November 2000 Fraser Forum: Back to the Science of Global Warming
While debates about the existence, extent, and possible consequences of human-induced global warming continue among scientists, many politicians, bureaucrats, environmentalists, and members of the media believe urgent action is required to address what has been billed as "the greatest environmental threat facing mankind."
An international bureaucracy has been mobilized to deal with this threat. Three years ago, representatives from Canada and 160 other countries met in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed to targets for reducing greenhouse gases. Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of energy and the environment recently met in Quebec to grapple with how to meet our Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gases to 6 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Later this month, international representatives will gather once again, this time at The Hague, to hammer out the details of complying with Kyoto.
These meetings proceed as if debate among scientists were over. Two recent studies, however, remind us that nothing could be further from the truth. First, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the main culprit behind the warming that has been observed at land-based measurement stations. He suggests that other greenhouse gases such as methane are to blame. This is a curve-ball, since controlling the CO2 emissions that are the result of burning fossil fuel has been the main focus of national and international meetings.
Second, research by the European Space Agency (ESA) raises an even more crucial question. Is human activity the main cause of the observed warming? The ESA research shows that temperature increases previously blamed on the burning of fossil fuels could, in fact, be largely due to an increase in solar radiation.
These studies are inconvenient for those who have locked themselves into a policy — controlling carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels — that has gathered so much momentum. They serve as well to illustrate the uncertainty that makes global warming such a complex policy challenge.
Fundamental scientific questions remain unanswered. What is the primary cause of global warming? Human influence or natural causes? Would the results of global warming be disastrous, benign, or beneficial? Questions remain about the proposed cure, too. Even if the Kyoto targets are met, will they have any effect?
Instead of wrestling with scientific uncertainties, policy-makers pretend that we know that global warming is caused by human activity and that we know that the consequences of not addressing it will be dire. These fairy tales could prove very expensive. The Canadian government has spent $850 million on initiatives related to climate change since 1995 and plans to spend a further $1.1 billion in the next 5 years. If we are to meet our Kyoto targets, these costs will be only the beginning, as major reductions in our use of fossil fuel will be required.
Some would argue that these costs are warranted in spite of the uncertainty. They refer to the "precautionary principle" to defend the idea that we cannot afford not to act now. But economic resources are scarce and, in light of that scarcity, trade-offs are constantly being made. For example, if we spend more money on global warming, less may be available for other serious environmental problems, such as the lack of safe drinking water, which currently contributes to the death of millions of children in developing countries. It is impossible to apply the precautionary principle uniformly: we do not have the economic resources to address all the existing and potential crises that we might imagine. Perhaps those who argue we can’t wait have forgotten the global cooling scare of the 1970s, when we were told by the National Wildlife Federation: "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
If we are to have rational policy on the complex issue of global warming, it will require more than the current simple-minded government responses. Many important questions remain unanswered about the intricate science of climate change and global warming. These questions need to be presented clearly and in a more balanced way to the public before we commit to any costly "solutions."
Laura Jones (lauraj@fraserinstitute.ca) is Director of Environment and Regulatory Studies at The Fraser Institute. She received her M.A. in Economics from Simon Fraser University.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.