Al Gore’s Bad Start and What Just Ain’t So
April 28th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The image above is taken from the homepage of Al Gore’s new movie. If the imagery is indicative of the role of science in its presentations of policy options, then the case for action on climate change is going to suffer a setback. Reducing smokestack emissions, or any CO2 emissions, is simply not an effective tool of hurricane disaster mitigation.
Often on these pages we have made the case that the debate that rages over hurricanes and climate change is largely irrelevant to climate policy, even as it used as a symbol in climate politics. The reason for the insensitivity of policy to this debate is the overwhelming influence of societal factors in driving trends in the growth in disaster losses even under assumptions that global warming has significant effects on hurricanes. We have made the case in a wide range of fora and in a wide range of ways, and yet, it seems that the urge to use hurricanes as a justification for climate-related energy policies is just too appealing, despite its grossly unsupportable scientific grounding. It does not matter whether or not scientists can establish a link between global warming and hurricanes – it won’t affect how we think about climate policy.
More evidence for this perspective is provided in a recent news story about the insurance and reinsurance industries,
“Regardless of whether climate change is leading to increases in the number of storms or their intensity, analyses by ISO’s catastrophe modeling subsidiary, AIR Worldwide, indicate that catastrophe losses should be expected to double roughly every 10 years because of increases in construction costs, increases in the number of structures and changes in their characteristics,” said [Michael R.] Murray [ISO assistant vice president for financial analysis], “AIR’s research shows that, because of exposure growth, the one in one-hundred-year industry loss grew from $60 billion in 1995 to $110 billion in 2005, and it will likely grow to over $200 billion during the next 10 years.”
Assume a doubling of losses every ten years for the next 80, and you get a multiple of 2^8 or 256. Can anyone cite a study that suggests that hurricane frequencies or intensities will increase by 1/100 of this amount? (Note that damage is not linear with intensity, but even so.) You can’t. Even with less aggressive assumptions about societal change one still gets very, very large increases in impacts. For the simple math of why it is that societal growth dominates any scenario of the projected effects of climate change, and hence climate mitigation, on hurricanes, see this post we did a short while back. And there are umpteen others available on this site. I await the acceptance of this argument by the mainstream climate science community (as well as the relevant parties of the blogosphere), of which a troubling number have ignored or openly resisted this argument, and some very publicly yet without substance. But they shouldn’t, as it is about as solid a policy case as one can imagine.
As we have often said, climate mitigation makes sense, and so too does preparing for future disasters, but linking the first with the second is simply unsupported by an honest policy assessment. And it seems to me that honest assessments of policy action help the case for action on climate change. Al Gore is off to a bad start — let’s hope the rest of his effort is substantially better or else he risks setting back the case for action on climate change.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:20 am
The case for action on climate change hinges on public awareness. The release of Gore’s new film is certain to strike fear into the hearts of millions. When these masses dig deeper and realize the alarming level of scientific complacency there is going to be hell to pay.
Insurance insiders are deeply concerned. Widespread cancellations and unrealistic rate-hikes in high-risk areas will soon be commonplace. A couple of big storms in the wrong places and ‘Poof’…this number has been disconnected.
Grossly unsupportable scientific grounding is the status quo. Everyone can be right. Isn’t that nice. Scientists and politicians should stop pretending they know what’s going on and actually figure it out before this uncertainty is realized by society.
Rally the scientific troops! Find the answers! Save Mankind! Be hero’s!
…or stick to old ideals of a passing era…
April 28th, 2006 at 11:59 am
“Can anyone cite a study that suggests that hurricane frequencies or intensities will increase by 1/100 of this amount? (Note that damage is not linear with intensity, but even so.) You can’t. ”
As you yourself, Roger, point out, it ain’t the intensity of the winds that’ll git ya, it’s all the buildin’ on the beach.
That’s whut they’re sayin’, as you done said before, remember?
Best,
D
April 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
On watching the trailer of this movie, there was something else that struck me as dishonest (or ignorant) fear-mongering. They not only linked disaster damage (read Katrina) to global warming, but also seemed to imply that sea-level rise due to global warming would have “acute”-disaster-like effects (they showed pics of Katrina while discussing it). Of course, Gore was talking about the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, not the more steady increase in sea level. I had always thought that even a W. Ant. Ice Sheet collapse would not be sudden but would occur over the course of decades. Am I way off base here? Anyone? If this is true, it seems that prognosticating 100 million refugees is over the top. But then again, as with the hurricanes-global warming link, it’s much more sexy than talking about the slow, continual sea level rise that is much more likely and potentially every bit as devastating in the long run.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
One other comment, to Roger, on a slightly different thread…
I would be interested to know your thoughts on what the potentially appropriate policies are in response to the fact that continued or accelerated coastal development brings with it larger damages than AGW? Perhaps a post on this topic, or some links for further reading?
I don’t mean this as an ad-hom, but it seems to me that from this blog and most of your writing that I have read, you devote much effort to convincing people that development-related hurricane damages will dwarf those due to AGW. To use your own words, it doesn’t seem like you are being an “honest broker of policy options” by focusing so much attention on the relative (un)importance of AGW in hurricane damages. Also, if you believe it is not your job, but rather the job of scientists to “broker” these policy options, that is fine. I guess I would then like to know what policy options you would like to see scientists investigate.
Thanks!
April 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Two things:
One, please don’t judge the movie by the trailer. The trailer is absurd, and the movie has almost nothing of that hysterical, over-the-top flavor. Don’t judge the movie by the poster, either. Judge the movie by the movie — the tone is sober and even-keeled, and the movie is ultimately more devastating for it. I recommend it highly.
Two, Roger, this hurricane argument, it bugs me, and now I think I’ve figured out why. Why doesn’t the same analysis apply to droughts, floods, and sea-level rises? If our goal is to reduce the social cost of droughts, the quickest way is to prevent over-settlement of drought-prone areas, no? Reducing CO2 isn’t the direct or most effective way of reducing any kind of social costs, is it?
So if we can’t promise any reduction of harm, exactly how are we supposed to sell the public on concerted action to address the problem?
April 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Apparently private insurers are already beginning to get out of Dodge, that being the Gulf and Atlantic coast hurricane insurance business, but unfortunately this really won’t have much of an impact on coastal development since the real estate and banking industries will insist on the gap being filled by state-sponsored insurance. When the use of such insurance becomes sufficiently extensive, the circumstances for a hurricane-induced state bankruptcy will be in place. I doubt that anything short of multiple such events will change the course of coastal development, *unless* the added prospect of enhanced storm strength from AGW can make a difference.
Roger, may I suggest that rather than continue to make yourself unpopular with posts like this that you consider something along the lines of hurricanes as “charismatic megaweather.” This is not a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, BTW.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
DR’s comment reminds me to add the obvious thought that the other coastal AGW impact of sea level rise, which especially when enhanced by hurricanes is much worse than the AGW enhancement of hurricanes alone, is much harder to get people to pay attention to. I don’t like this either, but it seems to be true nonetheless. I have some more extensive thoughts on this and will try to organize them for a comment this weekend.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
DR, SB, interesting posts! Thanks.
A couple of other thoughts on this subject:
First, the insignificant-AGW-related-cyclone-damages argument is rather western/industrialized-nation-centric.
Whereas WE have the ability to adapt to such changes, many other countries don’t. Of course, I am not naive enough to think that any of our decision-makers actually care about or are accountable to the “third-world” constituency, but the advocacy on many environmental subjects is motivated and sold by an ecumenical worldview (think “think globally, act locally”). As citizens who are concerned about more than just the Gulf states, reducing cyclone damages through carbon emission or other AGW mitigation should not be discounted solely on the basis of the projected insignificance of AGW-related damages in the U.S.
…Which brings me to my final point. NOBODY justifies carbon emission reductions solely from the standpoint of reducing hurricane-damages, which must be obvious to all reading this blog. The motivations for carbon emissions reduction or other forms of AGW mitigation come from an extensive and wide-ranging list of reasons. RP rightly points out that this particular reason is over-hyped relative to some of the other, perhaps more compelling reasons. But from a global perspective, I wouldn’t necessarily discount the argument for reducing carbon emissions to help prevent the acceleration of tropical-cyclone related damages, especially in light of the recent Emmanuel and Webster papers…
April 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
“charismatic megaweather”
Sheesh, Steve, I gotta run hard to keep up with you! Good ‘un.
And I appreciate Sean’s mentioning something [@ 12:52] that I’ve said a thousand times** here: “I guess I would then like to know what policy options you would like to see scientists investigate.”
That is: what _should_ they do? We already know from the thunderous post what they _shouldn’t_ do, but we never find out what they _should_ do, except maybe a self-referential linky.
D
** I know, I know: I’ve been told a million times not to exaggerate.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Dave Roberts-
Thanks for your comments. You ask, “So if we can’t promise any reduction of harm, exactly how are we supposed to sell the public on concerted action to address the problem?”
Let me quote some extremely wise words in response to this questions:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/24/164937/859
“I’d only suggest one thing: I wish enviros would do a lot more to sell their ideas — renewable energy, local food systems, bright green cities, etc. — on their own merits, rather than as a way to dodge an oncoming train.
Enacting those ideas would produce a better, safer, cleaner, more equitable, more enjoyable world. That’s worth doing totally irrespective of climate change. Don’t you think?”
April 28th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Sean D.- Thanks for your comments. A few replies.
First, you ask, “I would be interested to know your thoughts on what the potentially appropriate policies are in response to the fact that continued or accelerated coastal development brings with it larger damages than AGW?”
Here are a few suggestions for reading on this subject:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063604/html/
http://www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/PDF/IBDILNCM_Full.pdf
http://www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/PDF/Full_report_human_links.pdf
http://www.islandpress.com/books/detail.html?cart=105242990048922&SKU=1-55963-756-0
Second, as far as the honest broker of policy alternatives, I am in fact acting as an issue advocate on this subject, because I think that both the case for climate mitigation and reduction of disaster vulnerability suffer when the issues are conflated as there are in the Gore movie ad.
Third, you write, “the insignificant-AGW-related-cyclone-damages argument is rather western/industrialized-nation-centric.” Actually, no. The vulnerabilities in the developing world are larger and growth is faster. If anything, this is as much a developing world issue as it is for the developed world.
Fourth, you assert “But from a global perspective, I wouldn’t necessarily discount the argument for reducing carbon emissions to help prevent the acceleration of tropical-cyclone related damages, especially in light of the recent Emmanuel and Webster papers…”
Emanuel’s and Webster’s work offer nothing to contradict this perspective. See this paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-250-2000.07.pdf
Thanks!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Steve- Thanks for your comments. You write:
“Roger, may I suggest that rather than continue to make yourself unpopular with posts like this that you consider something along the lines of hurricanes as “charismatic megaweather.”"
So you are saying that I can become more popular by deemphasizing my peer-reviewed policy research and standing by silently while prominent people make policy arguments in my area of expertise that I know just can’t work? Hmmm … I’ll think about this, sounds like an interesting trade-off!
April 28th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Roger, as much as I enjoy flattery, that’s unsatisfactory.
You have said repeatedly that you support reducing GHG emissions, and that there are good arguments for doing so.
If the *consequences* of global warming are off the table, then what are those arguments exactly?
The implication of your logic seems to be that we have NO arguments for a direct response to climate change. If that’s your position, I wish you’d state it plainly.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
David-
Your comments get to the nub of the issue here.
I have frequently stated and written that the direct approach to arguing for GHG emissions reductions is a losing proposition. As logical as it may seem to you and me that it makes sense to reduce emissions, it seems clear now after almost two decades of experience that (a) this is not readily accepted by many people, and (b) policies focused on a direct approach are wanting. There is also the problem that trying to overcome (a) in particular seems to require pushing the science well beyond what it can support.
So what to do?
If you can’t get in the front door, try the back door and the windows. An indirect approach — which is well labeled “no regrets” — seems like the most promising place to start. Policy should today be focused on those policies which have the side effect of reducing CO2 emissions, but which can be justified for other reasons, and in particular, short-term tangible benefits. Among such back-door strategies, reducing reliance of foreign sources of oil, increasing efficiency, and reducing particulate air pollution seem to be among the most promising areas for effective political action that results in reduced GHG emissions. At the same time, technological innovation in energy should be accelerated, also justified in no regrets manner (US competitiveness, national security, etc.). See this post:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000785
I am convinced that CO2 reductions, if they are to occur, will necessarily happen in this manner. This is the lesson from the ozone case. The only question I think that remains is how long it will take before enough (influential) people realize this to abandon ineffective strategies and move towards these sorts of approaches. I do recognize that many people find this unsatisfactory or even giving up. But if progress is to occur then it will happen in this manner.
So long as he back door is open and the windows unlocked, those who despite a mountain of experience and research (like this provided in this post) insist on breaking down the fortified front door are in my view no longer part of the solution, but a part of the problem.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Dave- Also, when you talk to Al Gore next week, you might ask him about a direct vs. indirect strategy, as well as the appropriateness of using hurricanes to sell CO2 emissions give the solid, unimpeached science on this issue, as presented here. If you do get a chance to raise any of these issues, let us know and we’ll gladly highlight, Thanks!!
April 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Roger, maybe you misunderstood my comment about the western-centric’ness of the cyclone/AGW issue.
I think that it can be taken as fact that the developing world is currently more vulnerable to tropical cyclones than the industrialized world.
I also presume we can agree that, in the absence of a drastic shift from it’s current course, the developing world will become more vulenerable to tropical cyclones because a larger *percentage* of its population will live in cyclone-vulnerable areas.
For the sake of argument, IF one accepts that cyclone-destructiveness is increasing (a la Emmanuel, Webster et al) via AGW, THEN it is “WE” (via GHG emissions) that are increasing cyclone-damages in the developing world.
How much will this increase in normalized damages be, and what share of the increase will be due to AGW versus the relative increase in coastal population?
For countries like ours, that’s a great question, and one for which you clearly claim to have an answer. I am not in the position to dispute your claim that AGW will be insignificant in the U.S. relative to coastal development in affecting storm damages.
My claim that the “AGW mitigation is not relevant to the preventing storm damages” argument is Western-centric is that even IF AGW-related increases in damages are a small fraction of the increase in damages in developing worlds, this fractional change is an externally imposed increase in damages on them by us.
Thus, your claim that damage reduction is not a good justification for AGW mitigation is only valid for the industrialized world (if it’s valid at all), and is therefore western-centric.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Roger,
Great description of the ‘nub’ of the article! Very thought provoking! I think I disagree with you still
, but thought provoking nonetheless… One analogy to this that I have is that when someone tries to ‘debate’ the global warming/environmental issues with me, I quickly default to the ‘back doors and windows’/'no regrets’ type approach to the argument, and argue as you do that there are plenty of other reasons to be concerned about these types of issues. I understand and respect this approach. Perhaps it is that I and many others see it as more of a complimentary approach to the ‘banging on the front door’ approach that you dislike. 
April 28th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
So, let us begin by asking Roger whether he believes that increasing AGW driven by increased fossil fuel burning increases cyclone intensity or not.
And Roger, please answer the simple question, don’t reply with the one about how much this costs or some other distraction.
Let us assume that Roger answers that yes, it looks increasingly likely that we are increasing the intensity of hurricanes by increasing CO2 concentrations.
Then, perhaps, Roger will tell us what is false in the photo at the top of the page.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Eli -
It’s called “Orders of Magnitude.” I believe we’ve had this discussion before. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Just because there may be a small increase in hurricanes doesn’t mean it will more than offset flora enhancement. That’s why we have to increase the research effort – and not just by running more models for more GIGO “ensembles”. We need to actually study the science. We should increase it by an order of magnitude at least. For you Eli that would be by a factor of ten.
CO2’s the wrong tree to be barking up. It has benefits. Look at all the other forcings.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Eli-
This is not a matter of “belief”. The role of GHGs in hurricane intensity is a scientific question, and I’ll simply point you to the most recent consensus statement of the relevant scientific community:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000723consensus_statement_.html
“The research issues discussed here are in a fluid state and are the subject of much current investigation. Given time the problem of causes and attribution of the events of 2004-2005 will be discussed and argued in the refereed scientific literature. Prior to this happening it is not possible to make any authoritative comment.”
Like Al Gore, I am of course less concerned about the science for science sake, and focused on the significance of science for action. And if you are interested in action then costs (as measured in dollars, lives, and other factors) are central to understanding why one course of action may be more justifiable than another. And on this policy issue Al Gore is simply wrong, whether or not GHGs have a discernible effect on hurricanes. It is misleading and immoral to sell emissions reductions based on fear of hurricanes.
Rather than changing the subject, if you or anyone else has a case to make that reducing GHG emissions can serve as an effective tool of disaster managment, then just make it. If you can’t, won’t, or don’t, well, then that speaks for itself!
Thanks.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Roger,
I found your answer to David Roberts just a little unsatisfactory:
“Policy should today be focused on those policies which have the side effect of reducing CO2 emissions”
I think you have a great idea here about how to get things moving, this is very good advice, but I felt that David was asking why *you* think CO2 should be reduced given your position that there are better ways to target all of the various consequences (drought, storm damage etc). If he wasn’t, well, I am!
Also, I hope you took his advice about not judging the movie by its trailer.
Now if I might bring up my own point. You say that linking GW with hurricane damage is not effective because there are other, far larger factors that cause such high damage. Well, this really depends on your purpose, IMO. If you are worried primarily about hurricane damge, then I agree. But if you are linking from the other direction, worried primarily about GW, then it does make sense as it is yet another negative consequence and it doesn’t matter if there are other causes.
You seem to accept going through the back door above, I think intense storms are a very effective means of bringing urgency and immediacy to the issue.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Coby-
The answer is simple, if conventional — CO2 is a forcing on the cliamte system, and as such will have effects. What, exactly those effects will be is uncertain, but the scientific community has enough evidence in my view to make the case that we should not be tinkering with, what has been overall, a pretty good global earth system for us humans. This is why we should seek to reduce CO2.
I actually have not seen the trailer, just the WWW site.
You write: “But if you are linking from the other direction, worried primarily about GW, then it does make sense as it is yet another negative consequence and it doesn’t matter if there are other causes.”
Well, for people who lose their families and homes, they might matter about “other causes,” and have some conerns in someone elses battle in which they are bing used simply as a political symbol.
I appreciate your candor that you believe that the ends justify the means. But in this case such an approach won’t achieve the ends you are seeking, and will likely harm those that you don’t care as much about.
Thanks.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Roger,
When you say
“Rather than changing the subject, if you or anyone else has a case to make that reducing GHG emissions can serve as an effective tool of disaster managment, then just make it. If you can’t, won’t, or don’t, well, then that speaks for itself!”
you are commiting an either-or fallacy.
EITHER GHG emissions are an effective tool of disaster management, OR using increasing hurricanes to justify GHG emissions is unjustifiable.
As I mentioned earlier, and as Mr. Gore himself would no doubt tell you, disaster mitigation is just one item on the expansive laundry list of reasons to support GHG reductions.
Furthermore, can you honestly claim that your ‘back door’ approach of convincing people to reduce GHG under the guise of oil independence, national security, and efficiency does not itself at some level require the kind of hype and fearmongering that you so despise in the AGW/hurricane connection?
April 28th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Steve Hemphill, I said cyclone intensity, not the number of hurricanes, but let us consider how close don’t count except in horseshoes, nuclear bombs, and hurricanes (but especially for impacts of large chunks from space).
This is one reason that I think Roger’s argument is insufficient. Let us assume a. he is correct that one cannot look at damage and see any effect, let us also b. assume that Trenberth et al are correct and there is a significant strengthening of storms as a result of anthropically driven climate change. One extra Cat 5 (woudda been Cat 3) storm cannot be teased out from statistical analysis of damage data, but it can be inferred from the modeling. One extra storm on the wrong coast is a major cost, both in damage and lives.
In any case, it appears to me that the science is moving quite rapidly, and the folk on the pattern recognition side are losing. The recent Gray article on Real Climate is one indication of this.
Returning the compliment, it appears that Steve is auditioning to be my pet rock, not the brightest mind you, but spunky and always anxious for attention. I apologize if I cannot always provide it in a timely manner.
April 28th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Good comeback Eli. Or not.
You missed the point entirely. What if increased flora leads to a more comfortable life for billions of people, but the increased CO2 that caused it leads to similar discomfort for only millions through increased cyclone intensity?
Again, the concept is orders of magnitude.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Roger, you write:
‘… if you or anyone else has a case to make that reducing GHG emissions can serve as an effective tool of disaster managment, then just make it.’
Later, you write:
‘The answer is simple, if conventional — CO2 is a forcing on the cliamte system, and as such will have effects. What, exactly those effects will be is uncertain, but the scientific community has enough evidence in my view to make the case that we should not be tinkering with, what has been overall, a pretty good global earth system for us humans. This is why we should seek to reduce CO2.’
I don’t understand the distinction between avoiding uncertain, but potentially dangerous changes, and disaster management. Could you explain?
My question is (I think) largely independent of the problems with using hurricanes to sell GHG emissions cuts, which seem to remain the same whether or not avoiding uncertain changes is a kind of disaster management.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:54 am
We need more science and less argument. Put a team on the Panama Isthmus. Put a team on Drakes passage. Study the currents and their disruptions geologically. We are trapped in a cycle that is staring us in the face yet we continue to fail. There was an event 30Ma at Drake and one more recently at the Panama Isthmus 3Ma that created our Northern Ice-Cap. If someone wants to make a name for themselves they must identify this cycle we are in. Warming is probably the least of our worries.
The closing of the Panama Isthmus brought moisture in the form of warm water Northward via the Gulf Stream and iced a previously dry, frozen wasteland. It changed the face of our planet.
We need to stop picking at the carcass and go find some meat. Most prevailing arguments and opinions are pure conjecture. Pure conjecture propagating and causing stagnation at a time when we cannot afford it.
We need new material. Make that policy and your name will be remembered.
April 29th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Sean-
Thanks. A few responses:
1. You write: “As I mentioned earlier, and as Mr. Gore himself would no doubt tell you, disaster mitigation is just one item on the expansive laundry list of reasons to support GHG reductions.”
OK, I’ll bite. What practical effect will greenhouse gases have on disaster mitigation? I’ve provided my analysis, lets see yours. And the focus of my question is disastermitigation — why should it be included anywhere onthe list of justifications for GHG reductions? I’m not looking for speculation, but real analysis.
2. You write, “Furthermore, can you honestly claim that your ‘back door’ approach of convincing people to reduce GHG under the guise of oil independence, national security, and efficiency does not itself at some level require the kind of hype and fearmongering that you so despise in the AGW/hurricane connection?”
So you are suggesting that “hype and fearmongering” are OK if it is for the “right” goals?
Seems to me that people on different ends of this debate have far more in common then they might care to admit!
Thanks!
April 29th, 2006 at 6:51 am
llewelly-
You ask, “I don’t understand the distinction between avoiding uncertain, but potentially dangerous changes, and disaster management. Could you explain?”
I’ll give it a shot. It has to do with the sensitivity of the impact you are concerned about to the various inter-related factors that cause those impacts.
A. If a GHG forcing is the overwhelming factor leading to the impact, then the focus should be on modulating that forcing. Abrupt climate change would seem to be the canonical example of such a situation.
B. If other factors, (like societal change) are overwhelmingly dominant, then policy attention is logically more appropriately focused here.
In the above it is also important to understand the degree to which the policy intervention can have the desired effects (e.g., with respect to sea level rise, under IPCC scenarios modulating GHG forcings may not have a large effect). A lot of my research has been focused on starting with the impact of concern, and working backwards to understand where policy makers might have the most promising “levers” for influencing those impacts in the future. Our research project on this subject is described here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/themes/sensitivity_analysis/
So this raises some issues for policy and advocacy.
1. Some folks accept A. and B. above but think then can get around it to sell GHG reductions by bundling a bunch of impacts together. But as Dave Roberts astutely observes on this thread, that simply doesn’t work intellectually or practically.
2. Strong incentives are thus created to play up “hype and fear” (as seen in several posts on this thread, in order to push A. above as far as possible.
3. Similarly, from a policy analysis perspective there are strong incentives to conduct and present studies of the impacts of GHGs while holding everything else constant. This has the effect of ignoring B. and focusing attention on A. only. See my recent post on the ABI analysis for a good example of this. More fundamentally, the definition of “climate cahnge” used by the FCCC institutionalizes this sort of intellectual gerrymandering. See this paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
Dan Sarewitz and I discussed this argument at length in our 2000 piece in the Atlantic Monthly and I’d encourage readers of this thread to have a look:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf
Finally, 1, 2, and 3 above conspire to make it exceedingly difficult (impossible?) for a front door strategy on GHGs to work at all, and create strong incentives for advocates of GHG reductions to make policy arguments that are based on “fear amnd hype” far beyond what scientific policy analyses can support. In such a situation, the best political strategy is to try the back door.
I’ll end this long comment (sorry!) by simply noting that I had no takers on this:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000542a_piece_of_the_actio.html
Thanks!
April 29th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Roger,
You may have taken some meaning from what I wrote that was not there. You said:
“I appreciate your candor that you
believe that the ends justify the means.”
I presume in response to my:
“But if you are linking from the other
direction, worried primarily about GW,
then it does make sense as it is yet
another negative consequence and it
doesn’t matter if there are other causes.”
I perhaps should clarify that “if there are other causes” means “if there are other causes in addition to”. I wrote from a position of accepting that GW is intensifying tropical storms. I do not advocate using falsehoods to get public acceptance of a danger.
Sean asked what I would as well:
“Furthermore, can you honestly claim that
your ‘back door’ approach of convincing
people to reduce GHG under the guise of oil
independence, national security, and
efficiency does not itself at some level
require the kind of hype and fearmongering
that you so despise in the AGW/hurricane
connection?”
which is a bit more overstated than I might have done, I would replace “hype and fearmongering” with “manipulation”. You didn’t answer him! Isn’t your backdoor idea manipulative?
I’ll give you another argument now (forgive and correct me if I misrepresent your position here). You say the primary cause of increased death and damage in US hurricane incidents is increased development in vulnerable areas and therefore effective policy should target reducing that development. I would suggest that this is not going to happen, you won’t stop people from living in an otherwise very desireable area just because of a danger that usually hits the other guy. Therefore, actions to prevent these storms from being more severe are actually more effective and there is nothing misguided in using the threat of severe storms in climate change mitigation advocacy.
This actually gets us to a more philisophical issue (but I don’t want to drop the arguments I made above!): should one advocate for what is best, or what is achievable?
April 29th, 2006 at 9:24 am
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how you can analyze something when you don’t even know what it is.
There is this narrow anthropocentric ideal that the existing climate is somehow ideal. That doesn’t consider that degradation of existing arable land is a severe problem in the third world, we are not sustainable, and have not been for a long time. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people are on the verge of starvation, and many are migrating like lemmings. It is in fact a possibility that increasing the magnitude of the bottom level of the food chain to some extent until we can get a handle on our destruction of the environment could be a good thing.
Right now we have no clue of the regional effects to the biosphere of increasing CO2. Shouldn’t we find that out before we stop what may be considered as the rescue of buried carbon – we are after all a carbon based lifeform.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Roger, thank you for your detailed reply.
My interpretation of your reply is that you think:
(0) Cuts in GHG emissions manage abrupt climate change.
(1) Cuts in GHG emissions do not manage hurricane damages.
Cuts in GHG emissions manage abrupt climate because abrupt climate change is sensitive to GHG emissions, and other factors are unlikely to change.
Cuts in GHG emissions do not manage hurricane damages because hurricane damages are much more sensitive to settlement patterns.
So far this is what I have learned to expect from you, and (in this case) I also agree.
However – my question was about whether uncertain effects qualify as a disaster. I don’t think you answered this question directly (sorry if missed it), but it seems that you believe uncertain effects *from AGW* do qualify as a disaster, precisely because you believe abrupt climate change is potentially one of those uncertain effects.
This too I agree with.
All of this is peripheral to the thread, whose topic seems to be ‘Should hurricane damages be used to sell GHG emissions cuts?’ I’ll try to come back to that in another comment, if I find the time.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Should hurricane damages be used to sell GHG emissions cuts?
It seems this is the topic of thread. My primary worry here, is that voters and policy makers will come to believe that a reduction in hurricane damages will follow a reduction in GHG emissions. However, I do not know of any reason that GHG emissions cuts would lead to a reduction in hurricane damages any time in the next 100 years. I *do* think cuts in GHG emissions will result in lower hurricane damages than ‘business as usual’, but it seems it may be a long time before that signal is delectable through all the other noise.
April 29th, 2006 at 11:21 am
In my previous most, I intended: ‘… it may be a long time before that signal is *detectable* through all the other noise.’,
not ‘delectable’ … which is more the opposite of what I intended, although morbidly humorous.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
“Delectable” may not be too far off, actually.
We have no clue, except that the last “tipping points” to a warmer Earth gave us farming in Greenland and a verdant Sahara.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
All-
llewelly- On abrupt climate change, science and policy, see this paper:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.13.pdf
I think that it gets to the points that you are raising.
Coby- You write, “I wrote from a position of accepting that GW is intensifying tropical storms. I do not advocate using falsehoods to get public acceptance of a danger.”
So unless, you know something no one else does, the scientific community does not yet accept this conclusion:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000723consensus_statement_.html
Is this just another example of Srewitz’s “excess of objectivity”?
You ask, “Isn’t your backdoor idea manipulative?” I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I am comfortable that the justifications used to seel back door climate policies are likely to have their intended effects, and are thus entirely appropriate.
You ask, “should one advocate for what is best, or what is achievable?” My answer is that it depends if one is interested in real-world outcomes.
Thanks.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Regarding hurricanes and scientific consensus, it is not my opinion that certainty of danger is required before warning the public of potential harms or taking evasive actions. It is quite enough that evidence is mounting and several experts already think it is real. That is the essential point.
But perhaps I mistook the thrust of your post as it seemed to set aside the question of whether or not this storm-GW connection is real and focused on a question that is not really interesting unless that connection is real. Not that I took that as your acceptance of that connection, but I did take it as a reason to ignore it and implicitly assume it.
Yes, here we go: you say “even under assumptions that global warming has significant effects on hurricanes”, so I was justified in doing the above, IMO.
FWIW, I like the summary you present of possible positions one could take in the face of the position paper discussed in the link you just offered. You are absolutely correct that Al Gore is betting, and betting alot, on the outcome of this particular scientific debate. I might not have done it in his position, I don’t know. I do think it is a good bet, but this is, as you say, for non-scientific reasons.
Sometimes science is too cautious and too slow and while I would never condone misrepresenting it, I see no categorical immorality in making non-scientific judgments.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Roger
It would appear that Al Gore is taking a risk by disregarding the advice from within the environmental community that the hyping of climate anxiety has backfired and is increasingly becoming counterproductive. In this Newsweek interview, he confesses to be a devotee of the doomsday brigade, declaring that “if the scientists (sic) turn out to be right we only have 10 years ….”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535460/site/newsweek/
On the other hand, Al Gore is certainly right to emphasise that “at some point, reality has its day.” Here in Europe, one of those days for a reality check occurred about two days ago:
“European carbon prices continued a collapse on Thursday that has wiped up to 50 percent off the value of carbon credits over the past week, testing the implementation of the EU’s Kyoto strategy. […] Now key outstanding countries yet to report — Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Portugal — must between them announce by May 15 that they are some 36 million tonnes short of carbon credits to avoid a complete price collapse, traders said. …”Unless that 40 million tonnes gets wiped out pretty quickly this commodity could be worthless,” said a second trader….”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27571156.htm
Ah well. Never mind. Always look at the bright side of life. American’s shouldn’t be too dejected about Europe’s desintegrating Kyoto strategy. At least the scientific consensus on global warming seems to be strengthening by the day: http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3299388,00.html
April 29th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Coby- Thanks. It seems that on this issue we are in agreement. You write, “Regarding hurricanes and scientific consensus, it is not my opinion that certainty of danger is required before warning the public of potential harms or taking evasive actions.”
I very much agree. The question is, What actions?
This post, and the general theme of such arguments is focused on answering this question.
Thanks.
April 30th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I have an ever-so-slightly different take on the Mark Twain quote, couched as it is in the advertisement for Al Gore’s movie above:
“It ain’t what you don’t know [to what extent hurricanes are impacted by CO2 emissions] that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure [“that the overall effect of CO2 emissions on global climate is small or nonexistent and action to limit such emissions is therefore NOT warranted] that just ain’t so.”
Actually, in htis context, I don’t see how you can logically interpret the Twain quote as some seem to have done:
Namely, if you interpret the hurricane/smokestack picture to mean that “Gore knows for sure that hurricanes are impacted (in intensity or frequency) by CO2 emissions”, then Twain’s statement would imply that this — “what Gore knows for sure” (and presumably, “that just ain’t so”) — will get Gore (and the rest of us) into trouble.
While I will not deny that the latter COULD (at least in principle) be a true statement, I somehow doubt that this is what Gore actually intended for us to take away from the advertisement for his movie — the equivalent of “Think this ad’s stupid? Come see my movie in which I make a COMPLETE fool of myself”.
Then again, when it comes to the effect of his ad (and movie) on science policy, I readily admit that it may not be what Gore INTENDED that counts, but how those in the positions of influence actually interpret (or mis-interpret) it.
I think the old saw about “not judging a book by its cover” is perfectly applicable here, at any rate.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Laurence,
I agree with your assesment of the movie ad. When I first saw the Mark Twain quote, I thought some skeptic (like myself) put it there to lampoon the movie!
The Twain quote simply doesn’t apply to those of us who are skeptical of an AGW crisis, because we readily admit that we do not know what future climate will bring. That knowledge seems to be the sole possesion of people like Al Gore, who claim to ‘know’ that it will be terrible and that we must do something about it. The quote applies only to Gore’s side of the debate and makes him look more foolish than even I think he is!
Roger,
There is a great deal of wisdom in what you are saying. It is often the case that those who are most strident for a cause are often the ones who destroy it, particularly when they use obfuscation, restriction and fear-mongering to get what they want. (The despots of the 20th century all come to mind.) I firmly believe that if aggressive environmentalism had its way, the environment would be in much worse shape in a few decades, but that is a topic for another venue.
Reducing GHGs to reduce the threat of hurricanes is not a realistic choice (regardless of the AGW debate), but neither is restriction of coastal development. Hurricanes will always happen and people will always want to live on or near the beach.
The solution is in promoting safer living near the coast. The first step is to build better buildings! Above all else, this step has the highest cost/benefit ratio. We know how to do it and we know it works.
The second step is to restructure coastal insurance policies. Most policies were developed during the coastal boom years of the 70s and 80s, when there were very few hurricanes. Based on what we know now, those premiums where way too low.
New thinking in the insurance industry must target the most vulnerable with the highest premiums, not only taking elevation and proximity into effect, but the construction of individual buildings. A hurricane resistant home should have a lower premium than one that isn’t, even if they are side-by-side and of equal value.
Flooding is the most challenging problem, but even here progress is being made in building design and mitigation.
The point is that there are much more cost effective solutions to the hurricane problem than trying to reduce their frequency and intensity through GHG reductions (which would likely have no measurable effect at all)!
The points you have made with this essay and thread seem obvious to me. I am truly surprised that you have garnered so much flack for your efforts!
April 30th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I actually first heard VP Gore use this quote in 1998 (I think) when he gave a keynote address at the SE US National Assessment workshop. I thought it was odd then too.
I also remember Jack Gibbons, Clinton science advisor, struggling with one of VP Gore’s props, a posterboard that unfolded up (about 7 feet high) showing projected CO2 increases into the future. A pre-hockey stick hockey stick.
Jim- Amen.
Thanks!
April 30th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Roger,
Pardon me for not including a disclaimer in my comment about fearmongering in your ‘backdoor’ approach. …I thought it was clear that I was pointing out an apparent inconsistency in YOUR argument, and that this was not being used as a justification for the statements in the Gore trailer. As I stated very clearly in my first and third posts on this thread, I think (in general) the AGW-hurricane damages are being oversold, and am not impressed by Gore or whomever using this argument.
As a scientist (which I am, btw), when people ask me about the AGW-hurricane connection, I tow YOUR line and say that the coastal development will likely dwarf AGW-related increases in intensity for our country, but that there is a growing, albeit highly contentious, body of scientific papers in support of a connection.
“So you are suggesting that “hype and fearmongering” are OK if it is for the “right” goals?
Hell no. And I take offense at the accusation
“Seems to me that people on different ends of this debate have far more in common then they might care to admit!”
BUT… Cynically speaking, I think we can agree that advocacy on almost any issue employs these tactics to some extent or another. I’m surprised that you seem to be so surprised about this blatant fact in relation to the AGW-hurricane issue.
Furthermore, as to your question,
“What practical effect will greenhouse gases have on disaster mitigation? I’ve provided my analysis, lets see yours.why should it be included anywhere onthe list of justifications for GHG reductions? I’m not looking for speculation, but real analysis.”
Give me a break. You know full and well I am not a policy scientist and have no peer-reviewed analysis to offer. Also, this is a loaded question on which I’ve already addressed my opinion in my 3rd and 4th posts. I’m tired and can’t write any more now, but I think I’ve written enough in previous posts to get my opinion across on this topic. I’ve got to not get sucked in to the blogosphere so much so I can get some *real* science done
May 1st, 2006 at 6:00 am
Sean D.- Thanks for your comments. No need to take offense;-) Swing by and visit us sometime if you are ever near Grandview!
May 1st, 2006 at 6:15 am
FYI:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/healthscience/homepage/article_1123175.php
May 1st, 2006 at 9:34 am
Jim Clarke posted:
“Laurence, I agree with your assesment of the movie ad.”
You do????
I suggest that you read my post again.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Hey RP,
While I buy a lot of your arguments about the role of science in policy, I don’t agree with your dig on Gore’s movie trailer. You say:
“If the imagery is indicative of the role of science in its presentations of policy options, then the case for action on climate change is going to suffer a setback.”
This is a huge leap to go from imagery in an advertisement to climate policy outcomes. The ad is about promotion, both of a movie and of an issue on a very coarse scale. I think it’s premature to draw any conclusions about science getting misused in the presentation of policy options from this one add without having seen the film. The same sort of promotion even happens in academia when scientists use pithy and creative titles for their journal articles… such titles are meant to invite people in to read the article at which point the science (and potential policy alternatives) are presented. Should we go after such pithy-titled articles too?
And what action for climate change will be “setback”? That’s a pretty big assumption too. And what if the opposite were true, in that Gore’s movie manages to bring the issue of climate change to every home in America, thus opening policy ‘windows of opportunity’? If this were true, then shouldn’t we applaud the movie ad if it gets more people to see the film?
Your suggestion and mine are both just assumptions at this point and who knows what impact this ad will have on public policy, if any. Shouldn’t we cut Gore and his movie a little slack until we see it?
BTW, I did see part of the movie last night… he didn’t really offer too many policy options… unfortunately I didn’t see enough of the movie to comment on
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Hi Elizabeth-
Actually, I haven’t seen the trailer, just the online ad.
So, for instance, selling the Iraq War with imagery of, say, nuclear explosions, would that be OK if it was just an invitation to hear the broader argument?
When I was in college I reacall a local band that named themselves “Free Beer” — very effective at getting me to look closer at the flyer advertising their next gig, clever even. This morning I noticed that my cereal box had a photo of the cereal with blueberries in it. No blueberries are in the box. I felt taken to the cleaners. What setback? I won’t be buying that cereal again.
Thanks!