« Climate Change »

Roger,

It's all about magnitudes.

For the small amount of carbon we could get reforestation to soak up, the local effects might outweigh the global effects at the reforestation sites (though this is not as straightforward as a simple albedo change - one could factor in secondary organic aerosols for instance as well as changes in evapo-transpiration). For climate change of that magnitude no internataional treaty would even have been thought about let alone signed. However, for the magnitude of change that is contemplated under BAU-type scenarios, these kinds of local effects are trivial. Thus there is no contradiction in pointing out that planting trees is problematic but that reductions in CO2 emissions need to happen to avoid the worst case scenarios.

No amount of tree planting is going to change global mean temperatures by 3 deg C in 100 years, significantly threatening ice sheets etc. But that is the problem that FCCC was designed to prevent.

To pass "diverse natural riches on to future generations" where I live, we would need to chop down trees and replant prairie!

Gavin-

Thanks for your comments, as always. A few replies;

1. You suggest that the non-greenhouse gas effects of climate are "trivial" at the local/regional scale. This is not what Caldeira's op-ed suggests nor it consistent with a wide range of studies in the peer-reviewed literature. If these effects are indeed trivial, then Caldeira's op-ed is fundamentally misguided and we need not worry about the climatic effects of afforestation (or aerosols, or biogeochemical effects etc.) and sequestration in trees, even if sequestering only a relatively small amount of carbon, ought to be considered (indeed, any policy will only deal with a small amount).

Can you point to literature that shows that the only climate forcing that matters is greenhouse gases? Is Caldeira therefore wrong in his peer-reviewed research?

2. You assert, "No amount of tree planting is going to change global mean temperatures by 3 deg C in 100 years" -- Well, the exact same argument could be made of EPA lawsuit, McCain/Lieberman, Kyoto, etc. etc. Does that mean that you think that any policy that cannot change global mean temperatures by 3 degrees over 100 years are bad ideas also?

3. You write, " that is the problem that FCCC was designed to prevent."

I'm glad that is settled!;-) As you know the exact goal of the FCCC has been fundamentally disputed (i.e., what does "dangerous anthropogenic interference" actually mean?) You can appeal to a definition, but the reality is that policy makers have left it ambiguous. Should we not be concerned with "dangerous anthropogenic interference" (however defined) if it results from albedo effects, aerosols, etc.?

4. Finally, you focus ion global average temperatures. I'd submit that people in California (to take the example from KC's op-ed) care less about global average temperature and more about those temperatures (or whatever metric you'd like) that actually have a direct effect on their region.

Thanks!

1. I didn't say local effects were 'trivial' - I said they were trivial compared to BAU scenarios for 2100. Local changes can of course be important - whether that is due to forestation, regional air pollution or urban heating. The briefest glance at my publications would demonstrate the large range of forcings that I and my colleagues have been investigating.

2. Caldiera's concern is for fundamentally planet-changing problems. There is a large magnitude difference between the effects of tree planting and the effects of projected increases in CO2. This doesn't seem to me to be a difficult point to grasp. No ice sheets will start melting because we plant trees, they may if we continue to increase CO2 emissions. It may just be my personal values, but the trees aren't 'dangerous' the way CO2 changes may be.

3. FCCC is quite clear: To prevent the build up of GHGs that might cause 'dangerous' climate change. That doesn't imply that other forms of climate change might not be dangerous - the asteroid-induced effects 65 million years ago would be a clear example, but the problem that the FCCC was written to address was the build up of greenhouse gases. Only the word 'dangerous' is ambiguous. But however you define it, I challenge you to come up with an example of 'dangerous' interference that is caused by tree planting.

4. I used global temperatures as a convienent metric for the scale of the changes. Remember that the last ice age only had a global mean change of aroudn 5 deg C from today. Everything changes under such conditions and Califorians will likely end up being affected by changes many thousands of miles away from their localities - sea level rise is global, warming oceans affect storm tracks and rainfall patterns, potential changes in tropical patterns are also likely to have effects.

Scale is absolutely fundamental to this whole debate. If you ignore it, you can end up worrying about the effect of single building's or field's effect on the local climate. These kinds of changes have happened for millennia and will continue to do so. What is new today, and why there are any treaties at all is because of the global-scale magnitude of the greenhouse gas issue. No greenhouse gases problem? No FCCC.
(PS. I have no interest in arguing about the FCCC definition, I merely mention it to point out the propelling force).

If you don't take the scale into account, you end up getting mired in the details, and indeed, not seeing the forest for the trees.

Roger,

Your father’s paper which you quote makes the uncontroversial point that the science of climate change is complicated and there are other things besides carbon dioxide at play. But as Gavin pointed out, it’s important to put this in context. AFAIK, land-use changes are only responsible for a fraction of the forcing change relative to CO2.

I am surprised by Caldeira’s suggestion that the albedo changes from afforestation effectively cancel out the forcing benefit from carbon uptake. This seems counterintuitive (maybe someone could point to relevant research in this area?).

On the other hand it seems reasonable to discount the value of afforestation credits based on some albedo change, but I wonder what sort of challenges this would face from a practical standpoint (e.g. high resolution data on historic albedo).

The real problem IMO with afforestion credits is not adjusting for albedo – in the context of CDM credits, it’s meeting the additionality criteria and applying a realistic discount to address risk of leakage (e.g. pine beetle infestation, forest fires, etc.).

I would also point out that the albedo effect is most significant at high latitudes with snow cover, and not in the tropics. So it is less likely to be an issue with the carbon offsets that companies like Dell purchases, which AFAIK are from afforestation projects in the tropics.

p.s. If you see Kevin V. in the hallway give him a poke and tell him he still owes me a post on offsets.

Cheers,

I agree that scale is important, and Roger sees an initiative at the regional scale quite often when he sees the new million tree initiative in Denver:

http://actrees.org/files/Newsroom/TPP_OneMillionTrees.pdf

Or when his colleagues mention the same initiative in LA:

http://actrees.org/site/newsroom/las_next_million_trees_the_tip.php

These programs have multiple benefits at the local and regional scale, not just C sequestration: hedonic benefits, amenity, well-being, stormwater, shading (pavement longevity), etc:

http://actrees.org/files/Press_Clippings/ValueofaTree.pdf

And these are just benefits in urban areas, and do not include watershed-level benefits of afforestation.

So, while it may not have the desired effect to modify climate, planting trees has many other desired effects (and if an unintended consequence of reforesting what we cut down is climate moderation, all the better).

Marlowe

I have a comment on your statement

"land-use changes are only responsible for a fraction of the forcing change relative to CO2."

We have documented in the peer reviewed literature; e.g. see our multi-authored paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., G. Marland, R.A. Betts, T.N. Chase, J.L. Eastman, J.O. Niles, D. Niyogi, and S. Running, 2002: The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system- relevance to climate change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Phil. Trans. A. Special Theme Issue, 360, 1705-1719.
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf

and the NASA press release on this paper,

LANDCOVER CHANGES MAY RIVAL GREENHOUSE GASES AS CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020926landcover.html

that land cover/land use change and vegetation dynamics are first order climate forcings.

In terms of altering atmospheric circulation patterns, land use/ land cover change (and also aerosol forcings) clearly have an effect on society and the environment that are at least as large as that due to climate forcing of the radiative effect of CO2. This also shows that the global average surface temperature is an inadequate metric to assess the relative importance human climate forcings.

Gavin-

You continue to focus on the global average temperature as the metric to assess climate change. I challenge you to contrast the relative importance of the different climate forcings using the gradient of diabatic heating metric that we proposed in our peer reviewed paper

Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts.
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-312.pdf

You have the model results to complete such an analysis, as was weblogged at Climate Science (with your name listed; see

"Spatial Analyses of Climate Forcings And Their Influence on Atmospheric and Ocean Circulations - The IPCC Needs to Include This Subject In Their Upcoming Assessment"
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/11/28/spatial-analyses-of-climate-forcings-the-ipcc-needs-to-include-in-their-upcoming-assessment/

In the Matsui and Pielke paper we demonstrated the dominance of the more heterogeneous forcing of aerosols relative to the more spatially homogeneous forcing of CO2. The change of these gradients over time is what we should be assessing, rather than just a global average surface temperature trend. This was the conclusion of the 2005 National Research Council report

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

Indeed, your comments on the specific recommendations and findings presented in that report would move forward the discussion.

Hi Marlowe-

Thanks for your comments. As Gavin said the issue is scale -- if you are concerned with modulating global CO2 concentrations you'll naturally focus on CO2. If you are interested in, say, Sierra snowpack, you necessarily have to focus on other issues.

It would be ironic indeed if the FCCC allowed afforestation to count for CO2 reductions (setting aside the technical issues like additionality) and then that action led to the effects that the FCCC was trying to prevent in the first place.

Thanks!

Gavin-

Thanks for your reply. A few further reactions:

1. You write, "Local changes can of course be important - whether that is due to forestation, regional air pollution or urban heating." Then shouldn't they be considered in policies like the UNFCCC, which is justified, in part, by the local and regional impacts of climate change?

The FCCC would be presented quite differently if the only issues of concern were ice sheets and sea level. (But perhaps maybe this is where it should go.)

2. Caldeira suggests that afforestation could have the same effects on the California region as GHGs. You may disagree with that, but for a California resident, if one is to be considered "dangerous" then so too must the other. Right?

3. You write, "I challenge you to come up with an example of 'dangerous' interference that is caused by tree planting."

Well, I point you back to Caldeira's op-ed which asserts, "some [offset] projects intended to slow the heating of the planet may be accelerating it instead."

There is much literature by now that shows that land use changes can change the climate (I know you know this;-). For anyone negatively affected by such changes, they might argue that the changes were in fact "dangerous." Of course this takes us right back to "what is dangerous interference?"

If you define DAI only in relation to GHGs, well, don;t be surprised if that is what you get!

4. You write, "No greenhouse gases problem? No FCCC."

Indeed, and it is exactly this sort of restricted thinking (reflected in the FCCC) that has doomed the FCCC to failure by any metric.

You have my point completely backwards.

Let's imagine a situation where GHG changes are negligible, but that climate changes were being driven totally by land use change. I would argue that this would be a situation in which there would be no push for international treaties and indeed no talk about dangerous interference. The magnitude of the changes would simply be too small (at the global scale) to engender global cooperation to do anything substantial about it. What would be the point? Also, it is likely that (with few exceptions) the people paying for changes in climate would be the same people involved the land use change - at least regionally. Thus local solutions would not be problematic, and the timescale for solutions would be in the realm of years, not centuries. So, no obvious reasons for an international convention.

Now take the situation with GHGs. It is a global problem and the costs will be bourne by people who are not to blame for the emissions. This is a colossal market failure (as has been said recently). The size of the potential effect under BAU scenarios is truly astounding - and there are plenty of candidates for 'dangerous' consequences. And the timescales of the problem are measured in decades to centuries. Thus there are ample reasons to band together internationally (and generationally) to tackle the problem.

My point is not that FCCC must only deal with greenhouse gases, but that without the GHG problem, no-one would have thought of the FCCC in the first place. I absolutely agree that anything done to reduce net GHG emissions should not have unnecessary side effects, and those issues require study and assessment. I don't define DAI as anything related to GHGs, I define it as something with large negative consequences on a global scale and I'm not alone in this.

If you want to define DAI as any small scale issue that might be inconvenient to someone, then you end up dealing with too many local problems for any coherent approach.

GHGs pose a unique threat to the planet and in ways that we have not equipped ourselves well to deal with. While euipping ourselves with those tools is obviously a work in progress, you need to recognise that the potential problem from GHGs is fundamentally different in kind (not just in degree) from land-use change.

Roger, the paragraph to which you respond "Huh?" is an odd one to me too. My reading of it, though, is that minimising climate change is not the only goal (it is in fact only a means to an end). The greater goal is to reduce evidence of society's imprints on nature (which is part of an even greater goal, but that would stray too far for this discussion). Unfortunately, if my reading is correct, this means Caldeira should have noted, as did Margo, that forests aren't all 'natural'.

To echo Dan's comment, forests can have benefits beyond their potential role in global climate regulation: g/w recharge, water purification, habitat provision, runoff regulation, as well as local climate regulation thru moisture recycling.

Lastly, since we're talking forests, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, there are two papers by Rob Jackson et al, one in Global Change Biology and a follow-up in Science (both 2005), noting that afforestation can come at a cost of reduced water availability and augmented hydrological drought - trading water for carbon.

Thanks for the post.

Gavin-

Thanks. You may want to shine some bright light on some of your basic assumptions, as follows:

1. You write "Let's imagine a situation where GHG changes are negligible, but that climate changes were being driven totally by land use change. I would argue that this would be a situation in which there would be no push for international treaties and indeed no talk about dangerous interference."

How then do you explain the UN Convention on Combating Desertification?
http://www.unccd.int/main.php

If land use changes were indeed to have systemic effects (UNCCD is mainly in Africa) then there is every chance for an international treaty. We can argue counterfactuals all day, but experience suggests that international treaties and cooperation occur for a wide range of reasons.

2. You write, " I absolutely agree that anything done to reduce net GHG emissions should not have unnecessary side effects, and those issues require study and assessment."

But should those side effects be considered explicitly in policies, specifically the FCCC? Right now the FCCC does not consider these side effects, at least formally, on both adaptation and mitigation. As someone who has often stated that you want the best science reflected in policy, I find it surprising that you want this aspect of climate science apparently not considered in the FCCC.

3. You write, "If you want to define DAI as any small scale issue that might be inconvenient to someone, then you end up dealing with too many local problems for any coherent approach."

The FCCC has not defined DAI, so its definition is rightly contested. Different interpretations will exist until the term is defined. We can also argue about this all day as well. IPCC WGII will have its go at this shortly. I doubt it will resolve the issue. The entire concept is unworkable in my view. Article 2 needs to be renegotiated from scratch.

4. You write, "GHGs pose a unique threat to the planet and in ways that we have not equipped ourselves well to deal with. While euipping ourselves with those tools is obviously a work in progress, you need to recognise that the potential problem from GHGs is fundamentally different in kind (not just in degree) from land-use change."

You are preaching to the choir with this one. If we are to be concerned with climate change, then we necessarily must include these other factors or else our policy responses will fall short.

Getting back to the original motivation for this discussion, Caldeira writes and op-ed about the importance of land-use change and then restricts our attention back only on GHGs as far as policy is concerned.

Policy makers, the public, and experts are all smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. We can devise policies that recognize the real world complexities of these issues. It is not, as you would have it, either-or. As Caldeira concluded, "We cannot afford to indulge ourselves with well-intentioned activities that do little to solve the underlying problem."

Some people think that GHGs are the only problem related to climate that we need to think about or reflect in policy. I think we need a focus on GHGs AND other issues. This view is only problematic for those who want to focus only on GHGs.

Hi Daniel- Thanks for participating. You write, "The greater goal is to reduce evidence of society's imprints on nature . . ."

I certainly don't see this in the FCCC, though I'd agree that some participants in the debate hold this view.

I agree with you 100% when you write, "forests can have benefits beyond their potential role in global climate regulation: g/w recharge, water purification, habitat provision, runoff regulation, as well as local climate regulation thru moisture recycling." These other factors are missed when we orient everything with respect to GHGs.

Thanks for the references!

Gavin-

Your statement

"Let's imagine a situation where GHG changes are negligible, but that climate changes were being driven totally by land use change. I would argue that this would be a situation in which there would be no push for international treaties and indeed no talk about dangerous interference. The magnitude of the changes would simply be too small (at the global scale) to engender global cooperation to do anything substantial about it "

conflicts with the finding in the 2005 National Research Council report, where it states in the Executive Summary [http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=5],

"Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climatic implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. Tropospheric aerosols and landscape changes have particularly heterogeneous forcings. To date, there have been only limited studies of regional radiative forcing and response. Indeed, it is not clear how best to diagnose a regional forcing and response in the observational record; regional forcings can lead to global climate responses, while global forcings can be associated with regional climate responses. Regional diabatic heating can also cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. Improving societally relevant projections of regional climate impacts will require a better understanding of the magnitudes of regional forcings and the associated climate responses."

Clearly, as concluded by that Committee, land use/land cover changes have global climate consequences. This is a view documented in a wide range of recent publications (e.g. see

Feddema et al. 2005: The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates., 310, 1674-1678.
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/Feddema2005.pdf

"1. I didn't say local effects were 'trivial' - I said they were trivial compared to BAU scenarios for 2100."

"No amount of tree planting is going to change global mean temperatures by 3 deg C in 100 years"

The actual CO2 that will be emitted is not going to change 3 deg C in 100 years. As I pointed out on the Gristmill blog, the IPCC's "BAU scenarios" do not reflect business as usual, except in some computer's unthinking memory banks:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/12/111531/748#10

A total warming of 1.4 deg C in 100 years (i.e., the mininum value in the IPCC TAR) is a realistic 50 percent probability estimate, based on realistic values for CO2, methane, black carbon, and other forcing agents in the 21st century. A 3 deg C warming is not at all realistic.

Roger, I think you've missed part of Caldeira's point by focussing too narrowly on climate change agreements.

Caldeira expresses concern not only for effective climate change policies, but also for the broader objective of protecting biodiversity: "The broadest goal is neither to slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nor to slow climate change, but rather to preserve the irreplaceable natural balance that sustains life as we know it on this planet."

From this perspective, it seems that Caldeira takes the position that the biodiversity gains from maintaining and increasing temperate zone forests more than counterbalance any adverse contributions that such forests might make to the climate change equation.

As a further policy position, it would seem that Caldeira would conclude that it might make sense for international treaties to provide credits for afforestation of tropical forests, but not for temperate zone forests.

Do you disagree with Caldeira on any of these points?

Aside from a focus on tropical forests (which would involve a flow of funds from the developed world to countries that are largely not responsible for current GHG levels), I would not expect that questions of local land use/albedo changes will find much traction in climate change discussions. Unlike GHGs, such issues do not involve the use of a global commons, are less susceptible to uniform approaches and lie closer to each nation's concern about national prerogatives.

I would be very interested in hearing more of your prescriptions for fixing the UNCCC/Kyoto, in anticipation of the possibility that US policy makers may some day show a sincere interest.

While we're on the topic of renegotiating climate change agreements, I would vote for tying in (1) coordinated approaches to assisting development in the third world (with a focus on proper governance and rule of law), which is least prepared to adapt to climate change, and (2) provide mechanisms for the developed world to compensate nations with tropical forests (which provide crucial cliamte, biodiversity and ecosystem benefits) for maintaining and defending them.

Regards,

Tom

Tom- Thanks for your comment.

I did not read Caldeira's op-ed as being about defending biodiversity, but pretty narrowly focused on climate change and GHGs.

Not all international collaborative efforts are focused on commons problems. Many are, but not all. See my response to Gavin above.

See the recent paper by Lahsen and Nobre posted here a week ago or so about some of the politics involved with developing world forests.

Thanks!

Is the real danger from these tree planting trees schemes not the "fake" action taken by people? So many people now buy off their activities through the planting of a few trees.
This makes everybody feel good without actually changing their behaviour and reducing their carbon footprint.

It is an easy way out for those who feel guilty when going on holiday or driving a big SUV.

Rodger,

I think that you are reading Caldeira's op-ed too narrowly. The main point is one that you seem to agree with.

The message I come away with from this op-ed is that when developing policies we have to realize that global warming is a complicated and multi-faceted problem. Because of the complexity of the problem, there will be no simple solutions. This is your position, correct?

Remember the audience. This is not a technical paper in a science journal. Its the popular press for popular consumption. The average person is not going to think about the technical details. The average person will perceive the message that the article is trying to send.

Joseph- Thanks for your comment.

Caldeira's article does indeed point out one of the complexities of the climate change issue. He then proceeds to suggest a "simple solution" in the face of these complexities.

The media routinely discusses topics like Iraq, Israel-Palestine, hedge funds, poverty, disasters, globalization, etc. etc. all topics which are complicated and which defy simple solutions. I do not doubt that the average person can understand that these issue have substantial complexities. Climate change is no different ...

Thanks!

Roger,
I think Caldeira does mention 'the solution' shortly before closing.

" This means solving the real problems involved with storing and distributing power, providing energy for transportation, and using nuclear plants."

However, he then returns to the tree theme.

Roger, I disagree that Caldeira is recommending any simple solutions.

I think that it is pretty clear that Caldeira gives his stamp of approval for planting more trees in temperate zones because of what he considers that their net benefit for biodiversity outweighs any negative effect on albedo - since one chief of aim of slowing climate change is the preservation of biodiversity. It's also clear that he doesn't favor any credits for such temperate zone efforts in climate change agreements.

Do you have any material disagreement with him on these points?

Several quibbles might be as follows:

- in the developed nations, the significant trend is already towards afforestation (deliberately or by naturally) as rural populations decline and cities grow, so except for benefits to be gained from tree-planting in urban centers, there is little justification for pupblic policies to grow forests;

- corporate "offset" programs that involve planting trees in the developed world are menaingless feel good measures that are in fact a scam; and

- in face of the afforestation trends we may actually need, as Margo notes in a comment, to have some deliberate buring programs if we wish to preserve prairies in some parts of the midwest.

Regards,

Tom

Roger,

OK I see what you're saying. Perhaps Caldiera should do a multi-piece news story instead of the few paragraphs in an op-ed.

I will say that the necessary nuances get lost in an op-ed, in what has to be short article.

I don't think that readers can't understand the complexities, they just don't expect them in a short op-ed.

1. How sure are people that tropical trees cool? I was under the impression that the pleistocene Northern Australia record showed that trees provided positive monsoonal feedback, increasing local rel. humidity, allowing tropical conditions to penetrate further south than they do today.

2. Should we give positive climate credits for cutting down tiaga?

I was a little curious about this un-asked question:

Are we even certain planting trees sequesters more carbon than not planting trees? In all circumstances?

I did a little googling and discovered (to my surprise) the answer may be "No. Sometimes grassland sequesters more carbon!"

It turns out, as visible as wood is, lots of carbon is sequestered in the soil itself. It appears that in the moister praries, replacing grasslands with trees results in a net release of carbon to the atmosphere.

So Caldeira's closing line "And then we can plant a tree" may be even more oversimplified than Roger initially suggested!

FWIW: The sequestration of CO2 in prairie soils are dicussed in these two articles:

1. Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Jackson, Banner, Jobbagy, Pockman, & Walls. Nature Vol. 418, August 2002
2. Uncertain Sinks in the Shrubs. Goodale, and Davidson. Nature Vol. 418, August 2002

Hmmm: "The greater goal is to reduce evidence of society's imprints on nature."

Please explain how it is that humans are not part of nature. The statement is meaningless. Whatever humans do, by definition, is part of nature.

If the goal is to reduce the evidence of humanity's imprints on the _rest_ of nature, then may I suggest the most effective solution is the elimination of the human species -- which is the direction some seem to be driving toward.

"I suggest the most effective solution is the elimination of the human species -- which is the direction some seem to be driving toward."

Nice strawman, Pops.

Would you say that the prominent scientists who joined with the National Assiciation in the statement on climate change and other environmental and developmental issues that RP Jr. noted in his post on the 18th (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001058kudos_for_explicit_p.html) are trying to deal honestly with difficult issues, or trying to eliminate mankind?

Two things, Tom.

First, I'm still curious how it is that humans aren't considered part of nature.

Second, it wasn't a strawman. Case in point: the ban on DDT, with a death toll of 90 million and counting. Eliminating human GHG emissions over a short period of time could easily top that.

The point is that by engaging in hyperbole and hysteria, evangelical climate researchers are empowering clueless people to do great harm.

The trivia question goes something like this -- Who is responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century?

a. Adolph Hitler
b. Joseph Stalin
c. Mao Tse Tung
d. Rachel Carson and friends (Bill Ruckelshaus comes to mind)

Correct answer, and not even close: d. Good intentions coupled with exaggerated risks and an ill-conceived remedy killed a lot of people. We should learn something from that and not repeat it.

Pops, thanks for the favor of a response.

Let`s start with Rachel Carson and friends. I gather you are really talking about DDT. Perhaps you should read further; here (including links) is a start: http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/. Even if you want to directly attribute all malaria deaths to a lack of use of DDT, how is Ravhel Carson or the EPA to blame? Carson was not a dictator or even a politician, and Ruckleshaus had no responsibilities for other nation`s policies on DDT use (which, to my understanding, third world nations themseleves banned, but only for agricultural use - not domestic spraying, which has continued). Next, of course, decisions on whether particular pesticides should be banned or restricted are neither monolithic nor static. There is no basis to attribute deaths outside the US to a US regulatory decsion which applied only within the US, and after malaria had already been eliminated here, and of course countless politicians and regulators here and elsewhere have had many opportunities to alter any bans or restrictions.

As for whether we are a part of nature or not, first of course we all speak for ourselves, so I question your desire to attribute either the words or discerned meanings of some to others. Second, when one speaks of preserving biodiversity, it is generally a given that we are of course preserving mankind. Third, I would note that Lomborg and others also point to the fact that economic development in the West has actually been leading to a lower footprint on nature, and to increasing forests and to improved air and water quality - these types also display a desire to minimize man`s impact on the rest of nature, or at least feel that such a goal is entirely consistent with improving living standards. Fourth, I would point out that many (myself included) think that the best way, given the fact that the most pressing environmental problems are in the less developed world, to lower our collective impact on nature is actually to improve the lot of our poorest relatives, by improving the governance and rule of law.

Finally, I suppose that I may be talking into the wind. No one really interested in discussion on climate change or biodiversity thinks that the primary objective of others is to eliminate mankind. That is simply a device to allow you to limit the effectiveness of your own voice, by telling others that you don`t care to listen to them.

Sincerely,

TT

Tom,

Greetings from the frozen tundra.

We disagree less than you think, but I feel a need to repeat the point about motives: good intentions coupled with exaggerated risks and ill-conceived remedies have the potential to do great harm.

The trivia question was awful, wasn't it? Sorry about that. I take it we agree that hyperbole and hysteria are deplorable methods for promoting a position. I didn't intend to illustrate the point by being a bad example, but there it is.

We seem to share the objective of maintaining a healthy planet that is good for all of nature, humans included. Perhaps it's just semantics, but I don't see "human footprint" as the best measure of harm to the planet, given that the human footprint includes, um, my house, among other things. It's a modest house, and I find the implication that the planet would be better off if my house didn't exist terribly offensive.

If the AGW thing plays out in a manner that reduces global net wealth, it will cripple our ability to move forward in improving the condition of our planet and all life forms on it. I infer from your comment that you agree. One of the first rules of engagement should be, "Do no harm."

Regards,
Pops

Anybody claiming that Rachel Carson is responsible for more deaths than Stalin or Hitler is a nut case. Period. If you want anybody to take anything you say seriously, you need to stop utter idocy like that.

Pops:

Happy to see we`re headed toward common ground.

I understand the negative connotations you see in "reducing the human footprint". I prefer a positive focus on things that we value, such as strong and healthy ecosystem services and biodiversity, and to moderating the tragedy of the commons situation that leads to unthinking and ultimately counterproductive over-exploitation.

On this latter theme, while I share your concern that collective action should be cautiously agreed so that we do not do net economic damage, I would point out that of course destroying common resources and altering the climate itself has already been imposing costs (costs that I think are sure to mount as we delay). Just look at what we have been doing to the oceans with our essentially unregulated and destructive fishing practices, for example. As GDP stats don`t take into account the value of ecosystem services but do include the value of private goods wrested from them, we report economic gains as we destroy important regional or global open-access resources.

I would also ask you to consider how man has generated wealth over the past millenia - by acting cooperatively to develop institutions and practices that avoid the tragedy of the commons and allow wealt-building market transactions. This is why the West, with rule of law and the development of private property institutions (as well as institutions that manage collective, open-access property), has prospered so much recently - and corruption and the abuse of "common property" underpins the problems in developing nations. See Yandle: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.

We need to look rationally at all of commons and figure out the best way to manage them, for our own long-term benefit.

So how are things in the land of thawing tundra? Even as you gain forests where none existed before, the pine bark beetle is destroying older ones. In Alaska at least, you can use oil revenues to pay for rebuiling off-kilter roads, if not private infrastructure. Still, I imagine you are looking forward to longer days and to spring.

Sincerely,

Tom