« Gannon Revisited (So I Lied) | Main | Galactica Blogging »

February 18, 2005

Asking 'So What?'

I see that the implementation of the Kyoto Treaty has people talking about global warming once again. As seems to be the norm, the discussion is rotating around the questions is global warming occurring, and if so, is it anthropogenic. What is not being asked is, if anthropogenic global warming is occurring, what do we do next?

Kyoto would not work even if it wasn't a dead letter. Beyond the fact the United States is not going to ratify the treaty and beyond the fact the countries that will emit the most carbon over the next century (India and China) aren't constrained by the treaty, all the treaty would do if completely implemented would be to cut global warming by 0.1 degrees Centigrade over 100 years. Since the current projections place total global warming over that period at 1.4-5.8 degrees, 0.1 is probably not going to really be noticed.

Given how important carbon is to the global economy, trimming global warming appreciably would effectively cripple the world's economic growth. That may not be enough to make that option a good one for some, but for the majority of the voters crippling our economy is not going to be a viable option unless and until there are clearly disastrous effects caused by global warming (at which point cutting emissions won't help anyhow). Politics by its nature is bad at dealing with the future. When you're talking about something measured in centuries, politics can safely be assumed to have no real interest in it. Barring some major changes in how democracy works, we can leave massive carbon emission reductions off the list of feasible alternatives for addressing global warming.

Nor am I convinced doing so would be a good idea even if it were possible. Environmental protection is an outgrowth of a strong economy. Rich countries have the money and leisure time to worry about the environment. Poor countries do what they have to do to survive without concern for the consequences to the environment. I should hate to see all of the progress we've made in environmental protection lost because we've crippled our economy in hopes of forestalling global warming.

Nor have I seen much discussion about the net effect of global warming on the world. There is a great deal of discussion about rising sea levels and El Nino, but very little about what a warmer globe could do to help people. How much additional food could be produced with longer growing seasons? How many resources could be culled from currently difficult to reach locations like Siberia? I'm not saying that the net result would necessarily be positive; I don't have the grounding or the time to properly research that. But I do think it's a question that needs to be asked.

We also ought to be looking at alternative responses to global warming. Right now the debate appears to present a binary set: we either do nothing, or we do everything we can to prevent global warming. But I suspect there are numerous other alternatives open to us. Maybe we could try to build walls to prevent the encroachment of the oceans into our seacoasts. Maybe we could move people inland, or occupy colder areas that will become habitable as the globe warms. Or maybe there's another way to forestall global warming by placing reflective material in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight the planet's surface receives. The point is, there are a number of alternative possibilities rather than cutting carbon emissions drastically and hoping for the best. The one thing they all have in common is, they're not cheap. So intentionally trimming our economy in one roll of the dice is not only politically impossible, it's a high-risk venture; if that move doesn't work, we won't have the money to do much else to address the problem.

Research into global warming will continue, as it should. But perhaps it's time we start thinking a little more creatively about what to do about it if it is anthropogenic, rather than simply arguing that yes it is, no it isn't.