Zero Sum Climate Politics
The partisan climate debate seems to surprise those who don’t normally swim in its treacherous waters. Joe Nocera, a NYT business columnist, appears taken aback by his experience this week, which he discusses today:
Here’s the question on the table today: Can a person support the Keystone XL oil pipeline and still believe that global warming poses a serious threat?
To my mind, the answer is yes. The crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, which the pipeline would transport to American refineries on the Gulf Coast, simply will not bring about global warming apocalypse. The seemingly inexorable rise in greenhouse gas emissions is the result of deeply ingrained human habits, which will not change if the pipeline is ultimately blocked. The benefits of the oil we stand to get from Canada, via Keystone, far outweigh the environmental risks.
When I tried to make that case on Tuesday, however, I was cast as a global warming “denier.” Joe Romm, who edits the Climate Progress blog, said that I had joined “the climate ignorati.” Robert Redford “” yes, that Robert Redford “” denounced my column in The Huffington Post. “Let’s put the rhetoric aside, and simply focus on the facts,” he wrote.
Let’s put rhetoric aside.
Heh. Such a quaint notion. Because if there’s one thing that characterizes the public climate debate, it’s rhetoric that turns facts upside down.
On the other side of the spectrum, for example, you could get lost in the funhouse at Powerline, a politically conservative website that twisted a recent paper in Nature to declare of climate science: “And the house of cards starts to come down.”
In his Powerline post, Steven Hayward, a policy analyst for the libertarian/conservative American Enterprise Institute, writes:
It’s fun watching these guys fall on their face in real time. The whole circus is falling apart much faster than I expected. I can tell you that around Washington the whole climate change angle is slowly being dropped from conversation about everything. It’s almost like talking with normal people again.
Today, what passes for normal in the climate conversation is hyperbole and distortion.
Here’s one I love.
“Skeptics” are now (again) claiming Mojib Latif as one of their own.
Two more prominent german climate scientists ““ Latif and Marotzke- break ranks and concede natural causes
Now in order to do so, they have to say that Latif, whose opinion they consider important, is also an idiot who doesn’t realize what he’s doing.
“Of course Latif and Marotzke may try to deny or underplay their latest admissions, which they probably do not even realise they have made.”
Here’s what Latif said the last time “skeptics” played rhetorical games with his science.
“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily.”
This is climate politics. Those who do not go all the way are either not serious or pussies 😉
Joshua
It’s depressing that so few ‘sceptics’ seem capable of sorting out arguments into their component parts. Conflation (and misrepresentation) seem to be diagnostic of the mindset.
Or as Keith puts it, ‘rhetoric that turns the facts upside down’.
In this case, the components are natural variation and the emerging anthropogenic signal.
(For those unfamiliar with l’affaire Latif, the original confusion over arose from an article in the New Scientist by Fred Pearce. Thinksbreak had something to say about it at the time).
When I tried to make that case on Tuesday, however, I was cast as a global warming “denier.” Joe Romm, who edits the Climate Progress blog, said that I had joined “the climate ignorati.” Robert Redford “” yes, that Robert Redford “” denounced my column in The Huffington Post. “Let’s put the rhetoric aside, and simply focus on the facts,” he wrote.
I just Ctrl-F’ed in both links and neither calls Nocera a “denier”.
What a drama queen.
Also:
But let’s be honest. It’s not going to change anyone’s behavior. If Keystone is ultimately blocked, the far more likely result is that everyone who opposed it will get to feel good about themselves while still commuting to work, alone, in their S.U.V.’s.
Oh, I see. It’s Nocera who’s playing the “zero sum” game. Apparently, unless people can stop climate change all at once, they shouldn’t try to do anything incremental or, *shudder*, symbolic.
tb –
“Apparently, unless people can stop climate change all at once, they shouldn’t try to do anything incremental or, *shudder*, symbolic.”
Binary mentality.
As a practical matter, whether or not the Keystone pipeline is constructed has to do with how oil sand crude is delivered to the US, not if. Therefore, the only change if it is constructed is the ability of Canada to export this material to third countries, noteably China. It also should be noted that China now has substantial holdings in Canadian base oil sand corporations. So whose oil sand is it anyway?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-11/china-welcome-to-expand-investment-in-canada-oil-minister-oliver-says.html
Suncor refinery in Denver for example, is already processing oil sand crude. http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx
This industry source gives US oil sand use at 10% of imports: http://www.aopl.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=665
And has this map of existing pipelines:
http://www.aopl.org/
#4
Oh, I see. It’s Nocera who’s playing the “zero sum” game. Apparently, unless people can stop climate change all at once, they shouldn’t try to do anything incremental or, *shudder*, symbolic.
Stopping the Keystone Pipeline will at most raise the cost of burning Canadian Oil sands by $3/barrel. Most of that $3 will be ‘energy burned by the trains’.
So by the time we average out the fact that Canadian Oil sands will only account for 1/40th of the supply the market impact will be pennies per gallon.
Do you think anyone will make a driving decision or Automobile purchasing decision based on a price differential of 2 or 3 cents/gallon?
Since stopping the Keystone pipeline will do nothing to change consumption and cause the transportation of that oil to be made by belching trains that derail and spill their cargo on a regular basis rather then ‘clean’ pipeline I don’t think it can’t even be called a ‘symbolic victory’, it falls into the ‘own goal’ category.
It is one of the truly curious things about the whole ‘Global Warming’ campaign…the ‘problem’ is based not on primary impacts…but secondary and tertiary impacts…so one would think the people involved would understand secondary and tertiary impacts…but they don’t.
If you close a pipeline whatever was carried by the pipeline will just travel by train or truck unless the cost of transporting by train or truck raises the price beyond a point that impacts demand.
What is clear is that Keystone XL was blocked by “environmentalist” pressure using AGW theory as an important part of their rationale. Blocking Keystone XL is economic and national security idiocy for the USA. This is not turning any facts upside down nor is it obscure.
David Roberts at Grist offers new hope for climate hawks and the ultimate cure for deniers 🙂
“˜Cohort replacement’: Climate deniers won’t change, but they will die
Most climate hawks have finally moved past the “deficit model,” the notion that the solution to climate skepticism is to pour more facts on the pile or repeat the science more slowly and loudly, like an American tourist overseas. But the implicit assumption that the road to climate progress runs through the hearts and minds of the doubtful remains intact.
Over time, I have come to disagree. I don’t think the climate deniers will ever change their minds. What will happen is that they will, to put it bluntly, die off. We might wish it otherwise, but I fear that change on climate “” real change, non-linear change “” will not happen until the generational cohort in which climate denialism is concentrated begins passing into the sweet beyond.
There’s a polite term for this process: “cohort replacement.” This nice introductory post defines it as “the replacement of old guards of organizational members and leaders with newer cohorts who have different beliefs, opinions, and values.” It’s a strangely underappreciated mechanism of social change, but if you ask me, it gets the lion’s share of the credit for most substantial social shifts over the last century. People rarely change their minds, especially about matters core to ideology and identity. But they do die!
http://grist.org/climate-change/cohort-replacement-climate-deniers-wont-change-but-they-will-die/
#9 -Jarmo –
But that will necessitate that the “warmists” keep the brainswashing conspiracy going so that all young children can be indoctrinated into the AGW cult. Might be a little tough, but given that all those librul teachers are in on the hoax – they could probably pull it off.
A new anthem for the unconvinced:
I’m unbeatable
My mind’s untreatable
Crimes unrepeatable
Public enemy number one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElnBXmQBCgk
#10
I doubt that indoctrination will work on all people.
This is interesting:
Climate denial is largely concentrated among conservative white men. And not just conservative white men, but old conservative white men, otherwise known as the GOP base.
I think he is right about this:
People rarely change their minds, especially about matters core to ideology and identity.
But I thought AGW is a matter of scientific evidence and proof. The reason I don’t buy all the stuff about climate catastrophies is because the evidence is not there.
PS. How old is old? Over 30?
Jarmo
But I thought AGW is a matter of scientific evidence and proof. The reason I don’t buy all the stuff about climate catastrophies is because the evidence is not there.
It’s happening slowly. It takes a long time to heat up a planet (oceans and all). This is the difficult part. Understand the science and this is clear, as is the likelihood of trouble when 9bn people and world agriculture meet climate change head-on mid-century. Dismiss the science and insist on ‘evidence’ – by which you mean catastrophe now – and you can tell yourself what you want to hear.
“It takes a long time to heat up a planet (oceans and all).”
It takes about 6 months, every spring/summer.
Have you ever gone swimming in the sea off Britain in February?
– 12 – Jarmo –
“But I thought AGW is a matter of scientific evidence and proof. The reason I don’t buy all the stuff about climate catastrophies is because the evidence is not there.”
First, not many scientists conclude “proof.” For example, the IPCC puts for a conclusion that it is 90% likely that more than 50% of recent warming is ACO2 caused.
Second, “proof” is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Different people look at the evidence and draw different conclusions. My guess is that at least some of the time, the explanation for different conclusions based on the same evidence is confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. There is much evidence to support my thinking in that regard as a general principle.
NiV
Have you ever gone swimming in the sea off Britain in February?
I’m not that mad.
(I assume you are being facetious about GAT/OHC trends).
#13
BBD, I understand perfectly well things will happen slowly. According to observations, much slower than even the scientists thought.
That’s why I think accrediting every heat wave, flood, snowstorm etc. to AGW and making up stories about climate refugees is.. well… propaganda.
I agree warming will be a problem but I don not think it will be a catastrophy. Population growth is actually a bigger problem IMHO. Like Pakistan having 100 million more people by 2050.
“I’m not that mad.”
🙂
“(I assume you are being facetious about GAT/OHC trends).”
Not entirely. Changes will happen slowly, but not because it takes a long time to warm a planet up. It’ll take place slowly because the extra forcing is only increasing slowly. OHC is not the issue.
But I wasn’t being entirely serious, either.
Jarmo
BBD, I understand perfectly well things will happen slowly. According to observations, much slower than even the scientists thought.
Aerosols, possible onset of solar minimum, La Nina dominant – flat GAT for a decade… Lots going on. But don’t be misled by the various over-interpretations of what is happening at the moment. The radiative forcing from CO2 continues to increase as the atmospheric fraction of the gas increases. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system unless reflected into space by greater stratospheric aerosol loading. So either Hansen is right (he thinks it’s aerosols) or the energy is heating the deep oceans.
As I said earlier, the implications for mid-late century agriculture are disturbing: the Hadley cells are expanding already. Rainfall patterns will shift poleward and the productivity of the NH breadbaskets will suffer. Add 2bn people to the mix and you have big problems. Even catastrophic ones. And all this without a hurricane or an inch of sea level rise.
#15
I agree with your points. However, my original reaction was to the Grist article that pretty much stated that one’s position on AGW is dictated by their political affiliation.
#19
As far as how much warming will take place, where and when …. I think nobody knows for sure. Only thing for certain is that doubling of CO2 will produce about 1 degree C warming.
I have read a few studies on agriculture and climate change and they are not in fact very pessimistic. Apparently we have read different studies.
Jarmo (#9) claims “cohort replacement” will pave the way for the ultimate acceptance of AGW theory.
A problem with this viewpoint is that belief in AGW is falling among all groups and ages. As the years pass and no net warming and likely even global cooling is manifest very few converts, especially among the young will be made. Belief overall in AGW is headed down quickly. Notice the recent upsurge of criticism of AGW theory in Germany. AGW is headed for the dustbin of history. It is fun to watch this process unfold along with the rationalizations of the diehard believers in AGW.
#22
Actually, the honour of that claim belongs to David Roberts 😉
My take on this question is different. Young people in general are more concerned about global questions but as far as AGW is concerned, most of them are ignorant. They can repeat the slogans from the media. It is even worse when it comes to policies. I think maybe 1 in 20 actually knows how EU emission trading works but I am probably too optimistic.
Once they finish their studies, get a job and a mortgage, awareness of the costs of different policies increases.
Roberts assumes that young people will automatically adopt the Grist stance on AGW but I have my doubts on that.
Jarmo
Only thing for certain is that doubling of CO2 will produce about 1 degree C warming.
That’s a no-feedbacks CO2 forcing. We already know that feedbacks net positive simply by observing the current climate system. The most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.
It’s worrying that the information you are using is so misleading.
What agriculture studies are you referencing?
We’ll see the climate sensitivity number for sure in a couple of decades.
As for agriculture, Fischer et al. 2005, available on many sites
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/climatemonograph_advance.pdf
#25
The link is a recent ifpri study from 2010
Jarmo
You do understand that you were accidentally using the no-feedbacks forcing value for CO2?
Your link to Fischer et al. (2005) doesn’t work. I found it here though.
Not sure what you found so reassuring:
The results from the study suggest that critical impact asymmetries due to both climate and socio-economic structures may deepen current production and consumption gaps between developed and developing world; it is suggested that adaptation of agricultural techniques will be central to limit potential damages under climate change.
Have a look at Wang (2005):
Since the only major areas of future wetness predicted with a high level of model consistency are part of the northern middle and high latitudes during the non-growing season, it is suggested that greenhouse gas warming will cause a worldwide agricultural drought.
Quite a bit of ‘adaptation of agricultural techniques’ is going to be required by the sound of things.
“Can a person support the Keystone XL oil pipeline and still believe that global warming poses a serious threat?”
Yes.
First because any increased emissions related to this are statistically irrelevant even if CO2 is the driver the IPPC et al imagine it to be. On that tangent, one could similarly argue that a person cannot drive a car or fly anywhere and still believe in the AGW story.
Second, the oil sands will be developed and used no matter what. The Canadian Prime Minister was JUST in China (see link below) and thinks went just peachy. (Even got some loaner pandas and, related to another post here, also arranged a deal to sell more uranium to them too.) So what the US doesn’t buy the Asians will. And they will burn it.
Not surprisingly, the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that will send this oil to China is being protested too, but that whole process is shaping up to be a major backfire. So far it has simply raised the point that ‘Canadian environmentalists’ have been heavily funded by Amercian Greens, which has not gone over too well to put it mildly. Now the charitable tax status of many ‘environmental’ groups is under more scrutiny than ever, with predictable results (see 2nd link below for one example). And by blocking both pipelines, the Greens look like they want to block everything – which they apparently do. Bad PR move.
So. Blocking the Keystone will do nothing except reduce American economic growth while adding to China’s. It will make zero difference to global CO2 emissions. All this is is a symbolic political move which provides a rallying point for the Green Team in the short run. It will be built because there are no valid reason why it should not.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/beyond-the-pandas-stephen-harpers-china-visit-heavy-on-trade-light-on-human-rights/article2335106/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/environmentalists-departure-sheds-light-on-tension-felt-by-green-groups/article2313991/comments/
Jarmo #9,
Cohort replacement takes place no matter your politics, POV, or thinking on specific issues. Based on what I know of people who express doubt about the magnitude of future warming from rising GHG’s, they don’t seem to me to be a particularly old cohort.
I think the same cohort argument has been raised many times before over many subjects, including how scientific paradigm shifts are resisted and often not accepted, even (especially?) by well known scientists. Charley Munger (close associate of Warren Buffet) suggests that lots of really dumb choices are made based on the resistance to changing the way of thinking about a subject, and the more involved/closer to the subject someone is the greater this tendency to make dumb choices. I sometimes think of as a selective blind-spot. This applies just as much to well known scientists in many fields as much as everyone else, of course….. and maybe even climate scientists. The cohort argument applies to them as well. 😉
BBD #24,
“We already know that feedbacks net positive simply by observing the current climate system. The most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.”
The first part of that is almost trivially true, since the Earth’s surface is warmer on average than a black body receiving the Earths’ solar flux. But the ~3C you quote seems to me a lot less than certain. I do expect the true sensitivity to be much better defined within 15-20 years… just about the time as all us “old white guys” have died off. 🙂
BBD Says:
February 12th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Only thing for certain is that doubling of CO2 will produce about 1 degree C warming.”
No BBD, your certainty is is limited to a doubling of CO2 in an isolated vessel in a lab without pressure release subjected to IR.
So far we have not been able to link CO2 levels to temperature in our dynamic and massive atmosphere.
“Today, what passes for normal in the climate conversation is hyperbole and distortion.”
Here’s a new one to add to the hall of shame:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/12/leftist-german-taz-daily-article-on-vahrenholt-climate-skeptics-are-like-viruses/
#27 BBD
You should read more than just the abstract…. bold emphasis is mine.
About cereal production:
Global cereal-production
For the baseline decade 1990, BLS computes world
cereal-production (rice is included as milled equivalent; conversion factor is 0.67 from rice paddy) at 1.8
billion metric tons (G ton), about equally divided
between developed and developing countries, in good
agreement with current statistics. Effects of socioeconomic scenarios are substantial, and results vary in a
range with lower and upper values corresponding to
SRES B1 and A2, respectively. By 2080, BLS projects
global cereal-production in the range 3.7″“4.8 G ton,
depending on SRES scenario. Production in the
developed countries ranges 1.4″“1.6 G ton; thus BLS
computes for the developing countries up to threefold
increases in production from the 1990 baseline levels,
with ï¬vefold and higher increases projected for Africa
in all the scenarios, as a consequence of the substantial
economic development assumed in SRES.
From the conclusions:
The reader is advised to interpret results from A2 discussed herein as being representative of a worst case scenario.
BLS baseline results indicated that differences in
assumed socio-economic development””in this study
represented by the four IPCC-SRES scenarios””can
signiï¬cantly impact global agriculture. Against the
current backdrop of about 1.8 G metric tons of
cereal-production worldwide, BLS computed by 2080
a range between 3.7 and 4.8 G metric tons, with
scenarios B1 and A2 representing the lower and
upper prediction limits. These projections represent a
near doubling of current global production, in response
to the projected rise in population and incomes. The
context behind these ï¬gures is that globally, land and
crop resources, together with technological progress,
appear to be sufï¬cient to feed a world population of
about 9 billion people (13 billion in A2) in 2080
(nevertheless with great uncertainty in some developing regions).
Of particular relevance to
regional food security is the case of sub-Saharan Africa,
where a growing share of people considered undernourished is located. BLS baseline results indicate a
signiï¬cant reduction in both the absolute number and
percentage (compared to world population) of undernourished people, i.e. at risk of hunger, for all SRES
scenarios by 2080, except for A2, due to signiï¬cantly
larger populations and slower per capita income growth
in that scenario. Under A2, BLS predicts the number of
undernourished in 2080 to be 768 million, virtually
equivalent to today’s ï¬gures. Even taking A2 out of the
picture, BLS average results, across scenarios, indicate
150G50 million undernourished people by 2080.
Variability across scenarios, of about 30%, is thus
much larger than computed for global food production
#29
The smiley on my #9 post indicated my amusement. When Roberts is talking about deniers, he could as well be talking about himself.
Gosh – Mark Twain wrote about the “cohort” fallacy:
“When I was 14 I was amazed at how ignorant my father was. When I was 21, I was surprised how much he learned in just 7 years.”
Jarmo: What if the rate of cohort replacement is too slow? Not a rhetorical question…
It’s the climate concerned communityâ„¢ that’s in denial about their own project.
The failure is not caused by deniers or the Koch Brothers or Big Oil or the republican party.
There are 2 reasons for the project’s failure:
1) Scares like this have a limited lifespan. You can only keep people scared for so long then they get bored and want some different scare.
2) Ineptness in the team. Everytime they have an open goal in front of them they trip over the ball and then score at the wrong end. There were no deniers or Big Oilmen at Copenhagen nor at Cancun nor Durban, Yet each time they fail to put anything together except a promise to meet again at another luxury resort.
#36
See “Year Zero” in Cambodia. That’s where they tried it for real.
35 — Add Winston Churchill to Mark Twain
“If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
CAGW is all politics. Of course, those who question it are conservative old white men. These the same people who are experienced enough to have learned that there is no free lunch, that ‘expert’ often means over-educated fool with no experience in the real world, that government really isn’t more efficient that the private sector, that government programs never, ever end, and a politician’s promises aren’t worth the hot air with which they are delivered.
Chris,
Eugenics died a similar death in most countries about 100 years ago. Big eugenics legislation that looked like a sure thing just didn’t make it. The noises and publications and books and lectures went on and on. But the wind went out of the sails and it never recovered, except in a few sad exceptions. Yes, some of the bad legislation lingered for decades, but the push towards a eugenics guided series of countries went by the way side.
Meanwhile, back on the Keystone story:
“The State Department inspector general’s new finding that the State Department’s review of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline was not marred by conflicts of interest or bias is giving a political lift to proponents of the project.
“There is no “˜there’ there in the [Office of Inspector General] report. It doesn’t support conspiracy theories that KXL opponents freely spread,” said Neil Brown, a senior aide to Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)…
“This question “” at root, the future of the planet’s climate…” McKibben said.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/209791-keystone-pipeline-backers-foes-find-ammo-in-new-report
It seems that 99% of the stories I have read on this miss the key point about the alleged ‘rejection’ of this pipeline. There was nothing to reject. The State Dept can only approve pipelines with full routes.
“Because the pipeline route is not yet approved in Nebraska, President Obama had no choice but to strike down the proposal, Gov. Schweitzer explained.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10194309-montana-governor-blames-nebraska-not-obama-for-keystone-rejection
But in the meantime, everybody is playing down this simple fact and making political hay out of it.
Stan: If experts are all so dumb, why should we believe you? How does your lack of expertise constitute proof? Experts, using science, built the machine you used to write your message. Me I am sticking with experts, since I know that actually make things work in the real world (and in the private sector even):
Just a reminder: —
The claim that global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing; those endorsing include the national academies of science of The U.S. U.K. Russia, Australia, China, the EU and so on — Professional scientific societies issuing statements affirming consensus on AGW include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization and so on.
Walter Borden @ 42
I think you missed out the most important letter in Stan’s comment. It was a letter ‘C’ in front of the AGW he mentioned.
On the subject of CAGW, what have all those august bodies got to say? Nothing – because it isn’t a matter for science to answer, it is a value judgement.
To say that humanity has some effect on the climate is to say something trivially true and it is only convenience and political expediency that motivates people to say more that a handful of individuals that deny it.
What happens is a seemless conflation of AGW and CAGW. Often this is done by listing a whole series of supposedly authoritative bodies to try to give the impression they have some expertise about the dangers involved in a milder climate. They have none – but certain agendas seek to give the impression that they have and that they have also endorsed drastic mitigating actions. This also is not true.