Carbon Emissions – no effect on climate change?

Thanks for sharing! A new and improved version of the video is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

His argument is clear and compelling. I like that his conclusion is to advocate public policy changes rather than behavioral changes — since I think a focus on behavior is a distraction from the massive policy changes that are actually needed.

From a purely logical standpoint, his argument does ignore one potential scenario — the possibility that massive economic sacrifice will be made and it will in the end have no effect on the problem. Indeed, this is the argument that Bjorn Lumborg and advocates of inaction have been making ever since the science pointing to human-induced climate change became definitive. Bjorn Lumborg argues that even if climate change is man-made, we have little chance of altering it, and it would be better to spend our money where it can better alleviate suffering.

But Lumborg’s argument ignores a glaring fact that is very relevant to the discussion — that climate change is caused by our reliance on a form of energy that is finite and that will sooner or later be exhausted, at which point human suffering will be great. One need only look at the effects of the recent sudden spike in the cost of energy, and its effect on people’s lives to see the problem with our reliance on finite energy sources. At some point, and no one knows exactly when, demand for fossil fuels will bump up against the final limits of supply, and this will cause massive disruption in people’s lives.

Free-market purists would argue that this is a problem that can be handled by the market, and in one sense, they’re right. Rising fossil fuel prices will eventually cause investment in alternatives, which will become inexpensive by comparison. The problem is that the transition is likely to be very painful, especially if it is sudden, and markets are indifferent to human suffering. To alleviate suffering by smoothing these transitions is the job of public policy.

For this reason I would argue that, even in the case that our investment in energy efficiency and renewable power does not reverse global warming (and unfortunately, we’ll never be able to look back in hindsight and say definitively whether it did or did not), it will still be money well spent. The Earth has a finite mass. There’s only so much stuff inside of it to pull out and make into energy.

Apologies for basically repeating what David said above – that an immense energy shortage will be hugely detrimental. We may be seeing the beginning of that, in my opinion, as energy prices rise with an effect on food prices via transportation. The human cost of energy is already noticeable in conflicts going on in oil-rich nations – another side impact of fossil fuel usage is its effect on the politics of energy security.

I agree with the conclusion of having to take action, but not necessarily the journey there which I believe is overly optimistic, both in the scenarios painted and in human nature.

1. GCC, ignoring any denials for now, is a consequence. It is one of many consequences of the depletive way of living which is spreading rempantly from OECD populations into everywhere. Taking action against consequences is never idea, do so to just one of several is … (I run out of vocabulary to describe it).

2. The bottom left box is not just “$” and “:)”. If you take extreme scenarios only, the same “depression” in the top left box should be there also. (see 5 below also)

3. There is excessive consumption of not just energy but all resources. I agree fully about having the earth’s finite mass. For energy, at least we have solar inflow.

4. Much of the “action” appear to be about hiding carbons and moving to non-carbon energy. Both may be successful in altering GCC, but they do nothing to depletion.

5. Pesuaded behavioural change and purist free-market attitude will work to an extent, but the biggest impact is likely to be a widening divide between haves and have-nots. Taking an extreme scenario aproach, this will eventually result in either severe oppression or social anarchy. It is entirely feasible and logical to extrapolate such scenarios into that in the bottom right box.

6. There is a belief out there that globalisation while drives economic activities and efficiencies, there is an increasing penalty on freight miles and acceleration of depletion.

7. If we take another step back from GCC and consider depletion of resources (and associated habitat destruction for ALL species including us), you can really simplify the matrix into a 1×2 – there is no room to argue that it is not happening and we are not causing it. We have to take action.

8. I have been an almost life long believer of free-markets, but I in the past decade, I have struggled increasingly with how to reconcile it with actions needed to arrest depletion. Increasingly, I find myself drifting towards policy and regulation tools.

I agree with Dale’s comments about no sudden shortage and the methods, ploicies and solutions mismatch.

Oil reserves and production rates are very dependent on prices. In most cases, wells face economic rather than technical decisions to shut down and typically there is more left in the ground than there is produced. This is very visible in the resersal of onshore US production as stripper wells returned to life as oil price (and expectations) escalated. The opposite will be true now (plus a few years of lag compounded by capex withdrawal/deferral). The same is true for China, North Sea etc. Reserves are still far more of a function of price than a technical one. Fossil fuels is likely to linger on until some overwhelming alternatives emerge (cf: whale oil, wood and charcoal).

Agreeing that something needs to be done is all very well, but the whats and hows will take a generation of debates between amongst others, say OECDs and emerging economies. Meanwhile, habitat destruction, resource depletion, GHG accumulations remain out of control. Life style changes, however modest, remain something we can all control individually, voluntarily and arbitrarily, whether it is reduction in plastics, disposible objects, water usage, or whatever. They should help spur businesses into action.

It is not the time to figure out if GCC is happening or we caused it. If we address habitat destruction and resource depletion, we are on the right path. If there were no GCC or we did not cause it, such action would still result in securing a future.

I think it is all about taking individual actions, small ones to begin with, rather than do nothing and wait for governments to make big decisions. Personal responsibility.

Yes, resource depletion and environmental damage are certain and critical. If we have to go down to a totally selfish level and forget about the eco-support structure, we are ruining the air and water we need. I would also suggest that we have been living off generations of unrealisticly and unstainably cheap resources, be it energy, minerals or water.

There are many possibilities for global warming to reverse because of totally natural (cyclical or not) interventions including axis shift, magnetic polarity change, caldera or other volcanic eruptions etc. Say if it were a perfect scernario, rather than swinging to the other extreme, it simply took global average temperatures down by a degree or two, what then? Ecological damage is still there, resource depletion continues, few if not nobody would think about atmospheric carbon… If we went into global cooling, most if not everyone would be pushing for releasing more GHG/carbon… we would all still end up in that bottom right box in the video’s matrix.

GCC focus is distracting efforts to address properly its root cause. Why home in on just one of many consequences? It is not very different from only precribing asprins for a broken limb. The problem is far greater, but solutions are everywhere, many small steps we can all take rarther than having to rely on multinational agreement on major policy decisions. It should be about leaving the planet to the generation after the same life-sustainability, not just about leaving it at the same temperature.

Totally makes sense. And agreed we would likely make it through as a human race but if there is a way around it without the risk of suffering – while also creating value – why not?? Nice video by the way…simple is good!