So the Labour Party conference was this past weekend, and apart from the "OMG - EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN ARE OUT TO GET US" malarkey, they were talking about climate change. And so, because they were talking about climate change, the mainstream media in New Zealand poked the topic with a stick again. TVOne presented a BBC track that said something interesting.
It wasn't really all that interesting, since every mainstream news source does it. By "it" I mean the obligatory nod to climate-change deniers (read: carbon-emitting industry in one form or another). "Some economists complain that climate science is so uncertain that we shouldn't spend huge amounts now to cut emissions. Professor Stern agrees there is enormous uncertainty, but he says the risks are so great, it would be foolish not to act now."
What does this do in the mind of the listener? Firstly, "some economists" are left unnamed, and their loyalties undiscussed. ExxonSecrets is a handy tool for following the dollar when it comes to climate-change "skeptics" with agendas, assuming we're told their names. Launch the Flash application for a pretty sweet map of connections between industry, think tanks and individuals. But the Average Joe watching the news doesn't know any of that. He hears "some economists" and is left with the impression that somewhere beneath the private funding from ExxonMobil and Philip Morris is a sound argument.
"We shouldn't spend huge amounts now to cut emissions." Music to people's ears, even after the first part of the track presented Stern's grim predictions - a whole fifth of the world's wealth may end up being spent on climate change. For people who have a hard-on for $30 a week's worth of tax cuts, it's great to hear that there's a valid voice in the debate (it's assumed there's a debate) with which to identify. "Climate change? Oh, the jury's out on that one, and some economists say we shouldn't spend huge amounts now to cut emissions. I'm with those guys."
Then Professor Stern "agrees there is enormous uncertainty". About what? Uncertainty about whether or not manmade climate change is occurring? No, there isn't, at least among scientists and peer-reviewed studies that are relevant. So what is Stern saying there is enormous uncertainty about? We don't know. The viewer assumes it's uncertainty about whether or not climate change is occurring.
And finally, "the risks are so great, it would be foolish not to act now." Despite the disturbing prevalence of Pascal's Wager amongst the evangelical Christian community ("If I'm right and you're wrong, you're going to Hell and I'm going to Heaven - do you want to take that risk?"), people can generally sense a dodgy argument when they hear one. And whether or not a risk is worth avoiding depends on how likely we think the bad things are. For example, there is a risk that the sandwich I'm eating has some terrible flesh-eating incurable disease inside that's going to kill me by incurably eating my flesh (terribly), but the chances are so remote that only a mentally ill person would let the matter interrupt his meal.
So "the risks are so great" could mean either "the consequences are so terrible" or "the consequences are so likely". If taken in the former sense, Stern's warnings have an air of lunacy about them.
All in all, it would be much more helpful, and much more realistic, to have a raging debate about whether carbon emissions must be cut by 80% by 2030 or by 90% by 2030. There's the uncertainty. Which is it? 80 or 90? Drill it into the public that if we do not act now, millions of people will die. It is a moral issue, and governments are too busy trying to get re-elected to come out with policies as unpopular as preventing the deaths of millions of people by climate change.
3 thoughts
Some people won't be convinced that greenshouse gas emissions are causing global climate change. My astronomy text book suggests that solar cycles might be the main cause of global climate change.
Even if global climate change isn't man made, there is still the issue of peak oil.
I think that the NZ govt should make efforts to reduce NZ's dependency on fossil fuels but I don't think they should sign the Kyoto protocol.
The Kyoto protocol makes the assumption that governments have a profit motive yet assumes that governments would sign it regardless of whether or not it would come at a financial cost.
Kyoto is also bad in the way that it doesn't include currently existing forests for the purpose of carbon credits. If the entire Amazon was cut down and replanted with genetically modified pine trees, there would be a huge gain in carbon credits for the South American countries involved.
I think multilateral agreements on the environment can be good but not Kyoto.
Post a Comment
Count
Blog Archive
- April 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (2)
- October 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (8)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- November 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (2)
- April 2016 (3)
- March 2016 (8)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (4)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (11)
- May 2015 (9)
- April 2015 (3)
- June 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)
- November 2008 (11)
- September 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (7)
- June 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (5)
- February 2008 (15)
- January 2008 (25)
- December 2007 (6)
- November 2007 (2)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (4)
- July 2007 (20)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (9)
- April 2007 (13)
- March 2007 (5)
- February 2007 (9)
- January 2007 (34)
- December 2006 (7)
- November 2006 (2)
- October 2006 (3)