Anthropogenic Climate Change: Fact, Hoax or Calculated Risk

I have not gone back to reread the posts, but as I recall, when we began these conversations, one of the early posts had to do with climate change, and we agreed, I think, that although measurements may well one day show to everyone's satisfaction that climate change has or has not occurred, no one would ever be able to prove with absolute certainty, that whatever climate change may be occurring, is the result of human activity. We have, in the meantime thrown around words like hoax, ascribing this term to both the activities of the climate change deniers as well as the activities of those apprehensive about climate change. We have questioned the credibility of IPCC.

I want to share some thoughts that occurred to me as I was thinking about US (and Canadian)  involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even before the events of 9/11 2001, there was considerable concern about the ill defined group Al Queda. It was known that Osama Bin Laden gave some leadership to this group, that there was an Afghanistan connection. There had been bombings in Kenya and Yemen, and there had been repercussion. So, although Bin Laden was considered a dangerous man, the cost of attacking him, then, did not warrant the risk.

We now know there were all kinds of indicators that could have been linked to a pending major attack in the US, but a whole bunch of individuals made similar value judgments and did not consider the risk great enough to act on it.

Then the 9/11 attack occurred. That attack altered few facts, but it drastically affected the willingness of US strategists to take risks. The Afghani war lords had been considered poor allies before the 9/11 attack. In fact they were considered corrupt, and although the Taliban was not welcomed by the US, the warlords were considered no better. Now, suddenly, not because of what had changed in Afghanistan, but because of what had occurred in the US, the war lords became worthy allies. Actually not worthy allies, but the [emotional] need to strike against Al Queda became so high, that it became acceptable to take a very high risk, such as partnering up with the war lords.

Then came the preemptive Iraq invasion. This would not have happened had it not been for the 9/11 attack, even though Sadam had nothing to do with that attack. Americans were not angry enough. Bush would not have had enough backing. Who was lying when they said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Who was lying when they implied that Saddam Hussein somehow needed to be taken out because of 9/11? I suggest that probably few were, in true sense of the word lie. I have come to believe, for example, that if a person is sufficiently convinced (based on no evidence, just feeling) that Saddam is building weapons of destruction  then no amount of evidence to the contrary will get that person to change his mind, and he is willing to distort information without even realizing he is doing it.

In the middle of all of this is the military-industrial complex, consisting of the arms manufacturers and the military contractors. Not only do they have SOOOO much to gain if the US pre-empts in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only are they already convinced that armed intervention is the appropriate action in almost every dilemma,  they are the only vested group that has large amounts of money to spend on lobbying.

Opposed to this lobby are the pacifists and the libertarians (like Ron Paul). Because they are opposed to military intervention for very different reasons, their work  together is very limited. But the other reason they have limited effectiveness is because their pockets are very, very small compared to the military-industrial complex.

Of course no one knew for certain the outcome of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Certainly there were those who advocated for the preemptive action, and there were those who argued against it. I suppose the action that was taken was not as drastic as it might have been, nevertheless those who said "we have to act" more or less got it their way.

Enough of war. Now what about climate change?

The Inter-government Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. It gave its first report in 1990, and has now given a total of four reports. Thousands of scientists weigh in on the report, and conclude that based on the measurable indicators and accepted computer models, the risk of climate change is significant (note: not real). Since then the National Academy of Science (US) and every similar organization in the world has expressed concern in line with that of the IPCC. In terms of the war analogy, I compare these scientists with the world wide intelligence network.

Predictably there are two deviants from the information assembled and put forth by the IPCC. On the one hand are the zealots most concerned about climate change. They are willing to compromise on some of the information in their zeal to get the information out. They are found out.

The other deviants are those who conclude that the risk of climate change is significantly less than what  most scientists think.

The counter part to the military-industrial complex here is the fossil fuel industry (as opposed to the energy industry). Their very existence depends on the freedom to transfer sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. This is, in essence, what they do! And they too, have vast amounts of money to spend on lobbying. So they pull out all stops.

In the midst of this there is also an ideological group -- libertarians and others on the far right. This group is convinced that the less government intervention we have, the better off we are. So when the climate change question first comes up, they immediately (correctly) see that any response to reduce the risk of climate change will need more government regulation, which they are opposed to.

It would seem logical then, that this would evolve into a debate on whether the risk of climate change is great enough to warrant increased government regulation, or even what kind of government regulation is appropriate, but that debate has not, and is not occurring.

The result is that, regardless of how the debate may be going within the population,  there has been virtually no government action world wide to slow down climate change. The only significant actions are those by Germany and the Scandinavian countries. All other countries, including significantly the US and Canada, have done nothing of any consequence.

In the two risk cases, Al Queda and Climate Change, why has the world response been so different?  I submit that fundamentally there are two reasons:

• Lobbying. In the case of Al Queda, the moneyed interests were [and are] clearly on the side of  intervention. In the case of Climate Change, the monied interests are even more clearly on the side of doing nothing.
• A cataclysmic event. 9/11 clearly altered the perspective everyone had of Al Queda. It did not alter the risk equation at all, but it did alter people's willingness to risk. The US drought, Hurricane Sandy, the melting glaciers have not been enough to alter people's willingness to risk.
• Ideology (although I do not fully understand this). Libertarianism stands for minimalist government. I embrace much of their caution and concern about big government. So libertarians are against action with respect to climate change as well as with respect to militarism. But I am totally puzzled about the current American Right. It has adopted the libertarian view toward big government -- except in the case of military action. In the case of military action it is utterly pro big government. (I wonder, sometimes, if the first really prominent voice advocating action with respect to Climate Change had not been a leading Democrat, whether the US response would have been different.)

So we will wait for another, bigger, cataclysmic event that will finally shock us into action about climate change. It will come, because the "do nothing" camp is firmly in control. Of course, with every passing year, our response options diminish.