Saying that we need to start a grassroots effort to start action within 10 years is hardly panic. Panic would likely be what the younger generation feels in about 25 years if we do nothing for the next 10 years. I would like us to avoid that panic by doing more now, since it's always cheaper now than later.
--------------
Insert tacky reminder and lesson about panic and rising water: The scientists and engineers said the levees around New Orleans needed to be rebuilt because of the risks of a large hurricane. The others said, "Ohh Chicken Littles - the sky isn't falling! Don't worry about it, don't panic. It's highly unlikely a major hurricane will hit. We can use the money for other things. We're all going to die anyway!"
The cost of rebuilding, lost earnings, health and social costs, grants, insurance, etc. will dwarf the amount it would have cost to rebuild the levees years ago. And the levees still need to be rebuilt...
The scientists were right. The living have to pay the price for not "dying anyway."
--------------
I started on this journey of reading about 6 months ago (and I need a new pair of reading glasses from it) because I was looking to compare some of the methodology to economic models of risk, and particularly the measure of risk, since the parameters are less than galactic, but wider than economics. Cyclical and technical, or push factors, are present in both, and both follow the general principle that history is not a precurser to the future since the conditions are never the same.
And, it's a field undiluted by politics, agendas and special interests, like economics...
I would very much like to read more peer-reviewed, recently-published papers by credentialed scientists that counter the theory that our CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases will not contribute significantly to the increase in global mean suface temperature with data and a methodology.
The problem is that I can't find them. As a matter of fact, they have melted away to a trickle.
So how do we define concensus? There are a few thousand peer-reviewed papers published in the last few years saying 'yes,' and about a dozen published in the same time saying 'no.' The 'no' guys have no data or experiments, so they are relegated to adding anomolies to projections to derive a 'no' conclusion.
Fred Singer is the 'no' guy most quoted, but he isn't writing peer-reviewed papers. Half of the organizations he's part of are funded directly by ExxonMobile, and the others are spinoffs supported by the same money. Most of the old scientist skeptics retired, died, stop writing about it or changed their minds. The few new guys are looking to cash in on ExxonMobile's largess to anyone willing to say 'no' publically. Most of the takers are retired and don't need to look colleagues in the eye anymore on a daily basis, and they are not writing peer-reviewed papers with data to support their position.
The papers written 15 years ago that are still being trotted out were written before the new modeling and before the biggest push factor - the massive impact China is having on driving up emissions and overall resources consumption.
It's interesting to note that the same non-scientists who argued that there was no concensus, hence no scientific validity, changed their argument when the concensus became overwhelming. It changed to the argument that concensus has no place in science, hence there was no scientific validity.
There is no less concensus among credentialed scientists than there is concensus that smoking is deleterious to your health.
It's reminiscent of the argument used by the tobacco industry - no concensus of medical evidence. The industry did the same thing the oil industry is doing now:
Create the illusion that there is no concensus with false 'scientists' supporting their position for cash. By the way, that filter was made from asbestos and decimated the workers that made the filter with asbestosis.
The only argument remaining is: we don't want to change our lifestyle.
-----------
In a nutshell, we're getting compound interest (temperature increase) from our CO2 emissions, not simple interest that we projected 18 and 10 years ago.
-----------
The global economy has gone through a remarkably extended period of growth and good fortune and we should be investing
now toward changing our energy infrastucture, not waiting until the wolf is at the door 25 years from now. A policy centered on burning through all the fossil fuel we can get our hands on until it runs out is foolhardy. Foolhardy for the environment and for global economic stability.
Now is the time to start rebuilding the nuclear industry. The environmental groups who oppose it are foolhardy also. If we don't start a massive program this decade, we may not have the resources to do it later. Industry and much transportation must move to non-fossil fuel electricity. The western economies are going to be under great stress 4-5 years from now when baby-boomer retirements begin to throttle down consumer spending.
Creating a race to the finish for fossil fuel is a race that no one wins. Investing in a new industry (it will be like a new industry for many countries, US included) creates jobs and growth. In 25 years, China alone could have a demand for oil that exceeds the total world supply. The world will not be able to pressure or hold China and India responsible in the future, if the rest of the world has not already started changing the infrastructure. The "Dr. Strangelove" method is not an elegant solution.
It's kind of a classic fable, isn't it? Spreading western selfish consumption with no regard for the next generation throughout the world as a 'way of life' will hasten the degradation of the western way of life for the young generation of westerners.
Reducing CO2 by changing our infrastructure has no negative risks to the health of any species (including us), environment or ecosystem. The argument that it will hurt the economy should be more honestly stated. It's like a disease or infection - the longer you wait to treat it, the greater the risk it will do more damage to you.
Anosognosia is not a treatment.
