The Oil Drum | Risk Assessments: Playing the "What If?" Game

290 comments on Risk Assessments: Playing the "What If?" Game

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on July 2, 2009 - 10:23am

But it may happen that CO2 levels will drop regardless of what actions we take

Just to clarify, I certainly believe that. My comment has always been that the CO2 levels would start to taper off when we start running short of fossil fuels. I am skeptical that there will be a major tailing off before that time simply because of the global nature of the issue. All of those coal plants that China is building are going to be around for a long time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dohboi on July 2, 2009 - 10:58am

Even if we stopped all emissions of CO2 right now, atmospheric levels would continue to rise for some time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a good long time. The oceans that have absorbed about half of the CO2 we have emitted will become a source of CO2. We have set off feed back loops, particularly the melting of the Arctic tundra, that will continue to put more CO2 (and the much-more-powerful CH4) into the atmosphere...

This is not a reason for complacency. This is why we have to do all that we can to reduce our contribution.

Likely to happen? Probably not. The debate has moved forward from total stonewalling, but we are still a long way away from even seriously discussing the basic, obvious measures we have to undertake--halting the extraction of ff.

As to "what if I'm wrong," climatologists are first and foremost scientists. They have been asking this rigorously all along. It is only because the science of climate change come gone through this rigorous questioning for decades that now nearly every published climatologist has concluded that AGW is real and dangerous.

To say that they now should ask the question "what if we are wrong" is quite an insult to their status as scientists.

But to answer--if every established scientific body that has weighed in on it and concluded that anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous is wrong, then we will have moved toward a much more sustainable global economy.

If the denialists are wrong and we go with their recommendations, we lose a viable planet.

I'm happy to risk the former over the latter. Even if the odds were low that all the science is wrong here (which they are not by any means), the stakes are so high--one could say absolute--that it makes no sense to ignore the threat.

A "successful economy" can be redefined in any way we wish. Change the goal to merely providing everyone the bare minimum food and water to survive, and to shrink the number and consumption levels of all humans, and we may well be able to pat ourselves on the back that we are moving toward this very rational goal.

A viable planet cannot be so redefined. If it's not viable, we all die.

We are killing the planet to preserve a twisted, completely unrealistic definition of economic success: infinite growth on a limited planet.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

FMagyar on July 2, 2009 - 12:20pm

If the denialists are wrong and we go with their recommendations, we lose a viable planet.

Amen!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on July 3, 2009 - 8:40am

But it will be the one time where they (and thier offspring) get to pay for their crimes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Starship Trooper on July 2, 2009 - 3:47pm

Even if we stopped all emissions of CO2 right now, atmospheric levels would continue to rise for some time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a good long time. The oceans that have absorbed about half of the CO2 we have emitted will become a source of CO2. We have set off feed back loops, particularly the melting of the Arctic tundra, that will continue to put more CO2 (and the much-more-powerful CH4) into the atmosphere...

Maybe CO2 emissions will continue to rise because of the various thermal equilibrium effects and radiative effects of CO2/CH4, etc. However, if you look at the CO2 it does suggest that it is possible to greatly reduce the rate of increase or essentially stop it if (and it's a mighty big if you drop back the rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere to the levels of the late 1960's or early 1970's.

As I heard recently, and long ago concluded myself from the data, it's the cummulative effect that is difficult to deal with given the long residence time and turnover rates of the ocean and the atmosphere in this dynamic equilibrium we see everyday.

In May at Mauna Loa we hit the highest value for CO2 that has been observed at that site and in more than 800,000 years from EPICA data. Today's values are much higher than any previous interglacial we can find in the ice record. No matter what there is a lot of thermal inertia to contend with and that is something to be concerned with.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dohboi on July 3, 2009 - 4:08am

The most recent report that I heard (I'll see if I can find it) is that it can be shown that CO2 concentrations are now higher than they have been in at least 2.1 million years--probably much longer, but this is as far as the data reliably go back to.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SailDog on July 2, 2009 - 7:02pm

This is a great response; and it would be nice if it could be broadcast several times a day for a week to everybody on the planet.

But it won't be; and we will continue to burn coal (oil and gas are almost irrelevant in this debate). Here in Australia we dig a lot of coal out of the ground. Trainloads of it pass within 200m of my house every day on its way to the docks to be burnt in China. And that is the real problem. Coal is a huge part of our economy and the government is promoting it and building new facilities to increase exports even as it is trying to pass our very own cap and trade system in parliament. The coal lobby even has offices in government departments and writes energy policy. Huge money changes hands between the government and the industry in taxes that are the paid back as subsidies of one sort or another. Australians, already the fourth worst carbon emitters on a per capita basis (UAE, Kuwait and Saudi are ahead of us) would be the worst by a long way if the CO2 impact of our coal exports were added in. I see no chance that coal will be left in the ground. Sequestration is nonsense; and so I am afraid we are doomed to destroy the viability of human life on this planet.

We could build an economy based on renewables, but it would require a new social order and the dismantling of the coal lobby.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Mamba on July 2, 2009 - 9:16pm

The consequences of a statement like this one above, when the truth of it sinks into everyone —not just us pointyheads— is that blood will flow. The stakes have never been higher in the history of humankind. If ever there were a reason to become a terrorist, to hunt down and kill lobbyists, industrialists and politicians, this is surely it. I am a mild person who would never do such things, but I foresee the day when others, less timid, will regard their bleak future in rage and turn to thoughts of retribution.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Termoil on July 3, 2009 - 12:33am

Careful, Big Brother is watching don't you know.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Neil1947 on July 3, 2009 - 1:37am

Saildog,
"We could build an economy based on renewables, but it would require a new social order and the dismantling of the coal lobby.
That's no excuse for not doing something on a personnel level then again, some prefer to grumble and do nothing. The Liberal's solution; do nothing. The Greens solution; block something being done by the government, because its not perfect or doesn't go far enough in other words ; joint the Liberals and do nothing.

Lot's of positive steps can be taken now without a new social order or dismantling the coal industry although long term this industry is doomed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SailDog on July 3, 2009 - 3:34am

Hi Neil1947

I agree with everything you say. One minute I am hopeful and full of energy and commitment to go out and change the world, the next I think about the enormity of it all and get very despondent. Lately I have become more convinced than ever that humans are in deep overshoot and that a significant die back is inevitable. Maybe this will sort out global warming and a CPRS will not be needed.

I am a Green Party member and support their opposition to CPRS as espoused by Labour. My view is that the coal lobby have hijacked Labour's good intentions and the current bill is little more than an expensive smokescreen designed to obscure Labour's obsequious kow-towing to the coal lobby. It is shameful yet I have to admit that I admire Rudd's political ability. He is uncannily like Tony Blair in that regard, he just has more of the apparatchik about him.

Actually I hope that CPRS is not implemented, though I suspect it will in an even weaker form. A carbon tax would be much better.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on July 3, 2009 - 1:15pm

"The Greens solution; block something being done by the government, because its not perfect or doesn't go far enough in other words ; joint the Liberals and do nothing."

Give it a break. There are volumes of Greens pushing this stuff with all they've got, and no small number of Liberals, too.. along with a handful of fine and stalwart conservatives.

If you want to say something useful, make a pie chart, find out the real numbers of who is lobbying for new visions in Transportation and Energy, and we can get a view of who's getting ignored and ridiculed because their corporate and reactionary opponents have all-too-successfully blocked any change that criticizes 'Homo-Consumpticus'

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sofistek on July 3, 2009 - 6:04am

"We are killing the planet to preserve a twisted, completely unrealistic definition of economic success: infinite growth on a limited planet."

Economists (and most of the people in developed or developing countries) would not define it like that because they would not even consider the finite nature of the planet. Success is growth. The opposites, finite and infinite, don't even come into it.

Robert was a bit less sure on climate change but I think he should turn round the argument of the denialist. Robert said, "They view the opposition as putting global economies at risk by putting a price on carbon emissions. While I think environmental devastation is a much worse consequence than economic stagnation, the impact of that could be pretty severe as well." But, as dohboi implies, growth cannot go on forever on a finite planet.

So, given that economic growth has to end, what is the risk of the AGW proponents being wrong? It is that humans have to figure out how to live sustainably a bit earlier than they would otherwise have to. Put that way, the risk of being wrong is tiny compared with the risk of the denialists being wrong.

The fanatics might argue that a bit more growth can help lift living standards for the poor around the world. However, New Scientist buried that one in their special report, How Our Economy Is Killing The Earth, last year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Termoil on July 3, 2009 - 9:42am

So, given that economic growth has to end,

I have pondered often on what wemight reaplcethe economic growth meme with to something lessdestructive but that still holds out hope to allofhumanity of a better future. The only thing Iahve been able to come up with is replacing "growth" with "progress". A progressive economy may deliver more intellectual or spiritual opportunities to people rather than the resource and energy hungry gadgets and lifestyles currently on offer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Thaicoon on July 3, 2009 - 3:24am

Hi Robert. I really enjoy your informed posts. Yes, China is the elephant in the global warming room. I honestly think that the carbon trading scheme is a soother for the western concsience. Even if (and that is a BIG IF) we manage to curb our carbon emissions, the efforts of that endevour will be swamped by China's carbon output from industrialisation amd motor vehicles. This is not withstanding positive climate feedback mechanisms that are in train already.

"Are you ready for the country,
Because it's time to go". Neil Young

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

290 comments on Risk Assessments: Playing the "What If?" Game

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)