Introduction In the current debate on climate change, one of the frequent questions posed by climate change skeptics to those advocating action against climate change is "What if it turns out you are wrong?" In this article I will address this question and will also pose the same question back to climate change skeptics.
I will then compare the risks of each camp getting it wrong and weigh up the potential ramifications for current and future generations.
Background The vast majority of scientists and climate experts are of the opinion that the planet is warming and that this warming has been brought on by human activity since the start of industrialization.
Furthermore, the majority of the scientific community are of the view that greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (produced by burning fossil fuels i.
e.
coal, oil and gas) are the main culprits.
This view is shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who point to data showing that the global average temperature has increased by 0.
76 degrees over the past 100 years at the same time as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased from 250 parts per million to now almost 400 parts per million - a coincidence that the scientific community finds hard to ignore.
Furthermore, as carbon dioxide has a lifespan of over 100 years, climate experts believe that further warming is inevitable and that the challenge is to reverse this trend in the future by reducing carbon emissions now.
However, there are still many factors to be understood around climate change and issues need to be resolved relating to the reliability of the forecasting models used to predict future temperature trends and the impact of continued warming.
This has led many to query the basic assertion that the warming trend has been caused by human activity and they point to previous warming periods to back up their argument that the current warming is merely a cyclical function of nature.
There are also many who still debate that any warming is actually occurring and argue that data is available that shows average global temperatures have in fact declined over the last 10 years.
A small minority of conspiracy theorist even go as far as to suggest that global warming is a massive hoax that has been created to line the pockets of those involved in the green movement.
With such polarizing views from climate change activists and climate change skeptics it begs the question "what is the risk from each camp if they have it wrong".
After all - one of the camps must be right but unfortunately it will be some time into the future before we know which one for certain.
What are the risks if climate change activists have got it wrong? The main strategy for climate change activists in the fight against climate change is to reduce further build up of greenhouse gasses.
In particular they target the high volume of carbon dioxide that is a by-product of the process of burning coal to produce electricity.
However the proposed strategy of reducing coal fired production techniques has a wide impact across the industrialized world and ultimately will cause many traditional industries to close down, in turn resulting in massive job losses.
Proposed emission trading schemes and carbon taxes will also add a further layer of cost to consumers around the world at a time when many countries are still reeling from the impacts of the Global financial crisis.
As a result the main risk of climate change activists being wrong is the financial and economic impact of closing down traditional industries and the subsequent job losses.
However the impact of reducing the number of traditional industries is offset in part by the creation of new clean tech and renewable energy industries that will result in new job opportunities.
The development of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind (and to a lesser extent geothermal generated energy) will see new industries spring up, creating a large number of job opportunities in these new areas.
Even if the global warming theory proves to be wrong, the transition from using scarce natural resources for power generation to a process using renewable energy sources is only bringing forward the inevitable.
At some point in the future, supplies of coal, oil and gas will be ultimately be exhausted, forcing alternative energy sources to be developed in any event.
What are the risks if climate change skeptics have got it wrong? If we are to give in to climate change skeptics and suspend all carbon reduction strategies, fossil fuel driven industries will be free to continue releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If it is subsequently proven without doubt that high levels of carbon dioxide do in fact contribute to global warming then the impacts will be devastating.
Although job losses in traditional coal fired would have been abated, the impact of higher average global temperatures will see future generations being exposed to: -A higher frequency of extreme weather events such as storms, floods and bushfires -More water shortages and longer droughts -Rising sea levels from the melting of large expanses of land based ice regions -Irreversible loss of biodiversity in natural habitats, plants and animal species -A wider coverage of tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever -A higher frequency of heat related injuries and deaths If climate change skeptics are proven wrong, their actions in stalling the reduction of global carbon levels could well be viewed as being criminally irresponsible by future generations.
Skeptics will argue that their actions will prevent economic loss but it could be counter argued that a robust economy is irrelevant if the health of the planet is severely impacted.
It could also be argued that the economic cost of addressing the impacts of climate change ( e.
g.
loss of life and rebuilding from extreme weather events), will outweigh any economic benefit from saving traditional fossil fuel fired industries.
Conclusion The net risk of proponents of action against climate change being wrong is minimal against the net risk of climate change skeptics being wrong - particularly for future generations.
Climate skeptics are gambling the fate of future generations and by ignoring the wide body of scientific evidence of global warming- this is a high risk gamble and one that is morally wrong.
I will then compare the risks of each camp getting it wrong and weigh up the potential ramifications for current and future generations.
Background The vast majority of scientists and climate experts are of the opinion that the planet is warming and that this warming has been brought on by human activity since the start of industrialization.
Furthermore, the majority of the scientific community are of the view that greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (produced by burning fossil fuels i.
e.
coal, oil and gas) are the main culprits.
This view is shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who point to data showing that the global average temperature has increased by 0.
76 degrees over the past 100 years at the same time as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased from 250 parts per million to now almost 400 parts per million - a coincidence that the scientific community finds hard to ignore.
Furthermore, as carbon dioxide has a lifespan of over 100 years, climate experts believe that further warming is inevitable and that the challenge is to reverse this trend in the future by reducing carbon emissions now.
However, there are still many factors to be understood around climate change and issues need to be resolved relating to the reliability of the forecasting models used to predict future temperature trends and the impact of continued warming.
This has led many to query the basic assertion that the warming trend has been caused by human activity and they point to previous warming periods to back up their argument that the current warming is merely a cyclical function of nature.
There are also many who still debate that any warming is actually occurring and argue that data is available that shows average global temperatures have in fact declined over the last 10 years.
A small minority of conspiracy theorist even go as far as to suggest that global warming is a massive hoax that has been created to line the pockets of those involved in the green movement.
With such polarizing views from climate change activists and climate change skeptics it begs the question "what is the risk from each camp if they have it wrong".
After all - one of the camps must be right but unfortunately it will be some time into the future before we know which one for certain.
What are the risks if climate change activists have got it wrong? The main strategy for climate change activists in the fight against climate change is to reduce further build up of greenhouse gasses.
In particular they target the high volume of carbon dioxide that is a by-product of the process of burning coal to produce electricity.
However the proposed strategy of reducing coal fired production techniques has a wide impact across the industrialized world and ultimately will cause many traditional industries to close down, in turn resulting in massive job losses.
Proposed emission trading schemes and carbon taxes will also add a further layer of cost to consumers around the world at a time when many countries are still reeling from the impacts of the Global financial crisis.
As a result the main risk of climate change activists being wrong is the financial and economic impact of closing down traditional industries and the subsequent job losses.
However the impact of reducing the number of traditional industries is offset in part by the creation of new clean tech and renewable energy industries that will result in new job opportunities.
The development of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind (and to a lesser extent geothermal generated energy) will see new industries spring up, creating a large number of job opportunities in these new areas.
Even if the global warming theory proves to be wrong, the transition from using scarce natural resources for power generation to a process using renewable energy sources is only bringing forward the inevitable.
At some point in the future, supplies of coal, oil and gas will be ultimately be exhausted, forcing alternative energy sources to be developed in any event.
What are the risks if climate change skeptics have got it wrong? If we are to give in to climate change skeptics and suspend all carbon reduction strategies, fossil fuel driven industries will be free to continue releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If it is subsequently proven without doubt that high levels of carbon dioxide do in fact contribute to global warming then the impacts will be devastating.
Although job losses in traditional coal fired would have been abated, the impact of higher average global temperatures will see future generations being exposed to: -A higher frequency of extreme weather events such as storms, floods and bushfires -More water shortages and longer droughts -Rising sea levels from the melting of large expanses of land based ice regions -Irreversible loss of biodiversity in natural habitats, plants and animal species -A wider coverage of tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever -A higher frequency of heat related injuries and deaths If climate change skeptics are proven wrong, their actions in stalling the reduction of global carbon levels could well be viewed as being criminally irresponsible by future generations.
Skeptics will argue that their actions will prevent economic loss but it could be counter argued that a robust economy is irrelevant if the health of the planet is severely impacted.
It could also be argued that the economic cost of addressing the impacts of climate change ( e.
g.
loss of life and rebuilding from extreme weather events), will outweigh any economic benefit from saving traditional fossil fuel fired industries.
Conclusion The net risk of proponents of action against climate change being wrong is minimal against the net risk of climate change skeptics being wrong - particularly for future generations.
Climate skeptics are gambling the fate of future generations and by ignoring the wide body of scientific evidence of global warming- this is a high risk gamble and one that is morally wrong.