The myth that “climate change is good” is widely broadcast by a variety of social interests, politicians, and their combined constituencies hoping to get or stay empowered in many countries, especially northern (developed) ones like the United States, Canada and Russia. The loudest voices on the “is good side” are usually hydrocarbon interests, corporations and oil oligarchs and their public relations voices (often conservatives) who usually imply that a warming climate improves agriculture in cold northern climates and is perhaps “good” for foresters and tourism industries as well.
Of course it is likely true that a future warmer climate could actually benefit a few scattered cold climate farmers, loggers, and resort owners. The Stern Report and other economic analyses however predict that “bad” will offset “good” by economic measures of up to 2-5% annual GDP losses. Predictions of increased desertification, more frequent flooding, more wildfires, storm intensification (like Sandy), crops increasingly stressed by excess heat, soil and beach erosion and human health issues are a partial list of “bad” climate impacts listed by the UN’s IPCC which is now almost universally endorsed by professional atmospheric and climate scientists.
The implied assumption here is that “good or bad” refers to human (development) welfare which of course is not a simple good or bad issue, but always raises a broad range of questions such as “for who, “in what timeframe”, “how” or “why”? For example, farming, forestry and tourism also require adequate water access, sufficient sunlight, appropriate soils, economic viability, and regional backup infrastructure to actually benefit from warming temperatures. These constraints must be considered too. Furthermore they must be ranked by relative importance.
Critical climate positive feedback loops (ones that cause more warming) highlight this ranking necessity because they impact everything else. Nearly all good or bad simplicity can be ruled out just by putting two key positive climate feedback loops near the top of the list. They stand out so much because of their overall capacity to reduce the ocean’s heroic role of keeping the earth’s heat budget in balance. (1) Warmer air temperatures are a positive feedback in themselves. This is because warmer air always holds more water vapor which is itself a potent greenhouse gas. As such, it self-amplifies the warming. Another key dilemma is (2) that warmer oceans lose their ability to sequester the GHG CO2 for two basic reasons: (a) Phytoplankton growth absorbs a lot of atmospheric CO2 but loses this ability dramatically as water temperature rises. This is a major reason additional atmospheric carbon flux spikes most in El Nino years when the oceans are warmest. Also, (b) warmer ocean water releases more CO2 into the air by direct gas exchange (outgassing) thus also reducing the ocean’s ability to modulate the earth’s heat blanket properly. To summarize, making full use of the ocean specific heat and heat capacity is the earth’s key secret in maintaining the it’s thermal stability.
Hopefully the reader can see by now that whether climate change is good or bad is in reality not the right question to ask in the first place. The world has been far too complicated for many centuries to judge complex issues by “good or bad” and it seems shameful to see such Manichean like thinking dominate the tongues of many of today’s politicians and news commentators alike on the subject of the climate. “Yes or no” type binary responses limit the range of questions that can be asked, especially those requiring more nuanced answers because of issue complexity. Almost any aspect of the human caused climate change problem involves multi-disciplinary analyses by specialists to even try to fully understand it. This is primarily because the climate change problem is a difficult to understand anthropogenically driven earth-wide biophysical process. (HUH?!) Thus, both theoretical and applied social and physical sciences are essential. Furthermore explicit analyses by ethicists and theologians seems especially critical because they DO help make the decision making processes a bit simpler for most and have special expertise in sorting out “good or bad” and “yes or no” folks who seek opinions they might feel comfortable with. Understanding the importance of professional linguists helps too. Society finds meaning through words and is deeply dependent on finding the right ones to form opinions that are sufficiently strong to claim them and pass them on with conviction. Finding good communicators is key.
This is where Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and Goddard Institute of Space Studies comes in. He is perhaps America’s most prominent climate scientist. The accuracy of his early (1981) atmospheric research and the courage he expressed in his Congressional (1988) testimony ranks his opinion and his human qualities at the very top of many a list. His role as a scientist and a political conservative with relatively traditional religious views makes his words unusually hearable for many. On TV, in lectures, at conferences and under Congressional testimony, his low keyed persona is always appealing. He feels alternately very expert and very human.
I do not hide my respect for him personally because for me consistency counts and he is and has been emphatic about climate change for nearly 30 years and sees that it will adversely impact human welfare. (THIS MEANS CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD!) Even in his semi-retirement he has made protecting his own grandchildren, Sophie, Jake and Connor from the adverse affects of climate change, a personal mission. For the nation he advocates for a “national carbon fee and dividend”. This is still too radical of a departure from most who still cling to “business and usual”, but for those understanding the need for change, it is a simple and eloquent economic solution. It penalizes fossil fuel use (THIS IS GOOD) and spreads its rewards for taking action across American society. This may imply that CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION CAN BE VERY GOOD TOO! His most utilitarian quality in terms of advancing climate awareness may be the fact that his politically based arguments are mostly from a conservative point of view and reflect the sentiments of his own generation, a lot!.
Most climate scientists have difficulty bridging science complexity and practical ethical simplicity like this so perhaps this is why his opinions are of such extreme value. Since most people do not have the time to deeply understand the nuances of climate science or energy economics, listening to those who do and who they respect is probably the best that we can hope for. This must apply especially to those social interests, politicians, and their combined constituencies who still see “business as usual” as either unstoppable or “good” without asking “for whom, “in what timeframe”, “how” or “why”?
Locating one or a few serious students of climate change who has deeply contemplated the issues and with whom to reason through the climate change information chaos is helpful to both the expert and the novice because it facilitates understanding at both levels. This is a final recommendation.