In a post at Persuasion self-described “climate activist” Quico Toro asks whether it’s possible to “stabilize the climate” without immiserating billions of people? In making his argument he displays a chart which should give us pause:
He then lurches uncontrollably, as John McLaughlin used to say, into the position I’ve argued for decades: to whatever extent carbon emissions are a problem their effects can only be mitigated not ended.
In musing over his post I want to provide one correction and some observations. My correction is that the earth’s climate has never been stable and cannot be stabilized without killing everything on the plant. If Mr. Toro is using “stabilized” as shorthand, he doesn’t explain it. I assume he is. If “stabilize” means holding key climate variables within a bounded range then the question becomes one of cost and distribution not absolute possibility.
But since no source is provided, the reader is left in the position of being asked to accept the conclusion without being able to evaluate the evidence. Fortunately, this particular point does not depend on his graphic. It is already well-established that as countries industrialize and improve living standards, their energy use and therefore carbon emissions tend to rise.
From that, several implications follow. First, it is not realistic to suppose that the “rich countries”, viz. the United States, Canada, and the European Union, can solve whatever problem carbon emissions produce simply by eliminating their own emissions. Even complete decarbonization on their part would be insufficient without similar changes elsewhere. Second, among poorer countries, those that have most successfully improved the condition of their populations are generally those with higher emissions. Development and emissions, at least under current technological constraints, go together.
A genuine solution, therefore, must align with the incentives facing developing countries rather than working against them. One possibility would be the development of inexpensive technologies for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converting it into products with real economic value, products that poorer countries could produce and sell. The basic technology for extracting carbon dioxide already exists. The challenge is to make it inexpensive and to tie it to a viable market. Do that and even the poorest countries would have a reason to adopt it.
We will address the issue with a combination of mitigating the climate change and mitigating its effects. A big factor will be the continued decrease in costs for solar and wind energy and the continued improvements in batteries. They are cheaper options than coal in many places now. I am sure you saw that the new BYD battery charges in 9 minutes and IIRC its solid state so minimal burning risk. Both China and India are adding renewables at a faster rate than fossil based fuels. We may also be seeing the development and spread, finally, of small nuclear reactors. (Note that even in countries with few regulatory issues spread has been slow.)
By my readings the costs of extraction remain high and I dont have a good feel for how that is progressing. On mitigating the effects of climate change we are lucky that the changes are slow. Use have time to build better to tolerate the increased water damage we are seeing. We can spread air conditioning as cheap energy spreads. I am less certain about how we deal with large populations needing to move.
Steve
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/clean-power-outpaces-fossil-fuel-based-output-says-energy-think-tank-101759863667269.html#google_vignette
Both China and India continue to use coal, oil, and gas faster this year than last year and faster last year than the year before. There is no path to your presumed net-zero future on that trajectory. Whether they’re adding solar or wind faster is irrelevant.
The long term trend during the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) has been cooling. This is a consequence of the Milankovitch cycles, which have been driving the Ice Age glaciations (25 and counting) for the 2.5 million years. These cycles depend also on the current distribution of land, being concentrated in the northern hemisphere.
For these last 150 years, or so, the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 AD to about 1850 AD. Some climatologists ascribe all of the recent warming to industrialization and population growth (from 500 million to 8 billion), others to a mixture of human activity and natural rebound. That dispute really is about whether anything can be done about the warming.
Another dispute is whether it matters. Doubters (like me) point out that it is about as warm today as the 1930’s, there having been a cooling from about 1940 to 1980. It was warmer than today during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, warmer still during the Roman expansion, and yet warmer during the Minoan Aegean Empire. It was warmest during the era of Gobekli Tepe.
I studied environmental engineering and science in the 1960’s, and was active professionally until I retired in 2007. I lived through and experienced the environmental movement first hand, from Ehrlich’s “Famine 1975” (look up Borlaug) to the current doomsayers. These guys earn their living scaring people. They are lunatic grifters.
A lot of politicians love the doom movements because they make it easy to get money and personal power. The recent Covid and SPLC hysterias are good, and fresh, examples of the phenomenon.
Ultimately, the hidden goal of the Ehrlichs of the world is radical depopulation. They don’t mean ZPG, they want a total world population of a few million Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.
Right now our more liberal politicians are trying to implement radical reductions in energy consumption that would crash industrial society, to a greater extent even than is a predictable consequence of Trump’s Zionist Middle Eastern “policies.”
Every nonindustrial society in history, no exceptions, depended on some form of slavery. Our Epsteins are OK with that, too.
Bob Sykes: Milankovitch cycles
Long term fluctuations in and out of glacial periods are explained by Milankovitch cycles amplified by positive feedbacks, including changes in albedo, oceanic CO2 outgassing, and associated changes in atmospheric water vapor.
Bob Sykes: For these last 150 years, or so, the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age
That was largely due to volcanic emissions, but other factors, such as a decrease in solar activity may have been involved. The cooling was not globally synchronous, and the mean drop was relatively small, about 0.5°C.
Bob Sykes: Some climatologists ascribe all of the recent warming to industrialization
Most published research supports warming due to industrial emissions. Other mechanisms, such as Milankovitch cycles, solar activity, and volcanism, do not explain the warming; while greenhouse gas emissions fit the warming trend.
Bob Sykes: It was warmer than today during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, warmer still during the Roman expansion, and yet warmer during the Minoan Aegean Empire.
That is not supported by the evidence. Nor is the current surface temperature the real problem — if warming stopped right now. The problem is that warming is expected to continue and will likely exceed 2°C and quite likely more, depending on the human response.
Bob Sykes: doom movements
A fire breaks out.
Boy sounds fire alarm.
Boy: “Help us put out the fire.”
Old Curmudgeon stays sitting in his rocker: “Town never burned down before.”
Townsfolk put out the fire.
Old Curmudgeon: “Told ya so.”
Dave- As noted, they are adding renewables faster than fossil fuel sources. The renewable resources cant keep up with the need for energy so they still need to add fossil fuel sources. Assuming costs keep going the way they are, no indication of slowing, then renewables will replace agin fossil fuel sites.
Note that I never use the term net-zero. Even if renewable and batteries cost 10% of what fossil fuel energy costs and works just as well I think we will find some areas where it’s hard to replace fossil fuels. I think a realistic goal is to drastically slow the amount of CO2 we are generating which will give us time to adapt and/or develop cheap means to remove CO2.
Steve
Just a comment on the 1930s since it’s often brought up by people who dont read the actual literature on climate science and just parrot talking points. The entire world was not warmer in the 1930s than it is now, it was just the US and mostly the central US due to the drought and dust bowl we had. Explanation at link.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/07/why-were-the-1930s-so-hot-in-north-america/
Steve
Let me explain WHY that’s irrelevant. As long as China burns incrementally more coal, oil, and gas how fast it adds wind and solar will not reduce its carbon emissions. Indeed, since producing more wind and solar itself increases carbon emissions, it will add to its emissions. That is, in fact, what satellite data show about China.
To whatever extent you believe that carbon emissions are a critical concern, you must also believe that China should reduce its carbon emissions.
I think there should be a four step process for addressing the higher CO2 emissions before the government takes significant action. The four questions that need to be answered are:
1) Is the earth getting warmer?
2) Is man-made CO2 emissions the cause of this increase?
3) Is it a problem? Is a warmer earth worse than a cooler earth?
4) Is the cost of “fixing the problem” higher than the cost of the problem itself?
For #1, it does appear the earth is getting warmer. There are some questionable data revisions from the past which could impact how big the temperature shift is, but I think the earth is warming.
For #2, I think the increase in CO2 levels from human activity contribute to the warming. It may not be the entire source of the warming temperatures, but it is likely contributing.
For #3, This is where the narrative is lost on me. The earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is today. When I read articles and papers on the warming, the downsides to warming is emphasized while the benefits are ignored. If you can’t name any benefits to warming from higher CO2 levels, your views are a product of propaganda. You should be weighing the benefits vs. the costs. Here are three benefits: 1) more people die from cold than heat, 2) agricultural yields are better in warmer higher CO2 environments, and 3) more rainfall occurs in a warmer earth (ice ages lead to droughts).
For #4, I haven’t seen a realistic case that shows mitigation costs lower than the net cost of the higher warming levels.
Your views are not dissimilar to mine, Charlie Musick, with a couple of exceptions. First, I think that local climate change in specific locations, e.g. the Los Angeles region, is undeniable, well-documented, and overwhelmingly produced by human action. Second, I think that the means should effect the ends.
Dave, I agree 100% with the heat island effect from cities like LA, Phoenix or Atlanta. The asphalt will increase the city temperature by a couple of degrees. In Atlanta, there will be extra thunderstorms form east of the city due to this local temperature rise. Local weather is clearly impacted.
What do you mean by your second point?
The means should accomplish the stated objectives. When the proposed means cannot achieve the stated goals, at the very least it calls into question whether the advocate is being honest about his or her goals.
Dave, I agree with you there as well. Moving manufacturing from Europe/US to China may reduce our carbon footprint in Europe/US, but does absolutely nothing for global CO2 emissions (maybe make them worse). The localized CO2 taxes don’t accomplish the end goal.
Charlie Musick: For #2, I think the increase in CO2 levels from human activity contribute to the warming. It may not be the entire source of the warming temperatures, but it is likely contributing.
The evidence is that nearly all current warming is anthropogenic.
Charlie Musick: For #3, This is where the narrative is lost on me. The earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is today.
It’s not how warm it is today that is the issue. It’s how hot it is going to get—assuming humans don’t restrain their emissions. (See #2.)
Despite what you suggest, modern civilization developed during a period of relatively stable climate. Current warming and the rate of that warming is anomalous. Now, if the climate were changing due to natural phenomena, then humanity would just have to ride it out. But that’s not what is happening. The Earth’s surface is being warmed artificially, and it is avoidable. Huge populations and their vast infrastructures are often along coastlines. Millions rely on stable monsoons or glacial melt.
Human can and will adapt. The current energy infrastructure was built over just a few decades. Most of it gets replaced every half century or so anyway, so the cost of upgrading can often be minimal.
Now consider the social and political strains due to human migration brought about by climate change. Consider the social and political strain even today in a rich country like the United States due to immigration. Now, amplify that.
Charlie Musick: If you can’t name any benefits to warming from higher CO2 levels, your views are a product of propaganda.
Some will win. Some will lose. Some will profit by polluting the climate system.
Charlie Musick: 3) more rainfall occurs in a warmer earth (ice ages lead to droughts).
While the impact of global warming on climate is still somewhat obscure, the most likely result is that weather will become more exaggerated. That means more rain during rainy seasons and longer droughts.
Charlie Musick: For #4, I haven’t seen a realistic case that shows mitigation costs lower than the net cost of the higher warming levels.
Economists and scientists have studied the question intensively. Some damage to the ecosystem will be permanent, meaning once it’s lost it’s gone for good.
Economic benefits will be primarily local, but damage widespread. The Stern review estimates 5-20% losses to GDP. Of course, that’s assuming humans don’t take any action. (See fire alarm metaphor above.) Economic damage will be lower the sooner humans take action.
https://www.environmentandurbanization.org/economics-climate-change-stern-review
Zachriel, I believe there is a natural and manmade impact on climate. Climate stability has not been much of a thing in the past. I don’t think it will be in the future.
I’m very skeptical of the statement that all of our warming is man-made. Looking at the last 12,000 years, the temperature has never been stable. To claim it is now stable except for human activity leaves me doubtful. The chart in the attached article (which supports climate action) doesn’t show a period of stable temperature:
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/holocene-global-warming-08032013/
Going further back in time (500 million years), the temperature swings were up to 20 C. Those couldn’t have been caused by man. There are other factors that cause our temperatures to swing. For example, large volcanic activity, asteroid strikes, core radioactivity decay or changes in the sun’s energy output changes our temperature. Change is coming, it’s our ability to adapt to change that matters. Making energy more expensive reduces our ability to adapt. Here is the 500 million year chart (it’s pretty cold these days):
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
I read some of the link you shared. The language was not that of science and accounting, but of propaganda.
I do agree with you that we have the ability to upgrade energy sources as old equipment wears out. My favorite winner for the long term is geothermal fracking. It runs 24/7.
When I hear people talk of climate catastrophes or a climate crisis, I tune them out. It’s not a crisis. If it was, people would be marching in the street demanding nuclear power instead of throwing soup on paintings.
Such a well worn topic, but some excellent observations from Dave and Charlie made me decide to note a few things.
1. From a long term perspective (ie millions of years) climate has fluctuated (“changed”) wildly. And despite Zach insisting that the evidence is to the contrary, (to use a phrase gaining traction here – “the signal to noise ratio” is tiny), the notion that we can apportion climate change between nature and man is simply absurd. CO2 has fluctuated wildly over time, as has temperature. And they are out of phase. But the global warm, er, Climate Change theory is a great one for those vested in it: they say it predicts climate movements no matter the direction; and it never accurately predicts anything. Always another 10-20 years out. For 50 years now this BS, but always a dire need.
2. Charlie’s list makes some good points. Who says its bad? Agricultural output would boom. People wouldn’t freeze to death. (And despite the gloom associated with warmth – the glaciers are still there, and FL and NYC are not 2/3 under water.) So what is anyone going to do about it? A long term graph of emissions does nothing but go up. In raw numbers, since 2000, Chinas output has gone up 8 units. India 2. The US minus 1, probably offloaded to China as we destroyed the American icky industry economy……….and then bitched and moaned about financialization. There are only two discernible periods of reduction: the financial crisis and Covid. Short and minor dips. I suppose we could unleash disease on the world. Forced suicide? “For the children.” Steve blathers about technology, and has to be schooled by Dave about absolute numbers. (and how has that battery technology been working out for Ford and GM, steve? But what’s a few billion in write-offs between friends) The fact of the matter is that the greenhouse gas output numbers simply don’t go down. They just don’t. What are you going to do about it? And “Rest of World” output is about equal to China and India combined. What? Permanent poverty for them just so people can keep getting government grants and politicians can tax air, er, carbon? What are you going to do about gases? Someone propose a Manhattan Project-like effort on nuclear and I’ll take notice. Otherwise, people are just being silly.
3. Put this in the chuckle column. The NYT’s (in)famous “The Coming Ice Age” headline of the 1970’s has come full circle. At first it was – whoopsie – Global Warming and then – whoopsie – Climate Change and now we have ice age talk again, because of the jet stream. And only 25 years until disaster!! And who is out there talking it up? Wait for it…………………………Al Gore.
You can’t make this shit up.
Charlie Musick: I’m very skeptical of the statement that all of our warming is man-made.
Without anthropogenic greenhouse warming, the Earth’s surface would be cooling slightly, rather than sharply warming (Huber and Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience 2011).
19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png
Milankovitch cycles predict a slight cooling, rather than the observed warming.
zachriel.com/blog/MilankovitchCycles-1028.gif
Charlie Musick: Looking at the last 12,000 years, the temperature has never been stable.
Your own cited chart reveals the contradiction in your position.
cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/holocene.jpg
Since the end of the last glaciation, mean surface temperatures have been relatively stable. Now, superimpose the current warming and you will see the current warming is anomalous in rate and degree.
rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/styles/max_width_embed_1024_1_5x/public/2021-01/HoloceneWarmingv7_final.jpg
Charlie Musick: Those couldn’t have been caused by man.
And once upon a time, the Earth was a ball of molten rock. What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!
No one ever said anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the only factor of Earth’s mean surface temperature. Other mechanisms climate scientists have identified include volcanism, solar irradiance, movements of the continents, albedo, and natural changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. (Greenhouse gases and albedo form a positive feedback mechanism, which helps explain why the Earth oscillates between ice ages and ice-free ages.)
Charlie Musick: Making energy more expensive reduces our ability to adapt.
That’s a much better argument. Saying human emissions aren’t warming the Earth’s surface or that the warming is negligible is not a good argument because it simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
With regards to this point, economic growth and prosperity is essential to developing the new technologies that will be required to address the real problems of anthropogenic global warming, as well as to provide the fruits of industrialization to all the world’s people. Some permanent harm to the climate system is inevitable, but the sooner humans take decisive action, the lower the destruction to their shared ecological inheritance and the lower the economic damage (accounting for costs and benefits).
The good news is that mitigation and adaptation is well-within humanity’s wheelhouse. One day, you will be like the Old Curmudgeon sitting in his rocker, “Told ya so. Town never did burn down before.”
{Using stripped URLs hoping to get past spam filter. Just cut and paste.)
Drew: And they are out of phase.
CO2 and Earth’s mean surface temperature track closely over the last 800,000 years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/CO2%20and%20temp%20change%20graph%20no%20caption.png
They can appear disjointed over longer periods because CO2 is not the only factor involved in the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Drew: Agricultural output would boom.
Some regions may benefit, but the overall picture is widespread disruption of agriculture. Previously productive regions will no longer be productive due to longer droughts, saltwater inundation, lack of glacial melt, and disruption of monsoons. This will lead to severe economic, social, and political disruption. Can humanity survive? Of course. Can they prosper? Quite likely. But part of what makes humans so adaptive is that they can project into the future, an ability amplified by modern science, and thereby avoid the worst consequences.