Can Global Warming be Stopped?
There’s much that intrigues me about this recently published study, but let’s start with the University of Utah press release, titled, “Is Global Warming Unstoppable?”
In case that didn’t catch your eye, here’s the dek: “Theory also says energy conservation doesn’t help.”
Now let’s go to the first three concise graphs of the release, which, like the headline, grabs you by the throat:
In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions – the major cause of global warming – cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
“It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates,” says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences.
Garrett’s study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online this week.
Who ever wrote this copy had to have previously worked in journalism. And when was the last time you saw a press release provide that kind of a back story to a study? (Hey, this research was panned and rejected well before it found a publisher.) It’s just brilliant stuff. And so is the rest of the release, which lucidly lays out the study’s methodology, key findings, and implications. There’s even a colorful bit on the researcher’s own “green” lifestyle, set up by this exchange:
So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn’t matter?
“I’m just saying it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn’t be any pretense that it will make a difference.”
Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower.
The only thing missing, if this were a typical newspaper story, are the obligatory quotes from fellow scientists applauding and trashing the study.
So allowing that this study is indeed “provocative” and credible, since it found a home in the journal Climatic Change, why hasn’t it gotten greater pick up in the science media or the blogosphere? After googling the researcher, Tim Garrett, I see that ScienceDaily distributed the University of Utah release and that a few bloggers and local journos noted the study. Beyond that, however, pretty much a black hole. No way you can fault the PR release. It all but screamed, LOOK AT ME. So what gives?
If Garrett is on to something here, then shouldn’t his study be getting more attention?
H/T: Michael Tobis
UPDATE: My hunch was correct. Lee Siegel, the writer of the press release, is a former reporter of 25 years–12 spent with the AP. He also has a flair for headlines and sizzling copy. Check out this one, which gained worldwide notice.
The easy explanation is that the climate news hole was filled by other stuff. Beyond that, I think the idea that our species is addicted to cheap fossil fuels and won’t be able to wean itself off them until the supply shrivels goes against the grain of our root self-image. But it is indisputable that after twenty years of allegedly global attention to the issue we have yet to depart significantly from BAU emissions. In considering why that’s the case we have to go beyond climate and consider that there are several other independent reasons (peak oil/gas, pollution, national security) for sharp reductions in fossil fuel use and that none of those have been able to get much traction notwithstanding lots of talk. This is addictive behavior.
Steve,
The easy explanation is that the climate news hole was filled by other stuff.
True. Breaking through all the blog clatter is tough. Add to that that all the oxygen has been taken up by either the CRU stolen email story or Copenhagen. That said, I’m still perplexed as to why more science journalists haven’t noted this study.
Well, the findings sound a little bit like some of the things Pielke, Jr., has been saying, and that’s pretty unpopular stuff, right? His argument is usually that we tend to be really caught up in mitigation arguments (which is where the action in Copenhagen and climategate is centered) and not much on adaptation, which has to be the big implication–explicitly made or not–of this study (it’s going to happen, let’s figure out how to deal).
I’m not sure the mainstream press sees the debate over adaptation vs. mitigation as controversial or debate-y enough to want to run with this story. Especially when compared with climategate. And, it probably doesn’t make very sweet copy (seems to me a lot of climate reporting has to have a “what you can do about it” angle).
But I like your point about how this press release is written, and bet it would make a good longform story…
Jen
Yes, I agree, Jen. This kind of story is so tricky for the reasons you offer. I have said previously on this blog that we (as a society) need to be able to discuss both adaptation and mitigation, without fear that honest talk of the former will not undermine political and policy action on the latter.
There’s not really much in common with Pielke’s stuff. I haven’t read his paper, but the logic of Garrett’s argument tends toward the point that we won’t plan to adapt in any effective way. IOW, we’ll use up the cheap fossil fuels and then lack both time and resources to avoid the consequences of what will be by then unavoidable large-scale climate change. Of course we will “adapt” whether we want to or not, but as John Holdren says mass suffering is a form of adaptation.
Just for the record, there’s no problem with adaptation until and unless it’s used as a reason to not mitigate. RP Jr., the Breakthrough boys and Lomborg have all crossed that line to varying degrees, which is why their views tend to be more popular with denialists than climate scientists or environmentalists.
I don’t think I agree with your characterization of Pielke, though I think you may be right, to some extent about Shell. and Nord. (and about Lomborg). Also, whether Garrett argues it or not, the implication lends itself to discussions of adaptation rather than mitigation, and the former is much tougher to peg a story to. In fact, I think the only way you can do it is through a personal character story, which is what the press release is kind of mimicking. That’s all I’m sayin’.