Paul Callaghan is the Alan MacDiarmid Professor of Physical Sciences and director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology at Victoria University in Wellington. He is one of our most distinguished scientists. Nobody, surely, could accuse him of being a “denier” or any of the other insulting terms used by those who claim the “science is settled” on the climate change issue to shut down anyone who says there are still matters to debate.
It was thus interesting to hear him last Saturday morning in a repeat of his November 10 “Science with Paul Callaghan” conversation from Kim Hill’s National Radio programme. It was titled “The Scientist as Heretic” and towards the end Hill asked him about the oft-heard claim that the science of climate change is settled. He was firm in his response. Science is never settled and there are always questions, he told her. I do hope that the people who have been so critical of Canterbury University’s Denis Dutton for starting a website that carries articles from both sides of this debate were listening. Sadly, I suspect their ears are blocked.
In a Listener article last August, Professor Callaghan made it clear he believed there was good science behind climate change theory, but rejected the idea that it had been proven: “The evidence around global climate change is all indicative, it’s not proven. We think there’s an anthropogenic cause, but it is hard to be sure because climate is such a complex system. But to me the evidence seems to point overwhelmingly in one direction.”
He expressed concern at the politicised nature of the debate: “People have got a mission. Now that is all right if you’re Al Gore who’s a politician, but if you’re a scientist you shouldn’t have a mission. Your mission is the lot of humanity, not to get out there and produce a political outcome. That worries me because if part of that is that you resent scepticism, and you say, ‘Look, don’t see these things because the politicians won’t act if we give them any excuse for doubt’, then that’s very dangerous and I don’t like that. I respect scepticism.” Hear hear. Hear him. Please.
52 Comments
January 25, 2008 at 7:57 am
He definitely belongs in a debate of equals. Shills paid by Enron don’t. People who aren’t in the field and practise knee-jerk contrarianism don’t. And I believe my ears are quite open, thank you.
January 25, 2008 at 9:34 am
You’re confusing common, everyday doubt with scientific doubt. Nothing is ever, ever, ever proven in science. It’s always up for grabs, always up for testing, always up for revision. That’s why astrology and intelligent design are not regarded as science, but evolutionary theory is.
The climate change deniers have seized on the idea of scientific doubt, and used it to claim that even scientists doubt climate change. Of course they do – they’re scientists, not astrologers.
It’s a bit hard to find an accessible introduction of the philosophy of science on-line. There’s something here, but if you have time, I strongly recommend reading What is this thing called science, by Alan Chalmers. Look for the 3rd edition, or failing that, the 2nd one. There should be copies in the Wellington Library.
January 25, 2008 at 9:40 am
You’re confusing common, everyday doubt with scientific doubt.
I’m not confused at all by the difference, Deborah
Nothing is ever, ever, ever proven in science.
Exactly my point. Some people at both extremes of this debate try to shout down opposing views. That is not science. It’s politics. Which Professor Callaghan was decrying.
January 25, 2008 at 9:46 am
Maybe he needs to have a chat with fellow Victoria residents Messrs Boston and Chapman…
January 25, 2008 at 9:48 am
Shills paid by Enron don’t.
Yes – and I guess the next time Brendan O’Donovan and Peter Conway appear on National Radio offering economic analysis/commentary they should be dismissed out of hand as ’shills’ for Westpac and the Council of Trade Unions respectively, rather than their views being critically assessed.
January 25, 2008 at 9:55 am
If it comes to that, economists in particular deserve scrutiny based on both their employers and their political views. But at least those gentlemen’s affiliations are out in the open, as opposed to being deliberately hidden in an attempt to deceive.
poneke, I think the reason we disagree is that in my mind, there are different levels to the debate. Or to put it another way, the debate is only partly a scientific one; there are also questions of policy, ethics, and sheer naked self-interest in play.
In my mind the debates over policy etc ought to be informed by the (continuing, never-settled) science debate.
Since I want the debate over policy to be informed by fact, or at least by the closest we can get to fact, it IS important to shout down people who deliberately introduce the obviously bogus. Some views simply do not deserve an equal hearing, because they are not presented in good faith or they are not based on evidence from the scientific debate.
This is where the parallel to holocaust denial is drawn. It is one thing — a matter of legitimate scholarship — to enquire skeptically into the evidence of the holocaust; how many, where, when, how. It is another to deliberately misrepresent the evidence with the goal of rehabilitating Nazism. People attempting the former deserve a hearing, people attempting the latter do not. And importantly, third parties who are attempting to present the state of current knowledge shouldn’t present the second group’s case as though it were on a par with the first.
January 25, 2008 at 10:06 am
Enron were very interested in climate change and keen for the US to get in on Kyoto and to promote carbon trading. They saw a very good opportunity to corner the market in the same way they did with gas…Makes you think about some of the promoters of carbon trading schemes going around currently.
January 25, 2008 at 10:15 am
Professor Callaghan said: “But to me the evidence seems to point overwhelmingly in one direction.”
How do you read that Poneke? My interpretation is that he is saying that the evidence is pointing overwelmingly towards AGW being real.
I think Deborah hits it exactly right with: “You’re confusing common, everyday doubt with scientific doubt. Nothing is ever, ever, ever proven in science. It’s always up for grabs, always up for testing, always up for revision. That’s why astrology and intelligent design are not regarded as science, but evolutionary theory is.”
As you say, Professor Callaghan is refering as much to the politially motivated denialist as the politically motivated alarmists with his comments about scientists avoiding such advocacy.
January 25, 2008 at 10:22 am
Stephen:
your analogy I think is very poor. There is an awful lot of direct evidence of cause and effect in the case of Nazism.
That cause and effect is not so clearly demonstrated with climate, so it is still perfectly legitimate to question assumptions or theories about connections between events.
Remember all the scare stories around Hurricane Katrina and how we would be experiencing more of these extreme events? Yet the data does not seem to support that. It is not the first time the expectations have not been supported by the evidence and scientists have been left scratching their heads about what is going on.
That is in part why the holocaust denial comparison is illegitimate. Apart from that it is really offensive.
Andrew:
A lot of the interview was about the importance of contrarians and the limitations of peer review. He gave a couple of examples of such where the evidence seemed to point overwhelmingly in one direction but were found by contrarians to be not the case.
I would distinguish contrarians as those who have legitimate alternative conclusions on evidence or at least doubt the conclusions others have reached, to those who fold their arms and say “nope, not happening”.
January 25, 2008 at 10:34 am
insider, I’m trying clearly to distinguish honest from dishonest doubt. Motivation is the key thing, and that is the essential part of the parallel I was drawing.
January 25, 2008 at 10:50 am
This is where the parallel to holocaust denial is drawn.
Jesus… you did not go straight for the argumentum ad Nazium, with a side order of the intentional fallacy, did you? This is the point where I back towards the door, and leave the evangelists on both sides to smote each other with… whatever fundies smite heretics with.
January 25, 2008 at 10:51 am
Stephen
I understand. I just don;t think invoking holocaust denial is very helpful. I won;t debate about how you definitively determine what another person’s motivation is…
January 25, 2008 at 11:11 am
It’s unhelpful to reference the Holocaust, when I say “AGW denialist” the analogy I think of is gambling/drug addicts in denial, people not driven by objective reasoning.
January 25, 2008 at 11:18 am
The term “climate change denial” was deliberately chosen as an analogy with denying the Holocaust by those who oppose climate change scepticism. It was carefully coined as a term of abuse.
As Insider says, it is offensive. The Holocaust is beyond scepticism, let alone denial. It was massively documented and the documents are available for historians to research. I can easily list the death tolls at each camp and ghetto plus those murdered by the Einsatzgrüppen, as well as where the victims came from, etc, etc, and did so in detail once when writing a rebuttal of David Irving. These are historical facts. They are open to genuine interpretation, but not denial.
Climate change science is just that, science, and is open to scientific debate, as well as scepticism, which is an essential part of scientific research. Trying to shut down debate on it by claiming “the science is settled” is not science, it is politics and propaganda.
January 25, 2008 at 11:43 am
It is interesting how so many of those who are ‘believers’ in climate change are so ready to try and shut down any discussion on the matter. For example, the individual who wrote to the Dominion Post excoriating them for publishing letters and views of Climate Change Deniers and saying no such letters should be published.
Personally, I find it abhorrent that those who accept the thesis of AGW are so ready to try and shut down any expression of contrary opinion.
Also, it is distressing that a great many of the adherents to this ‘cult’ because that is what it is fast becoming are quite prepared to consign the developing world to eternal poverty, in the cause of preserving the planet.
My fundamental belief is that man has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt and innovate to meet challenge and this is what we should do now, rather than shackle everyone through adopting targets which will not be met and are full of loopholes.
Much of what we see in this area has all the efficacy of ceremonial raindances, but possesses a soundbite quality of action. Indeed, on reflection a raindance might achieve more.
January 25, 2008 at 11:53 am
Offensive? It depends whom it is applied to. It would be offensive to apply it Professor Callaghan, or to you.
January 25, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The term “climate change denial” was deliberately chosen as an analogy with denying the Holocaust by those who oppose climate change scepticism.
It’s a term that’s been around for at least 4 years, about 2 years ago a stupid (female) british climate alarmist said that climate change denialists are like Holocaust denialists, The denialists have been trumpeting HER comparison ever since.
It is interesting how so many of those who are ‘believers’ …
Sure, and there are plenty of denialists who claim that reseach into climate change is a waste of money and the research should be shut down.
The best way to move away from debating the science is to trumpet these ideologically motivated non-scientific views, which is Prof Callaghan’s whole point – look at the science ignore the crap slinging.
January 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Andrew W, you seem to assume that I fall into the denier camp. I do not. I do have a degree of scepticism in respect of the wilder fringes on both sides of the debate. Further, I agree with Prof. Callaghan as to seeking to understand the science. This does not mean that my and your interpretations will necessarily be the same.
I think that one of the problems is that in many respects there is no longer a ‘debate’ as such. The politicians have leapt on the ‘ Gore’ bandwagon and in many cases rationality has disappeared, the promotion of eco-fuels, which in some instances create more problems than they solve. ‘food miles’ used to justify blatant trade protection by the affluent against the poor.
Emotion has for many taken over. Anyone who does not comply with the ‘received wisdom’ is shouted down.
January 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Huzzah! See, I share your reservations about many of the bio-fuel ideas (eg making ethanol out of corn in the US). Likewise “food miles” seems to be a very narrow way of looking at things that fails to take into account cultivation techniques etc.
January 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I’m making no assumptions on your position adamsmith, I refered to your comment, not you. I pretty much agree with your last comment.
As I see it there are three sides in the AGW debate, the denialists who are ideologically motivated; the mainstream scientists who agree on the broader science that we have a 90% confidence that AGW is happening; and the alarmists who are also ideologically motivated and make dire predictions that the science does not support.
It’s easy to tell between the groups by who their idols are.
January 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Andrew
There are also those who are not in denial but are more cautious about accepting some of the claims on the process and consequences of warming without better data, and concerned about the policy prescriptions being proposed. I think there is a tendency amongst some to label them denialists which is seen as a way of shutting down their legitimate views particularly about policy priorities.
January 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Insider, that sounds like a reference to the likes of Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Sr, who accept some human impact on climate but are sceptical of claims of disasterous consequences, as you say such people are not denialists, but..
Prof. Callaghan drew an analogy, based on the precautionary principle, of a child climbing over railings, he might not fall but the cost of him falling is so much higher than the effort needed to ensure his safety that prevention is worthwhile.
January 26, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’m sorry Poneke but you are being misleading. If you read the article in full it is obvious that Callaghan’s position is nowhere near in line with Dennis Dutton’s. Callahan makes the point that, while science is never settled, it is settled enough on this topic that – in light of the potential consequences – we need to take action.
To say “But to me the evidence seems to point overwhelmingly in one direction” is to take a completely different position from that implied by Denis Dutton’s site: that there are two equal sides of the debate.
I struggle to understand why you don’t get this.
January 26, 2008 at 12:35 pm
My only struggle is with people who are opposed to a contrary view being put.
As I have said, I believe there is good science behind climate change theory (which gets me offside with those who claim there is no human-created climate change), but I do not accept the more extreme viewpoints of the pro-camp either (which gets me offside with them, too).
I believe in freedom of expression, no exceptions. No point of view on any subject should be suppressed. This does not mean I believe all points of view have equal weight. I am quite capable of coming to an opinion from looking at conflicting evidence, as are most people, and changing that opinion when compelling new evidence is presented.
Scientific knowledge changes over time, sometimes in quite short periods of time. But it always changes from debate, experiment and observation, never from refusing to hear, or worse refusing to allow, challenges to the status quo.
January 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hello Poneke,
For what it’s worth, here’s my view.
The current evidence is compelling. It is based on our understanding of atmospheric physics validated by empirical observations. It has withstood everything that has been thrown at it over the last 20 years. That AGW is occurring and a real issue is the position of almost every respectable climate scientist on earth. They could be wrong, but the science is no longer new and has withstood, as I noted, considerable scrutiny. For this reason they are very likely to be right. The consequences, if they are right, are potentially huge, this means that we need to act. We will never be certain, but public policy is never based around certainty – only about the best course of action with the evidence at hand. And this evidence suggests we must act.
While there may be genuine sceptics who exist on the issue of climate change the majority of people who adopt the sceptic moniker are not sceptics in the true sense of the term. Very often they are funded by organisations that are funded in turn by Exxon (see the Exxon Secrets link in my own blog). Very rarely do they admit when they make mistakes. And very often their presentation of the evidence at hand is utterly dishonest. In short they do not adhere to any principle that might be described as scientific.
There is no real debate between them and climatologists. There is no equivalence not in numbers nor integrity nor knowledge of the Earth’s climate.
And yet they get disproportionate media coverage. I don’t think that sceptics should be silenced but I do think that our public debate would be better served if they were put in their rightful place alongside PR people, corporate shills and business advocates.
I would be genuinely interested in hearing your own position in response to this.
But please, post it this evening. The afternoon is to warm to waste!
Regards
Terence (now off for swim)
January 26, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I see Terence subscribes to the school of thought that anyone except him and those who think like him must be evil and in the pay of oil companies.
January 26, 2008 at 5:29 pm
When science is working well there is a consensus that a particular theory is the best we’ve got at the moment, and we will work as if it’s true until it’s superseded by a better theory.
When things are going worse we end up with polarised camps; one saying “it is the Way the Truth and the Light!” the other saying “it’s not proven so it’s worthless!”
Sadly much of the conversation about climate change is in the second group – and whether it’s there because of politics or money or pig-headedness is not really important (although it sure is a handy distraction
.
It is important that we keep questioning, we keep looking at other theories, and we keep testing this one. It is also important that we recognise that, at the moment, it’s the best theory we’ve got and we should act as if it is true until we get a better one.
January 26, 2008 at 8:18 pm
adamsmith1922,
No I don’t subscribe to that view at all. Over the years I have changed my mind on many issues once my understanding has developed. And I’m perfectly happy to admit that someone like Milton Freidman (say) was neither evil biased by the pay of corporations. He was a great economist who I happen to disagree with.
Your average climate sceptic on the other hand is – typically – neither a great climatologist nor free of the taint of conflict of interest.
I’m sure nothing I say will change your opinion but if anyone else is reading and believes my comments about Exxon to be idle insults please have a play round with: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
From Richard Linzden to Vincent Gray, from John Christie to Chris de Fretas almost all of the prominent ’sceptics’ have connections to organisations funded by Exxon. Note that this wouldn’t matter one bit if their science was correct – but it’s not. And this has been pointed out time and time again. Yet they persist. And I don’t think they deserve the term sceptic.
January 26, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Gosh, it’s all a conspiracy, just like the moon landings and September 11
January 26, 2008 at 10:53 pm
terence,
people point to the money that goes into climate research and claim that it provides a motivation for climate scientists to overstate the evidence and dangers of AGW; similarly other people point to the financial contributions of Exon etc to the denialist brigade and claim this as evidence that denialists are also in it for the money.
I don’t see any sound basis for either claim, in my opinion the vast majority of climate scientists are reasonably objective in assessing the science.
Alarmists and denialists are almost exclusively motivated to hold the opinions on AGW that they do because of ideology, with rare exceptions denialists are anti-greenie, anti-government control, and anti-socialism, and with equally rare exceptions alarmists are anti-big business and with socialist and pro-internationalisation views.
Many on each of the two extremes seem convinced that there’s a giant conspiracy by their adversaries, there isn’t.
January 27, 2008 at 8:22 am
Ponke,
Nope. No conspiracy here. It’s all out in the open and verifiable. I’m still waiting and interested to hear your actual position on AGW by the way.
Andrew,
The difference is that on one side (for the most part) climatologists get research grants from science bodies. Such grants are provided for bettering our understanding of the world and are generally not awarded to people who produce shonky science.
On the other side a bunch of self-professed experts (of whom only a few are actually climatologists) get some (and sometimes all) of their funding via Exxon. Such grants appear to be provided regardless of the quality of the work – the conclusions drawn appear to be all that matters. I am, of course, only speculating about Exxon’s motives but like most businesses their primary goal is presumably profit maximisation. This I think explains the ongoing baloney their ’sceptics’ pump out.
Anyhow – this is all an aside. As I said in my post, if team Exxon’s science was good that would be all that matters. It’s not. It’s crap. And I think the main reason it endures is because it makes people money. Having said this, I do agree with you: ideology also plays a role.
January 27, 2008 at 8:36 am
I’m still waiting and interested to hear your actual position on AGW by the way.
Um, I gave it, not for the first time, eight comments above, straight after your one about struggling to understand why I “don’t get this.”
January 27, 2008 at 11:03 am
Thanks Poneke,
I read that the first time – not quite what I was after (and rather difficult to square with some of your other comments) but, on reconsideration, quite useful.
You seem to believe then that genuine sceptics on AGW are being silenced. Were this the case I would share your concern.
I see little evidence of this myself though. Rather I see people who aren’t true sceptics in any real sense of the term having their voice amplified far beyond any level justifiable by their scientific credibility. This worries me because the semblance of a genuine debate stifles the impetus for action. And – as best I can tell – we need to act.
January 28, 2008 at 1:43 am
Gee Terence, isn’t it wonderful to have a bogeyman like exxon that you can blame everything on. Careful how you go though, the NZ Herald tried that with Chris de Freitas and had to print a large apology. Smearing and silencing due to imagined or tenuous associations is a particularly unpleasant tactic of the Greenpeace’s etc and you would do well to look beyond their blinkers.
And of course MIT’s center for global climate change which includes some of the leading climate modelling must be similarly if not more tainted because they don’t just accept Exxon money through fronts, they get it direct. As they also do from Shell amongst others.
January 28, 2008 at 8:33 am
Insider,
No I don’t blame everything on Exxon. I’m simply pointing out one of the factors that contributes to the semblance of ‘debate’ on the existence of AGW, despite the fact that such a debate really doesn’t exist – at least not amongst the vast, vast majority of credible climatologists.
If Chris de Fretas has never received money from any organisations funded by Exxon (contrary to what is to be found on the Exxon Secrets site) then I am happy to retract that comment. If this is the case, then DeFretas is almost unique amongst climate ’sceptics’.
One final time – issues of funding would not matter if the ’sceptics” science was good but it’s not. And because it’s not, it is pertinent to ask why they have so much say in the so called ‘debate’.
January 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I note that some people are saying “it’s time to act”. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we should spend billions of dollars, hoping that climate change will abate? Before we act, wouldn’t it make sense to determine what sort of bang for our buck we will get if we spend these billions elsewhere, and also determine the likelihood of failure if we do try to reduce the effect of climate change? In other words, if there is a high probability of failure, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the billions (which I presume will need to be spent if we are going to “act”) on areas where there is a high probability of success?
Even if the science of climate change is settled, that does not necessarily mean we have to take action. What has to be decided are the pros and cons of taking action, and whether the benefits are sufficient to necessitate action.
January 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm
James,
Now those are real debates (unlike the supposed one on whether AGW exists or not).
I believe that we need to act (a) because the consequences of not acting may well be very dramatic (see Mark Lynas’s book 6 degrees) and (b) because I think John Quiggin is spot on in his review of Bjorn Lomberg’s Copenhagen Concensus book (which makes the best case possible for spending the money elsewhere):
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/01/21/copenhagen-review/
January 28, 2008 at 3:14 pm
terence
leaving aside your obsession with Exxon and your insistence on saying everything is settled, (though in this regard the Catholic Church thought the science was settled when it considered Galileo a heretic – subsequently of course the sceptic was proved right), I agree with you that James raises very real issues for debate.
However, I think you are again going for the doomsayers hypothesis.
1 Further, why should NZ move further and faster than others and probably severely hobble the economy?
2 Also why should the populations of developing nations be denied the ability to improve their lot as so many seem to be saying they must?
3 How do you overcome the issues where many in Western economies are using this issue to construct non-tariff barriers to trade?
4 How do you propose to deal with the fact that a number of the currently postulated responses to AGW may of themselves constitute the greatest risk to man, rather than AGW?
5 What account do you take of mankind’s ability to adapt and innovate?
January 28, 2008 at 4:26 pm
adamsmith
What mechanisms of a market economy can be used to protect a resource from destruction through uncontrolled over exploitation?
January 28, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Is that really on topic to the subject?
January 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm
AS,
These are better questions too.
1 Further, why should NZ move further and faster than others and probably severely hobble the economy?
We’re not and carbon trading won’t.
2 Also why should the populations of developing nations be denied the ability to improve their lot as so many seem to be saying they must?
I’m not (I work in development as it happens). As John Quiggin notes in my last link, Kyoto for all its flaws ,would actually lead to a significant capital inflow to most developing countries. My own preferred approach is for technology to be developed in the developed world and transfered to the developing. This won’t deny anyone their lot.
3 How do you overcome the issues where many in Western economies are using this issue to construct non-tariff barriers to trade?
Food miles aren’t being used to this purpose at present. And they shouldn’t be. Even if transport is taken into account many products produced in developing countries are less carbon intensive than those produced in the developed world (because they are more labour intensive). In short don’t let genuine environmental concerns be used as dishonest trade barriers.
4 How do you propose to deal with the fact that a number of the currently postulated responses to AGW may of themselves constitute the greatest risk to man, rather than AGW?
If this is really the case (and it certainly isn’t with the current front runners) don’t take these courses of action.
5 What account do you take of mankind’s ability to adapt and innovate?
We are going to have to do this anyway. And, while we have a wonderful capacity for innovation and adaption, even this has limits; and it is my honest opinion that AGW may take us beyond these limits (I’m not talking extinction here, but rather severe suffering for the poor and the least able to adapt).
Thanks for the questions.
January 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Terence,
To act now may be foolish, especially if we don’t know what we’re doing. We could throw a lot of money at the problem with little or no payback (a la the health sector).
John Quiggan’s biggest concern seems to be species extinction. I would have rated this very low on my list of concerns. Besides, species have become extinct long before global warming became an issue.
JQ doesn’t actually adrdress the central issues: why spend billions of dollars on mitigating the effects of climate change? If we do spend billions, what effect will that have, if any? And where are the billions going to come from? And what’s the likely return on this “investment”? All important questions, as are Adam Smith’s, and all requiring good answers before we decide to act.
January 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Poneke,
Probably not – I’m happy to stop.
January 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Andrew W
To be honest with you, I do not know what the answer is.
My questions were designed to try and see what others might think in these areas.
It is possible that a classic market economy may not have the answers.
Some writers have suggested that companies will move to take corrective action when they can see economic benefit from so doing.
In that regard it is interesting that some surveys suggest the USA has been more successful in emission reduction than the EU or indeed NZ.
My own take is that a variety of mechanisms will prove appropriate. Would be grateful for your views!
January 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Poneke, the atmosphere, like a river, is a resource that can be damaged through such exploitation.
The answer I’m looking for is propriatorship, in the case of the river it’s usually state propriatorship, without such, rivers in industrial nations soon become open sewers.
January 28, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Andrew W,
Price mechanisms – in theory. Of course such mechanisms didn’t, alas, save the Dodo
The trouble with carbon emissions is that the problem is not one of resource depletion but rather externalised cost (i.e. currently the ‘price’ of burning carbon is being born by the atmosphere not the petrol pump). The idea of carbon taxes and carbon trading is that the ‘true’ price of fossil fuels ought to be reflected the price we pay for them. This, in turn, will provide incentives for using less and for innovating away from their use.
The above is the economists answer anyhow. It can be critiqued, certainly, and I’d offer you some of those critiques – except I won’t to finish my work for the day. And go home and go surfing.
(Besides I promised Poneke I would stop).
January 28, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Well it’s over to you. I am not one to stifle debate. It just seems to be getting a bit esoteric for the original subject
January 28, 2008 at 4:51 pm
perhaps another time, but thanks for the comments, most interesting
January 28, 2008 at 4:57 pm
James,
very quickly:
To act now may be foolish, especially if we don’t know what we’re doing. We could throw a lot of money at the problem with little or no payback (a la the health sector).
But we do have a reasonable idea of what we’re doing and, to the best evidence at hand, not acting seems much more foolish.
John Quiggan’s biggest concern seems to be species extinction. I would have rated this very low on my list of concerns. Besides, species have become extinct long before global warming became an issue.
Really, I didn’t read it this way. But, it’s still a good point. The unraveling of ecosystems will harm us much sooner than rising sea levels.
why spend billions of dollars on mitigating the effects of climate change?
Because the cost of not doing so will be much higher (see Stern report)
If we do spend billions, what effect will that have, if any?
Hopefully, a lot
And where are the billions going to come from?
The global economy – home to 100s of trillions of dollars.
And what’s the likely return on this “investment”?
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m inclined to think that having a planet (not to mention economies and polities) that isn’t being destabilised by a rapidly changing climate is a reasonable return for the money involved.
January 29, 2008 at 10:11 am
Terence,
Your reply leaves me feeling no better than we started this discussion. You say:
“But we do have a reasonable idea of what we’re doing and, to the best evidence at hand, not acting seems much more foolish.”
So what are we doing? We’re spending, or intending to spend, a lot of money – what is the effect of that going to be? Will it be, for example, to reduce global temperatures by 0.5 celsuius? If so, is it worth the expenditure? Where is the hard data showing us what effect Kyoto is likely to have?
You also say that “hopefully” the effect will be great. That worries me. I don’t want billions of dollars spent (or squandered) in the hope that it will work, especially when we could expend the same money where we know it WILL work.
You say doing nothing is not an option. But what if doing a lot achieves very little – will it have been worth it?
I would also note that Al Gore has shown us pictures of Ground Zero being under water. Emotive to be sure, but what time frame does he envision for this? The IPCC has predicted an increase of sea levels from beteween .09 to .88 metres by 2100. Even at the top of that range, New Yorkers will not be needing a lifejacket to go to work. So why does Al Gore and his supporters predict doom and gloom when the top scientists are more measured? It appears that some global warming believers can get carried away with their own rhetoric when it suits them.
January 29, 2008 at 6:27 pm
So why does Al Gore and his supporters predict doom and gloom when the top scientists are more measured?
Not only is Al Gore a director of Lehman Brothers, a global finance house that wants to control the worldwide managed market in carbon-emissions trading but he and a previous chief executive at Goldman Sachs Asset Management have launched an investment firm, Generation Investment Management based in London where with David Blood as managing partner – previously chief executive at Goldman’s fund arm – Gore will be the chairman seeking out companies taking a responsible stance on big global issues like climate change.
With such statements by Al Gore as:
Climate change is rising rapidly up investors’ agendas, underscored by the decision of Russia to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to curb global warming – is it any wonder that this sounds like a global deal for Gore with mountains of cash rewards awaiting.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28075/story.htm
August 19, 2008 at 8:25 am
[...] of censorship. This is something I share with a blogger called Poneke, who rather bombastically announced back in [...]