The Climate Change Argument

Here are some words I wrote on the topic after a long period of reflection and arguing with intractable boneheads. Not really about climbing, but I warned you when I started this blog.

For at least ten years now, I’ve been involved in the long running ‘are humans wrecking the world’ debate, in various forms. Increasingly this has taken the form of the human induced/natural variation argument revolving around the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, and more importantly, whether or not we should do something about it. In the thousands of words exchanged, mostly over the internet, I have never seen someone change their mind. Sure, people not actively involved in the debate, the lurkers, might chime in with a ‘you’ve sold me’, but never active participants. I suspect this is because we’re not arguing the fundamental question properly.

At this level, the interested amateurs, it is impossible to be completely certain of your position. Unless you’re involved in doing actual science we are at least one level, more likely 2 or 3, removed from the action. On one side or the other then, we make decisions on who to trust, based on our values and broader understanding. I’ve chosen to believe the IPCC because they’ve got lots of men and women with letters after their names working for them and ‘it seems hotter and drier now than when I was a kid’. Others have chosen to believe The Australian and Andrew Bolt, because he has a canny knack of uncovering the real truth.

Either view can be supported with ‘facts’ that we find here and there. We have no way of verifying these various facts and so pick and choose which ones we see as right to support our case. This is roughly described by the ‘selection bias’ or ‘confirmation bias’ theories, which are thoroughly proven (if you believe those scheming scientists) phenomena.

Confirmation bias can be thought of as a filter we put between our opinion and what we’re reading. When we receive information we make decisions about who we’re going to believe and who is a right-(or possibly left, seems unlikely)-wing crack pot. I disregard everything I get forwarded from Watt’s up with that? While others automatically eject anyone associated with realclimate.org. This is an obvious example of confirmation bias, but as the position becomes more ambiguous the application of ones filter becomes more subtle. A recent example is the CRU email furore; there are a broad range of interpretations available and by picking and choosing which quotes one believes are important, it is easy to find your already established position.

So the question is how does one establish their preference to use confirmation bias? This is largely a question of morals and ethics, and the way we apply them to perceived risk. As a risk mitigation exercise the climate change issue is pitched between two opposing views; one that a risk to the environment is more important to mitigate; the other that a risk to the economy is the greater risk. Because of my past experiences and study, I consider that a risk to the environment is the greater problem to avoid. The economy can be fixed by actions; from my experience I would say that rebuilding the environment, particularly wilderness areas, is damn near impossible.

Do you see that we’re all dancing around the fundamental sticking point? Using myself as an example, I don’t care how many blog posts and Institute for Strategic Policy and Lobbying papers you show me, there is doubt in any analysis, and my risk mitigation philosophy tends to favour risks against the environment. If you want to convince me that we should do nothing, then you need to explain to me how protecting the economy will also protect the environment. Previous experience indicates these concepts are completely at odds in Australia, so you’ve got a lot of work to do.

On the flip side, I need to convince the recalcitrants (those opposed to action) that sustaining a clean and functioning environment is better for the economy in the long run. This is a difficult position to prove, and lies somewhere in the dark region between economics and science.

There is a grey area in between these positions; how much compromise to your preference (economy or environment) are you prepared to tolerate, for a benefit of the other? Again though, this is plagued by doubt, as any prediction for the amount of damage in either case is based on predictive modelling. There is, and always will be uncertainty. So, faced with uncertainty, I fall back on my ethics and prefer a risk to the economy to a risk to the environment.

For Rudd to improve voter confidence in the scheme, the population need this choice explained to them. Abbott has already taken this tack, peppering his discussion of the ETS with ‘massive tax’ and ‘$120 billion’. He is appealing to those who believe a risk to the economy is the greater threat. To leverage those who value the environment, Rudd needs to get the message out that this is a risk mitigation strategy that protects our environment. To capture those who value the economic risks, he also needs to push the line that the cost of not acting will likely be higher than the cost of acting.

I’ve got no idea how Abbott can convince the other side that saving the economy will ultimately be better for the environment.

The Green’s position may capture those who understand the trade off between economy and protecting the environment; those that see value in some short term pain for long term gain. Their position is often attacked by those that value the economy, using the line that if the Greens get their way, we’ll all end up living in caves. This argument is worthless; it might be right, but those that have already chosen environment over economy will know that, sure, that might be a risk, but I still consider it less of a risk than wrecking the environment.

If the next election truly is the Global Warming election, be prepared to be buffeted by all sorts of nonsense about what the scheme will do; decide what you think is more important to protect. Then, be prepared to defend your position. This is a democracy after all.