Category Archives: Climate Change

Climate Cange denial, Climate Change, Misrepresenting Science

James Taylor (2013): misrepresenting peer reviewed article

Leave a comment

SOHO.net has provided a link to an opinion piece by James Taylor that appeared in Forbes magazine (2013) that misrepresents the work of Lefsrud and Meyer “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals Discursive Construction of Climate Change” published in Organization Studies, (2012) in an attempt to show that climate change is  a minority option among scientists.  The thesis stated in the original Forbes article:

“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

The 36% quoted above is from the article by Lefsrud and Meyer but is highly misleading.  The intent of the original article was to understand the framing of climate change to understand ‘defensive institutional work’.

“By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.”

The survey was of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta), heavily weighted by people in the petroleum industry.  This is acknowleged in the article by Lefsrud and Meyer.

“The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. “

“There are 540 multinational integrated, midsized, and junior oil and gas companies in Canada (nearly all headquartered in Calgary, Alberta) with operations worldwide. ”

If you want to understand nuances of climate change interpretation, what better place to look than inside the petroleum industry!  This survey is more a survey of scientists and engineers in the petroleum industry (in Alberta) than any representation of scientists as whole, or climate change scientists in particular.  In addition the survey was not designed to get a yes/no response on climate change but to understand more nuanced positions, and not a binary result (does or does not believe in climate change caused by humans).  Consequently the responses to the survey  were assigned to one of 5 categories. (See table 4 in the report)  Using this report to represent the whole scientific community is at best misleading.

The category with the largest response was “agree with Kyoto” (36.3%).  The Kyoto protocols were meant to help us combat climate change.  This is the figure used for the binary distinction in the Forbes  article “Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, “ as we look at the other categories we see that this is factually untrue.  What is not stated in the Forbes article was that this is the category with the largest response!

The category with the next largest response was “Nature is overwhelming” (24%).  According to Lefsrud and Meyer this category believed that global warming was occurring naturally (24%). This is the “Nature only group.”

The Fatalists has the next largest response (17.4%).   “‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused.”  And “Fatalists are not convinced that involvement will make a difference and, thus, following Gamson (1992), they do not develop the sense of agency.”  Notice that this group saw climate change as both human and naturally caused.  Since they believe it is both human and nature caused, placing them into the category of nature only is at best misleading.  They are a skeptical group, and see little impact on their personal life, etc..  (see the paper for more details).   This position is between the binary divisions that the Forbes article would like to impose on the survey.

9.7% of the responses fall into the economic responsibility group who “… diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. ”   This another group that has a skeptical position (“real cause of climate change is unknown”)  They  do not see a personal impact and focus on economic impacts.

4.7% of the responses regulation activists, “Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. ” again, skeptics not deniers.

7.9% of the responses were disguised responses (this was an internet poll) … assigning them to the binary category “that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem,” is at best misleading.

Notice that not personally seeing an effect (in Alberta Canada) has been translated to “future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”  These are not the same statements!  The climate change research has focused primarily on long term effects, of which we are just now starting to witness.  The effects are most pronounced near the shorelines and in areas that will be most affected by global warming.  The scientists in Alberta Canada may not be as affected during their lifetimes as people elsewhere on the Globe!

Table 4 is also breaks down the responses by additional categories of respondents.  Of those employed in the oil and gas industry 29.8% of the responses were in the “nature is overwhelming” category , 27.6% were in the “Comply with Kyoto”, and the rest being in the other categories.  So even within the oil and gas industry in Alberta these two categories are about equal!  The geoscientists were the most split with 40% in the “nature is overwhelming category” and 24.1% in the “Comply with Kyoto” category.   The definition of Geoscientists given by the APEGA is

“(i) reporting, advising, evaluating, interpreting, processing, geoscientific surveying, exploring, classifying reserves or examining related to any activity

(A) that relates to the earth sciences or the environment,

(B) that is aimed at the discovery or development of oil, natural gas, coal, metallic or non-metallic minerals, precious stones, other natural resources or water or that is aimed at the investigation of surface or subsurface conditions of the earth, and

(C) that requires, in that reporting, advising, evaluating, interpreting, processing, geoscientific surveying, exploring, classifying reserves or examining, the professional application of the principles of mathematics, chemistry, physics or biology through the application of the principles of geoscience, or

(ii) teaching geoscience at a university”

The definition above, and the large presence of the Petroleum industry in Alberta, perhaps makes this group this group professionally dependent on the petroleum Industry.  It seems as least possible that scientists with a strong conviction that we need to limit our use of petroleum products would try to avoid a career in the petroleum industry, which has strong roots in Alberta.   From this perspective it might be surprising that almost 1 out of 4 geoscientists in APEGA responded in the “Comply with Kyoto category.”

To summarize:  if you poll a group of people, heavily weighted by people working in the petroleum industry you find that you still have a minority in the “nature is overwhelming” category, at least in Alberta Canada.  Apparently Climate change is making its imprint on those scientists working directly in the petroleum industry.  This poll was not intended as a poll of the broader category of scientists (and the authors make no such claim).  It was a poll attempting to understand the more nuanced positions about climate change.  To use this poll as a way of trying to prove that the majority of scientists disagreed with climate change is a gross misrepresentation of the article.

The article itself is worth reading, especially if you are interested in exploring a more nuanced view of how people grapple with the issues presented by climate change.

Forbes, and by extension Soho.net, either did not understand the article, or seem to have misrepresented the article for their own purposes.

For some other takes on this study see:

Think Progress (especially the end where the authors of the study comment)

Science Blogs: Denialism

Climate Watch

Climate Change, Environmental Ethics, Techno-idolatry

Techno-idolatry and Climate Change

Leave a comment

As I write this blog the negotiators at the COP 21 talks are attempting to come to an agreement.  They are motivated by both the projections of future environmental disasters and the realization that this has already started.  The stated cause is the rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) that are being poured into the atmosphere by modern civilization.  The solutions being proposed are high technology: photovoltaic cells, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, increased hydroelectricity, and yes, nuclear power.  The list of high technological actions includes carbon capture: which burns fossil fuel, captures the carbon dioxide and then pumps the carbon dioxide back in to the ground with the intention that it stay there … well … long enough.

It would seem that Paris is faced with a dichotomy: climate catastrophe or technological nirvana.  There are two problems with this dichotomy. First, it is a false dichotomy, and second, the future being proposed is no nirvana.

There is a third way: change our lifestyles so that we are more in harmony with the needs of the Earth.  This web site is dedicated to that third way.  This way does not reject technological progress, but rather sees it as one tool among many for our living in harmony.

One simple change that has a major impact on climate change would be for each of us to move closer to a more vegan lifestyle.  In 2006, the United Nations issued a statement about our love affair with beef and dairy products. “Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation …” (Here is the link).   The Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, with suggestions how to minimize the impact. (Here is the link).  Simply put: don’t eat beef or dairy products.  There are other changes we can make to the way we live that minimize our impact on the environment which we will cover in subsequent blogs.

The solutions that are being proposed replace the fossil fuel industry by a new “green industry.”  A great example is the solar roof top industry.  There is place for solar roof top solar and it can be a helpful addition to the climate change arsenal.  This strategy replaces one industry (gas companies) by another (roof top solar manufacturers).  In so doing, the stability of the current economic system is maintained.  The replacement of coal fired electric plants by off shore wind farms is another example of replacing one industry by another, maintaining the stability of the economic system.  Exxon’s economic sin was not that it produced fossil fuels, but that it did not use the profits to purchase a dominant share in the green technology! Behind these solutions is a faith that we can solve ecological problems through technical innovation and then create the corporations necessary to implement these solutions.

The last 100 years have given us technological marvels in a seemly never-ending parade of advances.  There is a faith, that seems natural, that if we only have enough talented, funded people working on the problems that they will be solved.  This is an attractive vision where our standard of living can go on increasing forever and ultimately will include the entire population of the planet.  It is the positive vision of science fiction where the city of tomorrow has limitless energy, no limits on food production, unlimited transportation, and all material want is eliminated.  This is an almost narcotic eschatological vision that worships human ability to overcome all obstacles.

The problem with such visions is that humans will not be able to harness unlimited energy.  It requires energy to grow food, manufacture material objects (like cell phones), and power the vehicles that transport humans and material goods.  So, such a vision is fatally flawed.  Such a vision is a form of idolatry:  a faith in the unlimited possibility of human ingenuity.

Why then do our leaders, including those in Paris, seek to assure us that such a vision is a viable future?  Corporate capitalism requires exponential growth.  Companies are judged by their percentage of growth.  The solution to the climate crisis involves the developed countries consuming less, and that is a threat to every business that views its success in term of how fast they are growing.  Ultimately, the world cannot sustain 7,300,000,000 people living at the United States standard of material wealth and energy consumption.  It is quite probable that the United States will not be able to maintain its current per capita energy consumption in a sustainable manner without destroying much of the environment within the United States.  (I will explore the reasons for this statement in future blog entries.)

The future however, need not be that of an apocalyptic nightmare.  The bright future will however require that we rethink what we mean by “the good life.”  A life that places a larger value of living in harmony with the Earth, being in community with our neighbors (including non-human neighbors), and working toward a future where material wealth is secondary to spiritual and relational health.  This is ancient wisdom that we have forgotten.

Climate Change, Environmental Ethics

United States Repentance at the Paris Climate Talks?

Leave a comment

Imagine last week that a few relatives came to Thanksgiving dinner and immediately sat down finishing their fair share of the dinner before most other guests even sat down. By the time the other guests sat down, the gluttonous guests are devouring their second dinner.  The early arrivals are into their third helping while the remaining guests are just starting to eat, having barely picked up their forks.

The United States is one of the gluttonous guests at the world’s dinner of carbon emissions.

The United States’ position at the Paris climate talks should be one of shame, repentance and begging for forgiveness.  Energy is the lifeblood of modern civilization and fossil fuels has fueled the developed world’s appetite for energy.  Who gets what energy is a matter of vital concern for all countries.  Numbers matter and what the numbers show is that the United States (of which I am a citizen) has already consumed more than our fair share and will continue to do so in the future.  The United States cannot morally point its’ figurative finger at other nations on issues of climate change.

Here are the numbers as I read them:

Myles Allen et al. have estimated that the total cumulative carbon emissions from human sources will need to be limited to less than a trillion metric tonnes of carbon, if a peak warming of less than 2oC is to be achieved.(1)  Unfortunately, we have already emitted more than half of this amount. (2)

The United States has emitted about 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon as of 2012. (3)  The United States, with about 4.4% of the world’s population, has emitted at least 17% of the world’s carbon emissions to date. (4)  If the United States were to have no net carbon emissions starting today, we will have emitted about 10-11% of the trillion metric tonnes of carbon limit suggested by Allen et. al.  This is about 2.5 times more than our fair share!  Yes we are on our third helping of carbon emissions! Yet we are still emitting carbon dioxide equivalents at the rate of 5.8 billion metric tonnes a year. (5)

What if we ignore the past and only look to the future?  There are about 400 billion metric tonnes of carbon left to be emitted before we hit the trillion tonne limit in an attempt to limit temperature rise to 2oC.  The United States fair share would be just under 18 billion metric tonnes.  At our current rate of carbon emissions we will use our fair share in the next 11 or 12 years.  (6) It is a virtual certainty that we will continue to consume more than our fair share.  We refuse to get up from the table and let others have their fair share of dinner.

The Gospel of Matthew could inform the United States posturing during the climate talks in Paris.

 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.  Matthew 7:3-5 (NRSV)

The log in our own eye is both our historical emissions and our current rate of carbon emissions.  The speck in the eyes of the less developed countries is their emissions as they try to economically develop their country to improve the quality of life of their citizens.

Numbers matter.  The United States should come to the Paris climate talks with a spirit of repentance.  We need to ask the forgiveness of the rest of the world for our over consumption of the world’s resources and our endangering God’s creation in the process.  We then need to leave the Paris climate talks with an all-out aggressive plan to limit our gluttony and maybe then we can all sit down together at the dinner table.

Notes:

(1) Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, Jason A. Lowe, Malte Meinshausen, and Nicolai Meinshausen. “Warming Caused by Cumulative Carbon Emissions Towards the Trillionth Tonne.” Nature 458 (2009): 1163-66.  The numbers presented are in terms of the mass of carbon, not the mass of carbon dioxide.

(2) For a cumulative carbon emission clock see http://www.trillionthtonne.org/  as of this writing the world has emitted almost 600 Billion metric tonnes of carbon.

(3) Or 366,421 million metric tonnes of CO2 according to the world resources institute see http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

(4) I have used the figure of 100 Billion metric tonnes of Carbon for the total emissions of Carbon up to 2012 to which I have added 4.7 Billion tonnes to account for the emissions in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.  This number can vary depending on the details of the calculation and some sources put the U.S. share to global cumulative carbon emissions as high as 29%.

(5) This is the number for 2013 as reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 (EPA 430-R-15-004) which was cited in the United States INDC at COP 21  see page 2-6.  In terms of Million Metric tonnes of Carbon equivalent (not CO2) this number is 1,579.

(6) Preliminary calculations suggest that if the United States were to follow our commitments in the INDC submitted for COP 21, and we held to the rate of decline of CO2 emissions past 2025 (the last date of the commitment) then we would use up our fair share between 2028 and 2029.  We would achieve zero emissions in about 2058 and have used up just under twice our fair share.  More on this later.

Note:  This post was edited so that the quoted amount of CO2 emissions reflected the number the US submitted at COP 21 for 2013.   Footnote 5 was added to document this number. Footnote 4 was similarly updated which slightly effected some of the figures, so they were changed. The number of years to use up our fair share was corrected.  A note was added to show how the planning in the United States INDC submission to COP 21 changed the time frame to using up our fair share (footnote 6).