Many scientists are confident in their claims that the human effects on global warming through release of greenhouse gas emissions are significant and should be abated. Indeed, this may be the majority among scientists concerning the extent and nature of global warming.
It turns out that most innocent and objective bystanders seeking informed opinions as well as many members of the media and scores of politicians readily accept this dominant view. Consequently, there is wide belief that it is necessary to implement the greenhouse gas emissions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
However, there are numerous counter-arguments to both the analysis of the global warming process as well as the proposed remedies. In the first instance, this debate is not merely about truth and good science. It has become extremely politicized and sides are being drawn on the basis of where the money flows. Both of these influences alter the incentives that scientists face.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Despite the lack of media coverage on their views, a large number of highly-qualified scientists are unconvinced by the mainstream projections. Perhaps the reason so few scientists "out" themselves as skeptics on global warming is that there is a tendency for people with such views to be branded as lackeys of oil companies or big business.
Contrariwise, scientists that promote the gloomier picture on global warming can expect greater ease in finding grant money to support their research. And they are likely to be praised as humanitarians. And what of the public officials who are supposed to be looking after our interests? A quick answer is that politicians and bureaucrats benefit whenever citizens feel that a crisis is looming. It allows them to commandeer more public resources with less resistance from taxpayers and to take credit for taking action.
Clearly, the personal incentives for scientists and public officials are strongly weighted in favor of promoting the apocalyptic view.
Judging from the standpoint of science, it is not possible to conjure up absolute proof that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. There are other explanations for the observed evidence of climate change.
But what about the "objective" evidence that shows average temperatures rising? But there are various reasons to question whether these data are accurate as an indicator of warming trends.
On the one hand, observed warming could be partly the result of a natural cycle of warmer and colder eras. As it is, much of the measured warming in the 20th Century is poised in contrast to a "Little Ice Age" that ended in the 19th Century. Surely, it is misleading to consider such conditions as a norm against which comparisons can be made.
Measurement problems
On the other hand, there are some measurement problems in the data. It turns out that as populations have moved into urban areas, there is less interest in temperatures taken in rural areas.
This means that more temperature reports are being gathered in urban heat islands and airports where temperatures are affected by heat-absorbing buildings and tarmac. Further evidence of this bias is supported by the fact that while surface temperatures are reported to be increasing, atmospheric temperatures have changed very little.
What about reports that global warming has caused a thinning of polar ice? These were mostly anecdotal descriptions that are not supported by evidence. Observed changes in the thickness of Arctic ice seem to cyclical in nature. Most scientific literature on Antarctic ice sheets apparently indicates that there are complex factors affecting these sheets that are poorly understood.
Just as in other activities, benefits of greenhouse gas abatement must be weighed against the costs. Compliance costs associated with the Kyoto Protocol depend upon a variety of assumptions that include the rate of technological progress and how the economy responds. The US requirements would require a cut of projected emissions by 30 percent or more. An estimate by the EIA indicated that attaining such levels would require raising electricity prices by 86 percent and gasoline prices by 53 percent. Such large increases in fuel and electricity rates would have a disproportionate impact on low-income families.
Compliance costly
At the same time, compliance could mean lead that as many as 2 to 3 million workers would lose their jobs. Some estimates put total economic losses for the US to be as high as US$300 billion per year. This would work out to roughly US$4,500 per family of four, with a considerably greater personal impact on those who lose their jobs. Many supporters of Kyoto seem to believe that such costs are justified as a sort of "insurance policy" against an unknowable risk of further warming. Making such a demand is not uncommon when the burden of these substantial costs is being borne by others.
In a private setting, few people would undertake such an expensive insurance scheme to cover risks to themself. Individuals do not ignore costs. There is also a probability that the Earth might be struck by an asteroid. It is easy to predict the response of most if they were told the cost of coverage for perishing in an asteroid crash was US$4,500 a year per family. Most of us would take our chances that the asteroids will miss.
Biased reporting and politicized scientific research have muddled public discussions about the Kyoto Protocol and global warming. It is time to clear the air on these topics and let the oxygen of reason guide us.
Christopher Lingle is Global Strategist for eConoLytics.com.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath