The uncertainties about climate change are many and great. How much carbon dioxide may join the atmosphere if nothing is done about it? How much global warming will it cause, and how will local climates, ecosystems and vulnerable species be affected? What impact will such changes have on productivity, comfort and health? And, of course, what are the likely costs of shifting to renewable energy sources and energy conservation?
As more becomes known about climate change -- for example, the role of clouds and oceans -- more uncertainties emerge.
Nevertheless, the greenhouse "theory" -- as it is sometimes disparagingly called -- has been established beyond responsible doubt. There is uncertainty about the quantitative parameters, and there can be doubt about whether the warming of recent decades is entirely due to the "greenhouse effect." But the basics of global warming are not in scientific dispute.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
If we know that the Earth is warming, but are uncertain about how fast and with what effects on climate worldwide, what are the most urgent steps that we should take to address it?
One, of course, is to keep studying climate phenomena and their ecological impact. Another is to promote research and development (R&D) aimed at remediation. We urgently need to understand what alternatives to fossil fuels there will be, how much energy can be conserved, how to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, if necessary, how to increase the Earth's albedo, or its reflectance of incoming sunlight.
One way to ensure necessary R&D is to rely on the market to finance and direct the work by using taxes, subsidies, rationing and -- most important -- by convincing firms and consumers that fossil fuels will become progressively more costly.
But private interests will not undertake some essential R&D under any circumstances; the "market" will not induce the necessary outlays because investors cannot capture all the benefits of moderating global warming for the human race.
The other option is for governments, cooperatively with business, to finance and direct R&D. For example, it has long been understood that carbon dioxide produced in large stationary plants like electric power stations can be "captured" and piped to where it can be injected into underground caverns -- or possibly ocean beds.
Twenty-five years ago, it was estimated that this process would double the cost of electricity; it now appears that costs may be more modest. But investment in the required R&D -- in the technology of capture, transport, injection and sealing and in geologic exploration for sites suitable for permanent storage -- will be beyond the purview of any private interest.
So-called "geo-engineering" is another area of research that deserves attention but will not receive it from the private sector.
Some sunlight reaching the Earth is absorbed, and some is reflected away. Likewise, some volcanic eruptions, namely those that produce lots of sulfur, can cool the Earth significantly. Indeed, it is estimated that the sulfur currently in the atmosphere, mainly from combustion of coal and oil, may be masking a significant part of the expected greenhouse effect.
So it would make sense to conduct small, reversible experiments to determine what substances might be put at what altitude to reflect incoming energy, and to include the results in global climate models to ascertain where they would be most effective and benign. Needless to say, this is not a task for the private sector, and some international sponsorship might be appropriate.
For some, particularly the administration of US President George W. Bush, uncertainty regarding global warming appears to be a legitimate basis for postponing action, which is usually identified as "costly."
But this idea is almost unique to climate change. In other areas of public policy, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation or vaccination, an "insurance" principle seems to prevail: If there is a sufficient likelihood of significant damage, we take some measured anticipatory action.
At the opposite extreme is what is often called the "precautionary" principle, now popular in the EU: Until something -- for example, genetically modified foods -- is guaranteed safe, it must be postponed indefinitely despite substantial expected benefits.
Neither of these two principles makes sense, economically or otherwise. We should weigh the costs, benefits and probabilities as best as possible and not be obsessed with extreme cases.
The uncertainties about climate change make a few actions unfeasible for now, and probably for a long time. The acknowledged uncertainty about the "climate sensitivity" parameter implies that it makes no sense to decide now, through some multinational diplomatic process, on what the ultimate ceiling on greenhouse gas concentrations must be, and then using this ceiling as a basis for allotting quotas to participating nations.
But most issues concerning climate change are not so clear. The most terrifying possible consequence of global warming that has been identified is the "collapse" of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the sea bottom and protrudes a kilometer or two above sea level.
Unlike floating ice, which does nothing to the sea level when it melts, there is enough of this ice sheet above the surface that it could raise the sea level by something like 6m if it glaciated into the ocean, inundating coastal cities everywhere.
Estimates of the likelihood of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's collapse, or the likely time of collapse, have varied for three decades. Recent studies of the effect of ocean temperature on the movement of ground-based ice sheets are not reassuring. In my reading of the latest research, the likelihood of collapse in this century is small -- but uncertain.
In responding to uncertainty such as this, we should neither wait until it has been completely resolved before we take action, nor act as if it is certain until we have assurance that there's no danger. These two extremes are not the only alternatives.
Thomas Schelling won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2005.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/THE ECONOMISTS' VOICE
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS