrous wind farms, tidal barriers and nuclear power stations.
Now, each of us will have to make his or her mind up on who to believe, and what confidence level to place on that belief. But please - before you bang the drum about “Global warming is happening, is caused by human activities, and we MUST do something about it,” - PLEASE consider what taking action means, what the cost is, what the impact is if you are wrong, and what if you are right.
