Fueling the anti-climate change fire?

One of the arguments people use to deny the threat of climate change is to point out that computer models are used to generate predictions of the effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. 

“Models are flawed,” they argue, “we shouldn’t develop policies now to avoid the consequences of climate change when we only have computers providing predictions with high uncertainty telling us what those consequences might be.”

Unfortunately, a recent study seems, at first glance, to support this argument.  Computer models are inherently limited in how well they can predict the consequences if rising greenhouse gas emissions result in extreme increases in temperature, it says.  Most models predict moderate changes in temperature, and there is greater consensus on how the climate will respond.  But, the greater the predicted increase in temperature the greater the variance in the models’ results. 

However, the authors of the study point out that since our ability to precisely predict how the climate will react if specific levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are reached, policies should be linked to temperature targets, not emissions levels.

It could be a dangerous argument to make; the results could easily be spun to argue the predicted consequences of climate change are too uncertain for us to be alarmed.  I’m not certain the momentum in public support for measures to offset climate change can be maintained if people aren’t convinced the results of doing nothing will be bad–very bad. 

Getting people in the Western world to make the necessary lifestyle changes to mitigate or offset climate change is a tall order.  Here, in London, Ontario, there was a big stink because a roadway recently re-named to commemorate war veterans was strewn with garbage.  We can’t even stop people from throwing garbage out the window of their cars!    The tearful Native American man of the infamous commercial would be inconsolable now.

 

It’s a clear sign you need a really solid argument if you want people to consider an alternative to driving themselves everywhere, let alone any other actions needed to curb emissions. 

On top of that, there’s also a call from people truly concerned about climate change to abandon the Kyoto protocol.  They don’t have to argue that it’s a failed policy; I think most people can see not much has been achieved in battling emissions.  In fact,  levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are accelerating.  But, they make a very strong case the real problem with Kyoto is it’s the wrong tool for fixing the problem. 

As they point out, the greatest obstacle to moving away from Kyoto is it’ll be a huge political challenge for anyone who endorsed it to now suggest an alternative approach is necessary. Especially since non-signatory nations like the U.S. have already used the “alternative approach” terminology as code for a plan to doing nothing. 

However, I think it’s a worthwhile read for anyone concerned about climate change.  If enough people get the word out about their suggested alternative to Kyoto, who knows,  maybe it could motivate people to push for more localized strategies to reduce emissions?