A Skeptical Illusion

What follows examines several of the claims made by Bjorn Lomborg, who refutes the extent of environmental destruction and underplays the seriousness of climate change. I have focused on Bjorn Lomborg simply because he is a high profile sceptic whose analysis I believe is representative of the sceptic viewpoint.

Claim 1: The Earth’s capacity to recover
Lomborg cites the 1956 Clean Air Act as an example of the earth’s capacity to recover quickly from human induced toxicity and pollution. The act helped alleviate London of the extreme smog that had become a serious hazard to human health. The introduction of cleaner coals and the increased domestic use of electricity and gas also contributed to mitigating the smog.

Three points to note about this. Firstly, doesn’t Lomborg realise this is an argument for environmental intervention? If it wasn’t for concern that something should be done, the act wouldn’t have come into effect and more people would have died as a result… hardly the argument of a sceptical environmentalist. So what can we conclude from this example? No more than it is possible for preventive measures to mitigate pollution and saves lives, which isn’t some mystical revelation. Secondly, it’s spurious to tacitly compare an environmental problem which on the scale of environmental hazards ranks as relatively minor – although serious enough for the victims of the pollution – with the threat of catastrophic climate change, which is a SPECIES EMERGENCY. If Lomborg is going to offer up comparisons he should ensure the examples are meaningfully comparable. Thirdly, soot, tar and sulphates, the cause of the Great London smog of 1952, are readily washed out of the atmosphere, but co2 is highly stable in the atmosphere. It will remain there for hundreds of years, even thousands of years. With the carbon sinks overwhelmed and feedback effects, it can accumulate exponentially and is, in the short term, irremovable. It is estimated it took 140 000 years for the co2 spike at the Eocene to return to the original level. In short with co2 and climate change it’s recognised there’s a point of no return, and when that point is passed we will be powerless to prevent catastrophic climate change. Moreover, the earth’s capacity to recover from catastrophic CC will not be a few years, as in the case of London smog, but hundreds of thousands of years.

Continuing in the same vein, Lomborg emphasises the recovery of beaches from oil spills. So hooray, we can all be thankful the earth isn’t overwhelmed by an oil spill. But again this is a *phenomena that bears no resemblance to climate change. With climate change, as Lovelock aptly notes, the earth’s recovery will be its revenge on us. As the earth’s systems adjust to the increased co2 with concomitant excess heat, the disruption to the climate will be shocking and violent. The earth may recover over geological time, but one more species will be extinct: us.

* Lomborg claims the beaches of Brittany and Alaska have recovered from the damaging spills of the Cadiz and Exxon Valdez within the relatively short time frame of 20 years. But he fails to acknowledge the recoveries are at best partial. Many of the insect and bird populations haven’t returned, and several inches below the beach surface, the sand is seeped in oil. Seventeen years on from the Valdez disaster, oil is still washed up on the Alaskan Gulf.

Lomborg makes the point that dispersants to break up the oil cause more damage than the oil spills. Is Lomborg unaware this puts him in the camp of environmentalists who disdain both the oil spill and the added pollution caused by the use of toxic chemicals in the clean up operation. Again he sets up a straw man.

Rather than isolate phenomenon by looking at oil spills and smog in London, let’s take a systems approach and consider what the impact of the ubiquitous and simultaneous attack on every ecological system on earth will be in the 21st century… from unsustainable over fishing to sea bottom trawling, from wipeout of mangroves to destruction of coral reefs, from industrial scale deforestation to intensive overgrazing and expanding urbanisation. If we consider the cumulative effect of increasingly more damaging human activity and factor in human induced climate change, the picture is disturbing. It’s like overwhelming the immune system of the body, while at the same time disrupting to the point of destruction the life support systems it relies on.

Interestingly, of the two examples he cites, human intervention succeeded in one case, whereas in the other it aggravated the pollution. Chemical technology to break up oil spills contributed to the environmental damage. The successful intervention was the Clean Air Act of 1956, a PREVENTIVE measure.

Summary:
Lomborg seems to employ an invalid syllogistic type logic… It’s easy enough to spot the problem. His claim that Climate Change won’t be catastrophic and that the earth will cope, he derives by comparison with oil spills and smog. Clearly CC is not a problem similar to smog or an oil spill. The correct comparison is to look at co2 spikes with concomitant global warming as far as we can discern it in the geological record… the Permian extinction, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum etc…

It’s also worth noting he takes a reductive perspective, isolating phenomenon like oil spills and London smog. Clearly CC requires a total systems approach, since it encompasses and interacts with every life system.

Claim 2: Climate Change is natural and a cyclic phenomena
Lomborg attempts to obfuscate the reality of what is happening by confusing the relevant information with irrelevant noise as he diverts our attention to other factors that CAN effect climate change: orbital variation – precession, obliquity, eccentricity – and accentuated solar activity. But the operative word is CAN. And the question is: in what way?

It is acknowledged that solar activity is not exceptional in our present era. Similarly, the components of orbital variation – precession, obliquity, eccentricity – seem to be unexceptional in their phase. For instance, obliquity, the angle of the earth’s tilt, is close to the median point, while the earth’s orbit is presently circular, rather than a skewed oval shape. The indications are that we are fortunate to live in a time of very favourable climate.

Indeed, it might be the case that orbital variation doesn’t lead to catastrophic global warming, but is rather the inciting cause of the to-and-fro cycles from glacial to ‘temperate’ interglacial periods. And is moreover a determinant of which hemisphere, the Northern or the Southern, has the warmer summers. And finally influences the temperature difference between the summers and the winters, whether the range is narrow or extreme.

Thus there are two points to consider with the other factors Lomborg cites as causes of climate change. Are they adversely affecting the climate now? The answer seems to be no. Secondly is there any evidence in the geological record that these factors have forced cataclysmic global warming? And again the answer seems to be no.

So what does the science say is the cause of the current pattern of global warming? The data is very clear on this: the rising global temperatures *correlate perfectly with the increased co2 levels in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels (see caveat below).

Finally if we look to the past, the geological record does offer up examples of catastrophic global warming. In every instance it seems excess co2 caused by extreme volcanic activity and/or methane hydrate release seem to be implicated as possible causes.

Because climate change has happened naturally in the past is not an argument for accepting human induced catastrophic climate change. We are responsible for human induced CC and it is within our power to prevent it. Given that is the case, what is the moral imperative?

*Caveat: It’s true a co2 correlation alone doesn’t necessarily signify cause and effect, but there’s enough evidence to conclude a cause and effect dynamic. The physics tells us co2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Corroborating the science are the best climate models, which successfully elicit the observed pattern of temperature for the 20th century. The dominant cause of warming in the climate models is co2. Moreover, the data in the geological record supports the known science in two ways. Firstly, in the change from glacial to temperate climates, the co2 levels rise in line with the temperature (see Addendum below). Secondly, there is the known correspondence of co2/methane spikes with global warming extinction events. Finally, an experiment which confirms the scientific understanding and the supporting geological data has been carried out… the industrial revolution.

Addendum: The data over the last 650 000 years is uncontested, and clearly shows the up-and-down swings between ice ages (glacial) and temperate (inter-glacial) climate, and depicts a perfect correlation of co2 and temperature patterns. But the co2 lags 400-800 years behind the temperature rise. The prevailing scientific view is small changes in the earth’s orbit initiate the warming, but is not enough to explain the magnitude of the temperature rise, which continues over 5000 years. The only viable explanation is the co2 feedback suggested by the correlation. The initial warming releases co2, and the co2 magnifies the warming. If the sceptics refute this, then they must come up with another candidate to explain the exceptional warming, but why ignore the co2 effect, when it’s staring us in the face.

The Cost/Benefit approach to Climate Change
Lomborg praises the US administration for rejecting Kyoto at the same time criticising the Kyoto draft for being weak and ineffectual. Kyoto will give us 6 years respite, an expensive waste, Lomborg claims, for measures that will not prevent CC. But he fails to explain the political context. Kyoto is weak because of corporate lobbying and the US administration demands that the draft be watered down. So the targets were weakened to accommodate the American administration and then they rejected it anyway.

That Kyoto won’t prevent CC again puts Lomborg with the environmentalists. The difference however between Lomborg and the environmentalists is that they progress to a rational conclusion. Recognising the mere tokenism of Kyoto they demand far more radical measures. That said, some environmentalists acknowledge Kyoto’s importance as a crucial first step to demonstrate it is possible to act globally and moreover as proof that regulatory measures can succeed and that the economy will adjust successfully in accord with a change in the way we consume energy.

The Lomborg approach to climate change is to do a cost/benefit analysis. But to whose cost and for whose benefit? Lomborg thinks we should accept the ‘inevitability’ of CC and spend the resources on mitigating the consequences. But what are the consequences he wants us to accept? At the very least, the probable deaths of millions, disruption to societies, frequent extreme weather events the world over, possibly the melting of the ice sheets, a process once started that is unstoppable and will cause serious flooding of major cities across the globe. And we can forget about a decent future for our grandchildren. I’m afraid investing in anti-malarial drugs to offset the consequences of accepting CC is not going to cut the mustard. As Monbiot says, if Lomborg thinks he can put a cost to the deaths, destruction and massive disruption of lives then he has spent too much time at his calculator and not enough time with human beings.

Not only is it not possible to put a cost on human lives, but it is simply not possible to do a cost/benefit analysis for something where the outcomes are so unpredictable and possibly of the utmost gravity. What price the ‘legacy’ we leave future generations? The climate and the natural environment are not commodities that can be given a price tag. They are fundamental systems for the existence of life. So intrinsic is the climate to life and human activity, the consequences of CC to human societies for even the ‘milder’ outcomes suggested are incalculable… from environmental refugees to wars for basic resources to the collapse of small and large scale economies. A report issued on August 16th (2006) warned that the Chinese economy could crash by 2015 because of a scarcity of fresh water – commissioned not by an environmental group but by powerful corporations (Shell, Coca-cola, Cargill…).

Lomborg bases his cost/benefit analysis on the ‘milder’ predictions for co2 levels and temperature rises by 2100, presented as the most likely outcomes (at the time of his book)*, which exposes the limits and dangers of such an approach. Does Lomborg appreciate how to measure a risk quotient, weighing the likelihoods together with the consequences? It is not necessarily the most likely outcome that should be assigned the greater priority. The magnitude and gravity of the consequences can determine what takes precedence. Outcomes like catastrophic CC might be considered less likely, but the likelihood is significantly high, and given the impact is a possible species end-event, the rational and moral imperative is to commit all resources to the prevention of such an outcome. Anything less from our generation would be the greatest act of criminal irresponsibility in the history of the human project.

* The rise in co2 levels has jumped in 3 out of the last 4 years, and is almost certain to do so again this year (2006) in line with the heatwave and high temperatures. Possibly a sign of feedbacks, and if it proves to be the trend then it suggests the climate models are underestimating the pace of CC. Similarly, the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and signs the Greenland ice sheet is beginning to melt, further suggest the climate models might have to be revised upwards.

APPENDIX 1: The extent of the world’s Forest Cover
Lomborg claims the world’s forest cover has been increasing slightly since the 1950’s. The first problem is his data. Taken from FAO yearbooks it is acknowledged by the FAO as misleading. The figures seem to show forest cover increasing annually throughout the 1950‘s. But forest isn’t suddenly springing up. Instead more existing forest is being discovered, while more advanced technology, satellite photography for instance, is improving the measurements. Secondly, Lomborg’s approach is typified by the accountant’s mentality. He tries to count the trees of the world instead of looking at forest systems which interact critically with the climate system. Monoculture tree plantations, tree ‘deserts’ and tree farms do not equate with forest ecosystems that have evolved with the climate over millions of years. For example, the best scientific models predict that if the Amazon rainforest continues to be diminished until the critical threshold of 40% reduction is reached, the whole forest will inexorably die back*. It is recognised this would have a devastating impact on the climate. Thirdly even data collected by satellite images underestimates the loss of forest cover. Satellite images show 17% forest clearance for the Amazon, but this neglects to measure selective logging, where the trees are taken from under the canopy. Adjusting the figures to match the reality, it is more like 25-30% forest wipeout.

*Dynamic systems when they reach a point of instability can suddenly collapse (the Amazon forest) or dramatically run out of control (the climate system) – a consideration Lomborg seems to neglect in his analysis.

Adapted from research notes for a CC debate, summer 2006