Global Warming is Real

I doubt that any loyal readers of this blog need convincing that global warming presents a real threat. But as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares an authoritative report this week--which argues that global warming is a real and growing danger--we must be prepared for obfuscation and denial of this essential truth. That was the message of an important forum I attended this evening.

A common problem is that small squabbles among climate scientists, who agree  about the essentials, are magnified to the point that it looks like a dispute about fundamentals.  Journalists do this, in a well-intended quest for "balance" in science reporting.  And politicians and special interests play up these squabbles too, in a much less noble attempt to preserve the status quo.

So, say it loud, say it proud:  Global warming is real.  And we have to do something about it, or the world as we know it will be lost.

Comments

[Helen]

"The world as we know it" will always be in the past because the world is always changing. It's not our goal to maintain the world as we know it. Otherwise, we should all go back to living in caves and building fires from twigs and rocks.

We can never go back to the way it was, all we can do is to make sure our actions don't lead us to a path of self destruction.

[Phillip_Bach]

What I found more disturbing is the report's conclusion that global warming would continue for hundreds of years, even if we halted all emissions immediately. See below:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html

So even if we accept that global warming is caused by emissions, the harder question is what, if anything, can be done about it? I'm not arguing in favor of inaction, just raising the question. In all of these news reports, I have not seen any predictions such as "If we cut emissions 50%, global warming will be reversed in X number of years."

I noted in one of these stories that China pushed for weaker, more vague language in the global warming report. This fact gets at the real point of conflict: it's not between "conservatives" and "liberals" in American political terms, but between developed and developing countries, the latter having very little incentive to hinder their already weak economic standing in the hopes of maybe saving the world for some uncertain future generation.

A friend of mine told me that China is building two new coal plants every week. I can't vouche for that figure, but the reality is that even if the U.S. adopts the Kyoto Protocol or something even tougher, much of the developing world is going to continue polluting as they struggle to gain ground in the global economy.

Enforcement of international law has been feeble in the last 50 years, even where the harm is concrete and imminent (genocide, WMDs, other human rights violations). How much harder will it be to reach agreement, and actually enforce that agreement, where the harm is not imminent, and the effectiveness of any proposed solution is speculative?

In sum, I don't doubt that global warming is real, and man is causing most of it. I do think the chances of adopting and enforcing serious international law to address the problem is very slim. And again, it's not at all clear that anything we do will stop the process for hundreds of years.

[Marcus]

Nice to hear from you Phillip.

Producing meaningful international action on global warming will be extremely difficult. If I were a Chinese official, my main concern would be economic growth rather than saving the planet.

So maybe it will take disastrous, sustained effects on the Eart to cause real action. I hope not. In the meantime, the US (with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its greenhouse emissions) has a moral obligation to do something substantial about global warming. Maybe it's hopeless, but we have to try.

[Wevbo]

Helen, the world is not always changing--the twigs and caves are still there! However, our actions on this planet have changed in a profound and rapid way (relative to the age of the earth and the lengths of its various processes), exclusively for our self-interest, since the Industrial Age began, and we are now reckoning with their impact. I guess I think of it as respectful of the world I am lucky enough to live in, but also as the only sustainable option, to try and minimize my impact on it.

Marcus, would you really ignore global warming concerns if you were a Chinese official? Why wouldn't a Chinese official, given the same information as the rest of us, also try to sustain, long-term, the land where the people he serves work and live, and the people's well-being? Don't officials everywhere try to strike this balance? I feel like you are suggesting that this Chinese official would be willfully ignorant of a problem that people around the world are trying to address.

Philip, do you mean to ignore the economic incentive for developing countries (with emerging economies) to develop alternative energy policies that incur much less political volatility than traditional resources tied to specific geographical areas? Thomas Friedman frequently articulates the long-term disadvantages that America's "oil addicition" requires, sustained military intervention/political maneuvering in resource-rich areas, in particular.

Also, the goal of we liberal tree-huggers is not to "reverse" global warming (a curious conservative framing of the issue--let's return "back" to the good ol' days), but to limit carbon emissions so that the effect those emissions have on the environment will plateau within the next half-century. Plateau. It's going to get worse, no one doubts that.

Finally, no peer-reviewed scientific body equal to that of last Friday's international group has come forward to argue that "it's not at all clear that anything we do will stop the process for hundreds of years." Quite the opposite, as last Friday's report suggested. Given the profit motive to debunk alarming (as opposed to "alarmist") forecasts--from private industry and also via those nifty $10,000 "bonuses" offered by the Bush admin--it's telling that such an alternative scientific consensus has not emerged in an age when, say, a BP can make its logo green and yellow and call itself a conservation-oriented company.

We're looking at a period of time in which we can at least level with the problem as it is now, and try to prepare our children for dealing with the consequences of our collective willed ignorance for so many years. To not do so for any reason is inexcusably irresponsible. And, unfortunately, self-correcting in a very final way.

[Marcus]

John raises a good point. Certainly I hope that I (as the "Chinese official") would have enough foresight to worry about more than short-term economic growth. But my reading of history is that developing nations like China are not likely to think about the environment at this stage of their economic development. It's not a matter of willful ignorance, but of deliberately prioritizing economic growth.

And as that Chinese official, I'd be very unlikely to care about the Earth as long as the world's economic powerhouse does not. So leadership must begin in the US; hegemony is a bitch.

[Wevbo]

Marcus,

Sorry to dig in here, but I think you are expressing a kind of cultural imperialism that's troubling. Why does China have to wait for the US's model to begin acting responsibily regarding the environment? Consider the zero-waste cities and countries of Northern Europe, as an example of contributing global economies already addressing green reforms. Or, China's already initiating such reform-based technologies.

According to Thomas Friedman, China has spear-headed filter-acting concrete construction that captures and filters and distributes rainwater, waterless toilets, and solar panel technology across Beijing. And China will export these technologies. Or, as Friedman says,

"You think China is cleaning our clock now with cheap clothing? Wait a decade, when we'll have to import our green technology from Beijing, just as we have to import hybrid motors today from Japan...So they will become technology exporters rather than importers...And because of the unique needs of China and the fact that it will become the biggest market for any product, the Chinese will ''innovate at their affordability level.'' Once they come up with low-cost solutions that work inside China, they will take them global at China prices."

full article: http://www.pacificvillage.org/villagevoices/china/archives/001223.html

Chinese officials, if they accept scientific consensus about global warming, are under no more an obligation to wait for the US to "lead" them on the subject than they are for matters related to economic growth, military technology, resource development, Hasbro contracts, etc. No responsible leader of any country or community will drag his/her heels for very long on reforms related to reducing emissions and minimizing human impact on the environment and world, especially as that environment and world stops sustaining the population in the manner of previous generations.

[Marcus]

Look at China's actions in Darfur. Until very recently, China has not cared at all about the baby-death-by-bayonet approach favored by the janjaweed. Why? Because the Chinese economy needs access to Sudanese oil to grow. Now, after a great hue and cry, China is taking human rights claims more seriously. The economy rules.

If Friedman is right, China's innovations "at their affordability level" are only an effort to increase global power. Saving the Earth is a side benefit, but that's not why they're going green.

"China" was really just an examplar...Any developing country, in my understanding, cares about only growing their economies and *then* worries about other things. Certainly this was the case in the US when children worked to their deaths in coal mines. I'm not a cultural imperialist (I hope), but an economic realist.

Finally, the example of Northern Europe proves my point. No wonder those locations can be zero-waste cities. They're part of developed and prosperous economies.

[Wevbo]

1. China has been "greening," at a competitively faster rate and with more innovation than the United States, since the early 1980s. Expect it to continue to do so, independent of the US, whatever the motive:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/11/20/china_pollution/index.html

2. China is innovating "green" targets and emissions standards far superior to those of the United States, assuming risks along the way to be sure, but also while sustaining superior economic growth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4854258.stm

3. There is no sustained correlation between the "greenness" of a nation and either its GDP or its standard of living. Especially oil-producing countries with high standards of living, and Russia, score far lower on a sustainability index than do countries with primarily manufacturing economies:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8313

4. No one is waiting for the United States to lead--instead, the international community is waiting for the United States to catch up to Kyoto! In particular, the UN is already providing leadership on this issue by allowing developing countries that ratify the Kyoto accords to participate NOW in tradeable emissions credits:

http://www.greenclippings.co.za/gc_main/article.php?story=2006111513052959

5. To steal from an earlier post, conventional wisdom founded on ideas of cultural/economic/military-based superiority is a "bitch," too.

[Marcus]

There's been a major mischaracterization of my original posting. For the record, I am not a cultural imperialiast and do not thump my chest to the tribal chant of "U-S-A, U-S-A!"

If China is an environmental innovator (a matter of great debate), then I am happy to be proved wrong. My point is not that the only environmental innovation can come from the majestic and mighty United States, or that scientists in Beijing are too stupid to read a climate report.

I am saying that the US has the moral obligation to lead on this issue, because we create the most emissions and are by far the world's largest economy. As long as we flout the Kyoto Protocol, why should a striving economy disadvantage itself relative to the world's largest economy? As the "Chinese official," this is something I would have to think about. That is all.

So hey--more power to those Chinese officials who are thinking long-term. Perhaps I have an excessively grim view of human nature. I certainly do not have an excessive fealty to the United States.

[MarkD]

I have travelled to China many times this past decade. I can categorically state that China is not an environmental innovator. I have watched Beijing and Shanghai ‘progress’ from streets full of bicycles to streets full of motor cycles, then small cars, then big salons, and on my last visit, Beijing was full of SUVs. The first time I went to Beijing I thought my luck was bad in that I had picked a particularly cloudy week to visit. Only after my departing plane took off did I notice that the ‘clouds’ weren’t clouds at all but a thick soup of dust and pollution that perpetually surrounds the city.

I think WEBVO is referring to the one-off and temporary measures China is taking to reduce pollution in Beijing in the run up to the Olympics. They have closed a few factories around the capital, they have built some subway lines and instituted some traffic control measures – but these are all temporary and will be reversed come the end of the Olympics.

To claim that China has been ‘greening’ since the eighties, is frankly, a falsehood of monumental proportions. I can assure you that China grows more polluted with every passing year. I have observed it myself. This just goes to prove, don’t believe everything you read on the web – not even stories in Salon.

[Wevbo]

Already, this devolves dangerously close into you said-I said-he said, and now I guess, Salon said.

In my postings I have cited six articles from six different credible sources (and three new ones below), stating that China continues to undertake an environmental agenda more ambition than that of the United States, the purported global-leader-in-everything.

Consider that thorny Slate article. China is not projected to even match total current emissions by the US down the road. In other words, as we generate more pollution and do more damage to the environment, China will still finish a distant second. And yet, in the US, who is fingered as the heartless, godless, smog-choking environmental killers?

One does not need to thump one's chest in a tribal salute of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" in order to frame important issues with unhelpful cultural biases. It is interesting how, in this vein of posts Marcus as opposed to others, you have repeatedly invoked extremes to contrast your points (janjaweed arm-choppers, dying children in coal mines, all developing nations act the same way, tribal chest-thumping). Most Americans seem to feel that if an issue is not being addressed by the United States, then it's not being addressed at all, or that the United States must act first in order to inspire other countries to follow its fine lead. Alongside spreading democracy through war, these are the worst expressions of contemporary cultural imperialism, because they suggest a kind of empire approach to solving important problems in the world.

No doubt, China struggles to address the havoc its policies wreak on its environment. Nowhere in this vein of posts have I said that China was a green place to visit now, only that its policies are more progressive than the US, even world-leading. Some more articles that claim, since the 1980s (well before the Olympics were awarded), China has pursued an aggressive policy of alternative energy development and pollution controls:

1. Council on Foreign Relations Study of Environmental NGOs in China

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7770/chinas_environmental_movement.html?breadcrumb=default

2. US EIA Official Report on "China: Environmental Issues"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

3. China courts green venture capitalists:

http://ecofinance.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/27/1787647.html

MarkD, I don't doubt that you have had some powerful personal experiences in China. If you have actual examples of policy critique, from credible sources, that make for an interesting counter-argument, I'd love to read them.

[Helen]

I want to add the "she said" to the "you said-I said-he said." =)

As a person with 100% Chinese blood, I would be the first to detect American "cultural imperialism." I have to say, I did not find this imperialism in the original posting and subsequent comments. But, whether there was imperialism or not, let's not forget--

Being "green" is not necessarily a selfless act. Operating in a non-green way is not sustainable. To quote one of the BBC articles cited above:

"A quarter-century of breakneck development has left the environment in China on the brink of collapse.

About three-quarters of the rivers in the cities have water that is undrinkable and the quality of the air is often little much better. Chinese people are beginning to protest about the dangerous waste around them."

One can argue that China's concern for the environment is fueled by its desire to maintain its economic progress.

So, I disagree with the suggestion that Chinese officials do not care about the Earth. I think they do, however selfish the reason (but hey, very few acts are truly selfless).

Anyway, I forgot where I was going with this. Let's all lighten up a little... Happy Chinese new year!

[Marcus]

I don't know how else to state that I do not believe that the US is the "global-leader-in-everything." I do think the US has a moral obligation to lead on the environment, not because we're best but because we've caused most of the problem.

"Marcus the raving cultural imperialist" is a handy strawman, of course. Go ahead and keep knocking it down.

[MarkD]

Wevbo:

I’m short for time so I am going to do this in bullet point.

For those of us who live outside the US – you don’t need to bring up the fact that Americans are the world’s most prolific naval gazers – we live with the consequences of your naval gazing every day

Having worked with a department of the Chinese Ministry of Health for ten years I have no doubt that there are many initiatives undertaken by the government that are worthy of praise. I have no doubt that the projects you list would indeed offer examples that the world could follow and examples that should not be followed.

The Economist recently reported on a UN study showing that Chinese total industrial pollution emissions are set to surpass those of the US in the next five to ten years – making it the world’s greatest polluter. Do I think that this is evidence proving my personal observations? No I do not.

But neither does your list of articles discussing some innovative projects make the case that China is a world class innovator in environmental policy. That is a huge conclusion to draw based on a limited number of projects. Furthermore, what this has to do with the American internal debate on pollution escapes me.

Helen, I agree with your comments about China. It has been my experience that the Chinese Government single-mindedly focuses on developmental issues. If the government perceives that pollution is harming growth then the government will act quickly and decisively to correct the situation. It has been a life changing experience for me watching the transformation of China before my very eyes. Consequently, I have great admiration for the Chinese people. The achievements of China these past thirty years represent one of the greatest and fastest transformations in human history.

Wevbo, as someone who has worked very closely with the Chinese for many years. Let me give you this bit of advice about statistics on China. If there are negative consequences of growth then the statistics will not be collected. If they are collected, they will be buried. If they are published they will be denied and the person(s) responsible will be encouraged to change their point of view. You asked for statistical proof, of course there is no reliable proof. If their was data it would be altered or hidden. So I have no direct proof, but there is very overwhelming secondary data (none of which has been published in the west – that I know of).

In the past 20 years the official statistics for the incidence of environmentally related illnesses (asthma, COPD, lung cancer, various thoracic cancers, intestinal cancers) show a steady and concerning increase. Does this prove my point. No, because these numbers are false. When we talk among ourselves at dinner, the people in the trenches (the doctors, government officials) will tell you that the incidence rates of these illnesses is increasing at a rate far greater then the official statistics. Does that prove my point, no it doesn’t. But it is certainly stronger evidence then a few articles (whose publication may or may not have been encouraged by the government) that show contrary evidence of environmental improvement. It is only outcomes that matter Wevbo – not showcase projects. To claim that China is a leader in environmental policy is contrary to the observable facts on the ground.

[Wevbo]

MarkD,

You seem to be suggesting that, with regard to the reality of China's innovations (which you have personally observed working in other departments), China is perpetrating a massive fraud on the international community with regards to its "green" innovations by

1. methodically manipulating and suppressing statistical evidence,

2. coercing the production of or directly financing articles in first-rate media outlets (NYTimes, BBC, The Economist--see below) and US federal agencies (EIA) and think tanks (Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, CFR) favorably reviewing Chinese faux-green policies--the "few articles" I have produced supporting China's "green" innovations

I find the first premise reasonable on a limited basis, but the second absurd. China may control the release of its national data, but too many good Western journalists regularly report on China (Peter Hessler being the best) in a critical fashion for there to be complete suppression of anything. Further, I'm not sure how the Chinese would get to the EIA.

Again, yes, China is not a very green place now. I never said it was. But it is forward-looking in a way that the United States is not, and that's very relevant to the domestic conservation debate. In the course of our lifetimes, as we reckon with global climate change, I believe that Americans will begin to look to assign blame first, then act, and that most Americans will conveniently ignore America's onus in favor of finding a villain beyond our borders. No Marcus, that's not a dig at you. Further, Americans and their leaders will insist that the US suddenly proscribe an easy and applicable and widespread solution. If China manages to successfully market its conservationist innovations abroad, then there could be more isolationist backlash against doing anything that someone from somewhere else tells the ol' US of A is better than the homegrown. My point is that our country needs to look for the best and most immediate solutions to begin to stay the erosion of our environment. If that comes from abroad, let's embrace it. We may have innovated the Model T, nukes, jazz, and American football, but we're lousy right now with regards to the environment. China may spew wildly into the environment right now, but to also agree with Helen (the voice of moderation), China may be required by necessity to develop its anti-pollution technology in a way that merely amuses the US now.

As for your blind stab at labeling this naval-gazing isolationist, you miss the mark. I've lived and worked in four developing economies, two for extended time at the local level, and found very little similar about them: Bangladesh, India, Thailand, and Romania, where I live now. Romanians are horrified that the last four winters have had no sustained period of freeze. They are disappointed that the US does nothing to match the EU standards from Kyoto that forced Romania to modernize its energy infrastructure while reducing emissions. (That's right, a developing economy reducing its emissions in the name of economic development.)

Some more articles:

* THE ECONOMIST: China looks to develop a "green GDP," which quantifies a correction of regional and total economic performance by mitigating environmental factors:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5061453

* A BBC NEWS article summing up nation-by-nation emissions and emissions policies, that shows China currently 3rd behind the US and EU in total emissions.

[Marcus]

On a broad level, I agree with John's critique of American attitudes regarding the place of the US in the world. The source of my puzzlement, which has risen to infuriation, is that he's unfairly pegged me as an obtuse cultural imperialist.

MarkD does not know John, so perhaps his "blind stab" at John's point of view can be forgiven. But I've known John since 1995, and can never recall expressing any nativist sentiments in all those years.

On my personal email, the signature line is about how international borders are a meaningless political concept. I have no particular respect for the American way of life, and have actually tried hard to understand other cultures. So this notion of me as an "ugly American" is both inaccurate and offensive.

[MarkD]

John, you are putting words in my mouth.

I didn’t take a blind stab at your perspective. I was agreeing with your earlier comments that Americans focus on themselves. Why would I call you an isolationist? Perhaps you got confused with ‘your’ in my statement. I was referring to the plural ‘your’ (‘your’ as in Americans in general) and not the singular form of the word.

And indeed China does manipulate official statistical data, so therefore it is difficult to know the real facts. That was my point, I wasn’t making any sweeping generalizations beyond that point about global conspiracies on the part of China.

Nor did I deny that China is instituting green initiatives. They are indeed. What I am calling into question is your sweeping generalizations based on a few projects. Whether these initiatives are real or window dressing remains to be seen. The true intention of the government is unknown at this time. I know for a fact that government officials know there is a pollution problem in China. But like any government, there are competing factions within China. There are powerful forces who’s interests focus on growth at any cost. It is not clear to me, nor have you presented any evidence that would indicate a clear policy shift has occurred within the government. Having said that, I am not denying that it could be possible that China is serious about pollution, my single position is that is too early to draw conclusions about Chinese environmental policy.

As for articles in the press, I never accused China of ‘massive fraud’ on anything. I merely stated that China, like all governments, seeks and does manipulate the press – including the western press. What makes you think that the western press is above reproach? Six years of George Bush, if it has taught anything, teaches us that the press is easily manipulated. One must read all articles with a grain of salt; that was my point. I don’t even deny that all of the projects discussed in these articles could be factually accurate. However, if at the same time, China builds the very environmentally damaging Three Gorges Dam and countless coal fired electric plants and expands the number of cars at a dramatic rate - THEN focusing on these few green projects presents in inaccurate picture of a positive environmental policy on the part of China. All you need do is google ‘pollution in China’ and you get 17,000,000 entries. So stop cherry picking a few articles and claiming that these articles prove a shift in China’s policy. They don’t prove anything of the kind. They may represent a shift, but that conclusion cannot be drawn from such a small sample of articles.

And I do believe that I stated that Helen was right, the Chinese government is single-minded about growth – if they perceive green policies to be beneficial to growth, they will pursue them. If they think that money can be made by pursuing green businesses, then they will. If they do not, they will not.

[Wevbo]

Marcus,

Are you serious? I am in no way am arguing that you are an "ugly American," "a raving cultural imperialist," or any other such crap. You are the only person using these words, repeatedly--RE-READ THE DAMN POSTS. You have personalized these posts in a very extreme and unfair way, adding “raving” and “chest-thumping” to the phantom "imperialist," changed “a kind of cultural imperialism”--CHANGED AFTER YOUR FIRST OBJECTION INTO "unhelpful cultural biases" into “raving cultural imperialist,” and then bewilderingly, adding “obtuse” and “ugly American” after a post that had NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Do I think that you employ an unhelpful cultural bias in talking about this one particular issue? Initially, yes, absolutely, I said so above, without extending it to any broad characterization of you or your beliefs. Do you disagree that you have that bias? Yes. Fine. You know yourself better than I do, which means you know what you mean when you say that "hegemony is a bitch" for the "world's economic powerhouse," e.g. I trust you, I was wrong, and so have not challenged either of your indignant stabs.

I certainly don't entertain notions of you sitting with rod and scepter, lording over the ignorant others, and I haven't said that anywhere in my posts. It’s a ridiculous point—I don’t think anyone who knows you has ever teamed the words “raving” with “Marcus Banks,” much less “imperialist.” You have. Three times now.

Or, let me say it this way. You're a hell of a person, Marcus, one of the best that I know. You always have been. You run a great blog. Our friendship has accommodated some spirited debate over the years, and I thought that we were doing that here, too. A while back there, I disagreed strongly with you. But honestly, if I’m going to risk losing a friend because of it, to hell with “blogging.”

For the record, everyone, honestly, I am publicly and sincerely sorry for any hurt, pain, or false representations that I have facilitated regarding Marcus Banks in these posts.

[Marcus]

I would like to offer a full and capacious apology to my longstanding friend John W. Evans for becoming too emotionally invested in these blog postings.

On any issue you can imagine, I hope that I am thick-skinned enough to withstand criticism of my viewpoint and biases. In this particular case, my guise of being a "Chinese official" was a contrived attempt to "walk in someone else's shoes. So the argument that this reflected bias--which is a completely legitimate observation, and which John did not extrapolate into a general critique of my character--struck too close to the bone. Sometimes my skin is still too thin.

I'd like to close off this sequence of comments now, and take Helen's advice to celebrate Chinese New Year. I hope that John and Katie do the same.

[Helen]

While you're in an apologetic mood, apologize to me for using the word "capacious." Who uses words like that?! =)

[Marcus]

I offer an ample and complete apology for using a word like "capacious!"