Global Warming Skeptics with Green Centers of Gravity

Here is the blank half of your post, which does not appear until you click "add comment":

With the collective mind I referred to what you wrote about the social construction aspect of global warming (After all, the critics pointed out, communities of scientists had often held mistaken views, and then changed their collective minds.). In this sense, I guess there is a bias of collective vs. individual, and this is a more philosophical and political than scientific topic. I think the climate debate is also about collectivism vs. individualism, and the actually featured talk about Ayn Rand (by Ken Wilber and Nathaniel Branden) is touching this issue. Part of the climate discussion is just quite anti-modern, and therefore Boomeritis. I know these points of view from myself, I was one of the first members of the (German)Green Party in my little town 30 years ago. Regarding nuclear energy I was, of course, very opposed, and I still don't like it, although it could be a transitional solution (though it is not very cost-effective).

 

It is not so long ago, about 5 years, when I had initated an Integral Meetup Group in Nuremberg, and a friend said something sceptical about global warming. Then I needed at least a year to begin to understand that it was possible to be sceptical of the collective view on this issue....! I think here should be the place to find a comprehensive view on climate change. On Wikipedia, where I am contributing sometimes, there is much more 1st tier, of course.

I wasn't sure which quadrants you were referring to when you said "individual" vs. "collectives," so I attempted to address both sides of the quadrant, since both subjective and objective quadrants have an individual (upper) and collective (lower) dimension.

Now having re-read your comment, I think you were referring more to the individualism of the upper quadrants on either side with respect to Ayn Rand's objectivism more so than on individual dissenting scientists on either the UR or LR quadrant.  Oh well.  I begin with "collectivism vs. individualism" in the scientific sense first:

Individualism vs. Collectivism, Right-hand Quadrants

Since individual dissenting scientists can theoretically refer to dissenting scientists on either the UR (exterior individual) or LR quadrant (exterior collective), the terms "individual" vs. "collective" will apply very loosely to respond to the above.  "Individual" in this sense refers to individual dissenting scientists as opposed to "collectives," which on the right-hand quadrants appear to refer to a community of scientists known as a scientific consensus whether on the UR or LR quadrant.  Thus, "individual" or "collective" may not necessarily be in reference to the upper or lower quadrants.

When I referred to the social construction aspect of global warming, I wasn't expressing my personal view but was referring to a classic example of Green global warming denialism, since green deconstructionism focuses on denying objective reality and referring to truth from right-hand quadrants as a "social construct."

You wrote that with respect to the "social construct" of truth as deemed by a community of scientists (more specifically, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, I assume), that there is a bias of collectivism vs. individualism. 

By "collectivism," I presume that in this context you are referring to a community of scientists known as the scientific consensus as opposed to individual scientists dissenting from the scientific consensus, and the fact that a bias exists in science toward "collectivism" (the consensus view) vs. "individualism" (a dissenting scientist's view).  This--in spite of the "collective" (consensus view) often being mistaken, requiring paradigm shifts and changes in collective thinking.

While I can see this as being the case at one time with regard to 17th century classical Newtonian physics (the once prevailing scientific consensus view) vs. the quantum mechanics of the 20th century (a once dissenting scientific view), classical Newtonian theory is still valid and true on the macroscopic level.  The "paradigm shift" or change occurred in particle physics, where classical Newtonian theory was found to no longer have validity in the subatomic realm (and therefore, could no longer hold claims to exclusivity and absolute truth).

Other paradigm shifts also occurred in previous times such as the once prevailing view that the earth was the center of the universe vs. the Copernican view and the church fathers' belief of "no moons on Jupiter" vs. Galileo's observation of moons on Jupiter.  Since science as a domain did not emerge until the time of Galileo, we cannot use Copernicus as an example of overturning the scientific consensus since there was no formalized methodology of science at the time.  For that matter, we can't even use Galileo as overturning the scientific consensus since a community of church fathers do not count as a "scientific consensus."

When applied to anthropogenic climate change, the idea that after all, the critics pointed out, communities of scientists had often held mistaken views, and then changed their collective minds is not valid.  For one thing, it took a full century of investigation and debating before science arrived at a consensus on anthropogenic global warming.  The consensus view that the earth is warming and that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of this is therefore relatively recent yet based on a century of careful observation and study.  So far as I can tell, this consensus view has never changed or was found to be mistaken. 

This notion of the scientific consensus being "mistaken" at one time is based on the fact that back in the early '70s (prior to the formation of a consensus view on anthropogenic global warming), a minority of scientists (I think, about 30% but don't quote me) believed that the earth was cooling and was entering an ice age.  In spite of its popularity in the press, this was never a consensus position held by science and was held only by a minority of science--the overwhelming majority of whom have since reversed their position to agree with the scientific consensus. 

Thus, while true, perhaps, that as the critics pointed out, communities of scientists had held mistaken views, and then changed their collective minds, what we're finding in the case of global warming is the reverse phenomenon instead: that rather than the consensus having to change their views collectively, individual scientists who previously were mistaken in their views were compelled to change their views to the collective (consensus) view in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence that continue to support and reinforce the consensus.   This in itself does not mean that the consensus isn't mistaken as all scientific theories are open to refutation.

Individualism vs. Collectivism, Various Quadrants

In response to the postmodern denialist claim of the fallibility of science, you wrote, "In this sense, I guess there is a bias of collective vs. individual, and this is a more philosophical and political than scientific topic."  This doesn't really mean much unless by "collective," you are referring to a collective of people other than the scientific consensus.  If so, you are referring to other quadrants and methodologies that in themselves do not invalidate the scientific consensus on climate change, but argue other things (such as policy or economics and so on).

In that sense, we can apply Ayn Rand's individualism vs. collectivism in the economic and also philosophical sense.  The assumption among many free-market capitalists and followers of Ayn Rand is that innovation and ideas come from individuals rather than from collectives.  Based on this observation, and considering the growing concern among scientists to reduce human carbon emissions, a free market solution such as the Kyoto Agreement of cap and trade is the most effective for promoting both research and development and also industry efficiency on an individual company level (something the Copenhagen Consensus failed to address was the innovation and energy efficiency in industries that this cap and trade policy encourages).  From an objectivist point of view, a cap and trade policy is much preferable to a straight carbon tax as it would force companies to become more efficient and thereby become more competetive and innovative.  From a scientific view, a ceiling or "cap" is necessary to set global standard for emission down to ppm, which a carbon tax doesn't necessarily guarantee (especially when gas and coal can be purchased so cheaply nowadays--which is likely to change very soon in response to peak oil).  Since cap and trade rewards companies to become more competetive and to develop alternatives to fossil fuel (albeit indirectly), R&D is encouraged on an individual company level.

On the collectivist side, you have a straight carbon tax.  According to James Hansen, there are so many loopholes and grandfather clauses in cap and trade and so many disagreements between nations on the finer details that it may ultimately prove to be ineffective, since immediate and substantial reduction CO2 emission is necessary to prevent a tipping point and catastrophic global climate change.  Considering Hansen's dire warning of possibly only a straight carbon tax working, we may want to pay heed to his alarm.

However, given that cap and trade is a "sneaky and indirect way" of taxing industries (according to Lomborg) and the fact that the public may be more averse to being taxed individually (as private citizens) by way of carbon tax to pay for pollutions by fossil-burning industries, a cap and trade policy, as "sneaky" as it is and as inefficient and inadequate as it is, may be the only realistic political solution to this crisis from a political standpoint.  After all, in the United States, this is what Obama campaigned on.  In addition, cap and trade sets a global ceiling to carbon emissions whereas carbon tax does not. 

Given all of the above and the consequences of unmitigated climate change, an Integral solution would be to adopt cap and trade of Kyoto to regulate industries and to impose a carbon tax on individuals in addition to research and development, efficiency, and adaptation: thus encouraging both a collectivist and individualist solution. 

No one ever said that solving climate change wouldn't be costly.  Trillions "wasted" on cap and trade and carbon tax and R&D may be nothing compared to total extinction.  If we survive it as a species and resolve the climate issue, this may usher in a new Integral age that is no longer focused purely on the material and quantitive aspects of the mental-rational (orange and green).

The following article doesn't provide a breakdown of how a carbon tax might compare to a global cap and trade agreement, but does offer a new perspective on how scientific views have changed over time in regard to a cap and trade agreement vs. no agreement.  It seems that a carbon tax, while theoretically more effective, may not be feasible politically.  Nor is it enforceable globally unless there is a switch from nation-states to a one world federation to impose a global carbon tax on every world citizen. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  But considering the inadequacies of the cap and trade expressed by Hansen, my thinking is that a combination of an international cap and trade agreement combined with a national carbon tax would be a more effective route to address the more immediate concerns of averting a 2.5 C "tipping point," which R&D alone can't be counted on to deliver us from in the next few years or decades.

Another reason why carbon tax may be preferable (if it were politically feasible to implement) is because I believe that under current cap and trade scheme, certain carbon-emitting American companies (such as cement industries, etc.) have requested to be exempt from this policy or else they have threatened that they will move their companies to a country that does not participate in a cap and trade agreement.  Should this be the case, a straight carbon tax might be a way of getting around this loophole by taxing these companies straight where their company executives live (most of whom do not live in second or third world countries but here in the U.S.A.), and forcing these executives to report the amount of pollution created by their overseas companies and taxing them an additional carbon tax based on their amount of carbon emissions.  What you think about that?

In addition, the Copenhagen Consensus believes that 550 ppm is a safe level and bases its report on that figure.  The IPCC warns that going over 450 ppm is dangerous.  More recently, James Hansen and a number of climate scientists have come out to say that the current 385 ppm should be reduced to 350 ppm to avoid a catastrophic tipping point.  Should this be the case, mitigation would be the most immediate concern (over Lomborg's idea of R&D while granting that all strategies, of course, are necessary).  I would think that a more Integral perspective would want to implement mitigation efforts both nationally (carbon tax) and globally (international cap and trade agreement), no? 

Source:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/28/global-boiling-roulette/

Global Boiling Roulette: The Margin For Error Is Gone

In 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change designed the “Greenhouse Gamble” roulette wheels to depict the “probability of potential global warming over the next hundred years,” based on the latest scientific research. They compared the gamble of warming with and without an international agreement to reduce emissions through programs like the cap and trade system proposed by President Obama. Today, they released updated roulette wheels, reflecting how much worse the gamble has gotten:

These wheels assume a scenario in which “no policy” action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. In the previous wheel the likelihood of exceeding 5°C was about 4%, but in the new wheels that likelihood is 57%. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 2009.

If greenhouse gas emissions are controlled to relatively low levels then the Earth systems feedbacks are much lower, but there is no longer any possibility of less than 1°C warming. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 2009.

The “policy” scenario reflects the establishment of mandatory policies to reduce emissions, such as building standards and cap and trade systems, that limit total carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 parts per million. However, as climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf recently explained, even limiting warming to two degrees Centigrade cannot be considered safe, which is why there is a growing demand for policies that limit CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm.

The new roulette wheels were initially released in February 2009, with a reset color scale that made a direct comparison between the old and new scenarios difficult. The Wonk Room thanks the Global Change Program for taking our suggestion to update the wheels.

Now, we have a better way of making sense of Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2008 and putting it in its proper perspective.

According to the executive summary of the Copenhagen Consensus in 2008, the projected rise in average global temperature is 3.5 C by 2100 with no mitigation efforts, which is used as a "baseline."

With a combination of mitigation, adaptation, and R&D, the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 estimates that the projected rise in average global temperature is 3.0 C by 2100, meaning only a 0.5 C reduction after trillions of dollars spent.

Indeed, based on the economists from the Copenhagen Consensus, "no action" is little different from "trillions of dollars wasted" on mitigation efforts.

Based on the the pie charts created by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change in 2009 (see charts above), the number of scientists agreeing with the Copenhagen Consensus of a 3.5 C rise by 2100 without mitigation efforts is about 10% (an eyeball estimation), whereas 90% of these scientists disagree with this "consensus," reporting that a no agreement or no mitigation plan will result in a 4-7 C temperature rise by 2100.  Well beyond the tipping point of 2.5 C.

Accordingly, a "cap and trade system" according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2009 reports that less than 10% of these scientists agree with the economists at the Copenhagen Consensus that a combination of mitigation, adaptation, and R&D will result in a temperature rise of 3.0 C.  Well over 90% of these scientists believe that a "policy action," such as cap and trade, will result in a temperature rise of only 1-3 C.  Of the 90%, approximately 75% of these believe that a "policy action gamble" will result in only a 1-2.5 C temperature rise: thus, indicating that 70% of these scientists believe that a cap and trade agreement may prevent a "tipping point" and a sudden and catastrophic climate change.

What these economists at the Copenhagen Consensus did, in effect, was choose the "best case scenario" for "no policy action" and a "worst case scenario" for "policy action" (which perhaps conforms with their pro-industy ideology).  This to me is scientific dishonesty.  In addition, they claim to base their assessment on the IPCC Fourth Annual Assessment in 2007, when in fact the 550 ppm ceiling that they use was from the dated Kyoto Protocol from several years ago.    

In closing, I would not put any faith in the Copenhagen Consensus.  It is obviously skewed toward inaction and deregulation policies for the benefit of industries.