Book reviews are not always reviews of books. In the big review magazines they are an excuse to sound off. The latest New York Review of Books contains an absolute lulu, a piece that ought to be required reading for sane people everywhere. Alas, it doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot of traction.
Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute, lays it on the line in a superb piece called The Threat to the Planet.
Hansen is ostensibly reviewing three books and a film about climate change. You can guess the film: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Hansen's point, which he makes with great clarity, is that "business as usual" may trigger an unstoppable catastrophe, with positive feedback loops amplifying small changes. Ice melts into water. Water sits on top of the ice, increasing the amount of heat it absorbs, and increasing melting. Water penetrates to the base of the ice shelf, lubricating the ice and helping it to calve icebergs. A lighter ice shelf sinks lower, where it is warmer, where it melts faster.
You get the picture. And if you don't, go read the article. It ought to shock you.
We need to take the possibility of global warming seriously. Now. Wired's Tony Long agrees.
If the "alarmists" are right, even partly right, and we do nothing, all of our other worldly concerns -- whether it's peace in the Middle East or rising interest rates or the happiness of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt -- will amount to Humphrey Bogart's proverbial hill of beans.
The Economist, naturally enough, does not. It has always taken the side of those who want to save money now versus those who want to save the world, later.
For climate change, the trouble is that though few dispute that it is occurring, no one knows how severe it will be or what damage it will cause. And the proposed solutions are staggeringly expensive. Mr Lomborg reckons that the benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol would probably outweigh the costs, but not until 2100. This calculation will not please Al Gore. Nipped at the post by George Bush in 2000, Mr Gore calls global warming an "onrushing catastrophe" and argues vigorously that curbing it is the most urgent moral challenge facing mankind.
Mr Lomborg demurs. "We need to realise that there are many inconvenient truths," he says.
Indeed. And if global warming could wait, I would agree that boosting vitamin A for poor children would be a higher priority.
Can global warming wait? Jim Hansen, and many other scientists, don't think so. Five degrees Fahrenheit warmer -- the average predicted under business as usual -- translates to a rise in sea level of 80 feet. As Hansen says:
Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people.
Better give those Indian and Bangladeshi children plenty of vitamin A; they're going to need to see where to go.
At stake is how cautious we really ought to be. All the science suggests that continued global warming will indeed give rise to Gore's onrushing catastrophe. Worse, it suggests that by the time those in charge see the light, it may be too late to do anything at all, no matter how much money and technology they are then willing to throw at the problem.
p.s. Hansen's article is thorough, readable, and scary. I set out to write a different post. That one can wait. Climate change cannot.
Webmentions allow conversations across the web. If you have linked to this post, put your post’s URL below.
Webmentions
-
Two days ago, I bookmarked a column by Tim Harford, remembering the great economist Martin Weitzman. I knew Weitzman only because a colleague made use of his ideas on how to prioritise the conservation of species, the Noah's Ark problem. He wanted to pay people to conserve quinoa varieties, but which ones deserved support?
I was intrigued to discover Weitzman's objection to the idea that there's no point spending money on climate change now, because our descendents will be so much richer than us that they'll be able easily to cope. Weitzman focused on the tail risk. Using an analogy of treating his house for damp now, lest his great-grandchildren have to pay more to fix it in future, Harford explains:
The truly eye-opening contribution — for me, at least — was Weitzman’s explanation that the worst-case scenarios should rightly loom large in rational calculations. If there’s a modest chance that the damp problem will give all my great-grandchildren fatal pneumonia, I shouldn’t ignore that. And my great-grandchildren wouldn’t want me to: the probably rich great-grandchildren would happily sacrifice some trivial amount of income to avoid being the possibly dead great-grandchildren. But they won’t have the choice. It’s up to me.
And then, just moments ago, I revisited something I wrote 13 years ago: Take precautions: global warming deserves it, prompted by various published reflections on
global warmingthe climate crisis, in turn prompted by An Inconveient Truth. In my piece, I complained that The Economist was too supportive of Bjorn Lomberg. I didn't know about Weitzman's argument then, and apparently, neither did The Economist.And then, a final strange connection. Last night I happened to read an article in The New Yorker about a former Economist journalist called Jonathan Ledgard. And blow me if that article didn't trumpet one of Ledgard's passel of huge ideas:
"Many species are at risk of local extinction because they have no independent means to change their financial value," Ledgard explained. The goals is to "pick a local species that is threatened with extinction, give it some financial agency in the world, and then work out how the value that it holds can be distributed to the local human community."
A few months later, Ledgard called me to say that he had refined the concept to focus on the promotion of insect life on European farms.
Well, blow me. Genius invents payments for ecosystem services, with nary a mention of Weitzman or anyone else who has not only thought about this before, but has actually done it.
How was your Sunday?
Likes
Add a comment