Newsweak? Risk Assessment Expert Slams Bob Samuelson on Global Warming

The mainstream media serve the public the way McDonald's serves the public: they fatten the corporate coffers, period. No other consideration matters.

The media provide useful services to their customers who are their advertisers, every one of which is a big corporation. This determines all reportorial and editorial choices, and explains why the 'science' reported in the news is normally corrupted to shill for the corporations and why the coverage of actual journal articles is normally distorted.

The fact that I even know who Paris Hilton is a damning indictment of the news media.

Samuelson's "We can't do anything about it so why bother?" argument was vacuous the first time he published in the Washington Post, and it is still vacuous.

It's the old "If I (a non-technical "columnist") can't see how to do it, it can't be done." With that attitude, we'd all still be living in caves, hunting wild boar with spears and eating them raw because there is no fire. Samuelson would be sitting on a rock telling the guy with the flint and kindling fanning the growing flame -- that "You're wasting your time. It can't be done".

Everyone with a brain can see that Samuelson deserves criticism, so the question then becomes "Why wasn't Finkel's letter published?"

OK, here's a tough one for risk assessment. How do you evaluate risks on timescales of centuries compared to benefits? The Stern report tried, out to 2050 (2100?). But when assessing what I think is the biggest risk -- the Greenland ice sheet (no I'm not Al Gore or Jim Hansen, but I agree with 'em), how do you express the risks of unstoppable, irreversible, rapid (when it starts) ice sheet collapse and associated significant sea level rise?

Given the value of coastal real estate, I'd think this is the biggest risk out there.

Although it's certainly fun to beat up on Robert Samuelson (whose 35 year Social Security will go broke time frame is now called a Samuelson), let's be a little fair about it. Samuelson does say that he favors a number actions which I suspect even Mr. Mooney would support.

1. He advocates research into battery technology to improve hybrid cars. Nothing wrong with that.

2. He favors a $1 to $2 gas tax increase to reduce oil consumption. Nothing wrong with that.

3. He favors higher fuel economy standards for cars. Nothing wrong with that.

4. He favors increase reliance on natural gas. Nothing wrong with that.

It could be argued that all of these actions are too timid. However, they certainly don't support the contention that Samuelson is in favor of doing nothing.

All right, I'll "dissent". I agree that Samuelson may be wrong in some details, and certainly stretches to downplay the extent to which corporations like Exxon/Mobil have systematically worked to obfuscate and motivate paralysis. Nevertheless, I think there is some fundamental truth to his argument that poor progress toward mitigation of climate change may have as much or more to do with the tremendous cost of truly meaningful mitigation and the political difficulties associated with implementing the necessary policies. His point about there being a majority of the public concerned about climate change, and that this has been true for over a decade, is valid. Witness the recent lack of progress in western Europe, where a greater majority of the public is concerned about climate change and their governments have ratified Kyoto, yet greenhouse gas emissions have recently risen rapidly. And finally, I'd challenge Finkel's assertion that the cost/benefit of climate mitigation comes down clearly on the side of mitigation. My take is that the "dismal" science of that point is about as settled as the debate over hurricanes and global warming.

Please don't take me for a "climate skeptic", as I am certainly not. But I am skeptical (as I believe Samuelson is) that "framing" the climate change debate as a morality tale with ExxonMobil on one side and Al Gore on the other is an effective way motivating sound climate mitigation policy.

I would like very much to hear Chris' and Adam's take on this.

I think we have at least three myths which are delaying meaningful action.
The first two we are too familar with, climate change isn't happening, or that it is natural. The more insideous one is that we can't do anything meaningful about it. In addition to battling the first two myths, we have to keep pounding on the third.

We often hear things like; Europe tried, but their emmisions are not going down. In fact they are hard at work building a non-carbon energy infrastructure. But like many new, and partially developed technologies it has to undergo an early nearly exponential growth of capability phase. So of course results, measured in absolute terms look pretty small at early times. I think we have got to be constantly bringing new developments in alternative energy and efficiency to the publics attention.

SLC said: "It could be argued that all of these actions are too timid. However, they certainly don't support the contention that Samuelson is in favor of doing nothing."

If Samuelson really supports doing something about the climate change, then why does he say that "One test of greenhouse proposals: are they worth doing on other grounds?" ?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for doing things (eg, making vehicles with better fuel economy) that have benefits other than reducing emissions and thereby mitigating climate change (saving resources, saving money, reducing pollution, etc), but I simply can't see how one can read Samuelson's test as support for doing something about climate change.

His claim that "we simply don't have a solution for this problem" is neither accurate nor particularly helpful. In fact, it's false -- to say nothing of useless.

There may not be a single solution, but there are lots of solutions that, when taken together, would significantly reduce emissions and go a long way toward addressing the problem.

bigTom,

I'll grant that I took a cheap shot at Europe. They are certainly making a bigger effort than the US. And I certainly agree that "we have got to be constantly bringing new developments in alternative energy and efficiency to the publics attention". But some European countries had a head start on meeting Kyoto targets. And everyone agrees that Kyoto-scale efforts are orders of magnitude too small to significantly mitigate climate change. They are not even on target to meet the least stringent goal. Doesn't this fact just serve to make Samuelson's point that this is a much tougher problem to solve than is implied by this tired, old myth that oil-funded skeptics have been and continue to be the only impediment to solving climate change?

Eric, the scope for EU action is limited as long as the U.S. won't sign on, especially as the U.S is the key to getting China, India and likely Russia to do anything serious (although there are signs that China's own pollution problems are increasing their motivation). When I say limited I refer to steps that would tend to place them at a short-term competitive disadvantage.

I just had a mostly OT thought about China: There's been some media coverage about the potential impact of air quality on the Olympics, including the athletes, but what about the marathons in particular? What are the medical implications of running that hard and far in bad air, even for people in that kind of condition? It's a little difficult to move the marathons out of Beijing since they need to terminate in the main venue.

I find it interesting that although Samuelson has accepted most AGW dogma he is still villified by the faithful for daring to question whether mitigation efforts would be fruitful or even achievable.

He soothes the angry mob a bit by advocating massive new energy taxes and increased government spending and regulation (the panacea of the left) but is called to task for calling for a halt to the moral crusade against dissenters.

You guys are cruel masters. Of course totalitarians always are.

And why does unilateral aggressive mitigation put mitigating countries at a competitive disadvantage? Because it is costly. And why is passing aggressive mitigation policy politically challenging? Because voters don't support policies that they think (or have been convinced) will put their country at a competitive disadvantage. So why does Newsweek do a cover story on the denialist machine when they could have done a cover story (which nobody else in the popular press is covering) on the very real economic and political barriers to climate change mitigation? I don't know the answer to that one, but my guess would be because nobody would read it.

I just thought it was a little strange that the editors let Samuelson use his column to rubbish a major piece by another of their writers. That must have led to some tense moments by the Newsweek water cooler.

Ditto.

I mocked Samuelson when he wrote the same garbage for the post.

Every time there is some hard problem Samuelson just takes a fatalist position and whines that anything to correct would just be too hard. He's a sissy.

I believe that there are three basic problems that face our world and that global warming is, and will continue to be, an unfortunate by-product. Do I believe there is a solution (to the three problems)? Don't know. But nature will ultimately provide a solution--and maybe it will be the best solution after all. Anyway, here goes:
(1) Unsustainable and growing use of limited natural resources (potable water, arable land, metals, and fossil fuels). We (meaning the USA, but the entire industrialized world, of course) are especially dependent on oil, which is teetering on the verge of a relentless and irreversible depletion phase. We import over 60% of our oil and this percentage is on the rise, not the other way around, and the total petroleum pie is poised to enter exponential decline (the raw stats suggest this already has begun). Brace yourself for Peak Oil.
(2) A growth-oriented economy based upon consumerism, credit, and high return on investment that is in turn fully dependent upon cheap, available, and versatile fuels. The economic model in use today is entirely dependent on continual and never-ending growth. As things stand today, there exists no substitute for oil that can sustain the current world economic model, especially in the area of transport, but also crucially for coal in the realm of electrical generation. "Alternative" sources of energy and an infrastructure that supports them are, for the foreseeable future, so entirely inadequate that it defies comprehension.
(3) Exponential population growth made possible and fueled by the above. Today's population level is possible only because we can afford to eat oil, drink oil, and transport eating and drinking oil. Remove oil from the equation or the ability to cheaply transport it, and a large part of the population quickly dies. Current population levels obviate the ability to sustain such levels by local food production because the distribution of world population has over the years moved dramatically from rural areas to our colossal urban centers. These huge centers of population are entirely dependent upon cheap oil to collect, sanitize, and deliver potable water and food to their inhabitants and to dispose of waste. They are entirely dependent upon the energy infrastructure to construct their homes and provide heat and light. And so on.

Now for the bad news. Peak oil is not the prime problem we are facing. Nor is it over-population. Under the present economic system lack of investment is going to be our nearest and deadliest enemy. The current transport and energy infrastructures are complex, highly sensitive, expensive, and require immense investment to continue operating, even without considering the increased demand to be placed upon these infrastructures by continued urban population growth. Investment, whether it is private or public, is driven by the prospect of a reasonable return, the likelihood that the investment or the loan will be repaid in full plus reasonable returns. If the likelihood is that profit will suffer or that the investment will be lost altogether (a business going bankrupt), then investment in that business will dry up and the market collapse. The moment that the money markets realize fully that peak oil has happened, investment in the transport and energy infrastructure will dry up. Who is willing to invest in a losing business? And the infrastructures won't be saved by public monies either, as the costs of maintaining the infrastructures will become too high in a failing economy where the tax base is eroding.

The gut reaction will be to throw every fossil fuel source at our command against the problem--dirty coal to be specific.

Thus, all of the hydrocarbons that can be burned will be burned.

For our immediate survival, we will do anything. A dangerous rise in global temperature an inevitable result.

At some point parts of the infrastructure will likely collapse--possibly forever--taking with it whole populations of urban dwellers and the growth-based economy with it.

"Men go and come, but earth abides."
--George Stewart (Ecclesiastes)

"...here's the truth. We have squandered our planet's resources, including air and water, as though there was no tomorrow, so now there isn't going to be one. So there goes the Junior Prom."
--Kurt Vonnegut

These are, as I expected, very thoughtful comments. I have specific reactions to some of them, and will end with a general point about cost-benefit economics.

1.("Dark Tent"): I don't think it signifies anything that Newsweek didn't publish my letter; they did publish two short letters about Samuelson's column, one (naturally) on each side of the issue. I'd love to know what the pro/con breakdown of all letters was, but I suspect that whenever at least one letter comes in on the less-popular side of an issue, a magazine like Newsweek will print it and an equal number culled from the dozens (or hundreds) on the other side. I was aware at the time that ending with a jibe about the Valerie Plame leak might make my letter less likely to get in, but I wanted to make the point that the media seems to misunderstand and misuse the word "whistleblower" (near and dear to my heart) in the same way they toss about the word "dissenter" or "maverick."

2.("Jimbo"): You're right--low-probability events in the far future pose a huge challenge to risk assessment. In addition to the uncertainty itself, there is controversy over what discount rate to apply to the harms done in the future. Treat a life lost in 50 years as equivalently dire to a life lost tomorrow, say the economists, and you will always procrastinate (we'll have more money to control the harm later if we don't spend it today, and will reap the same monetized benefits). I think this only makes sense if you discount back from the point at which the harm will become irreversible, but I am sympathetic to the general point that both future costs and future harms should be discounted (but not, I believe, at the same rate). But your question leads to a more profound point: some of us risk assessors believe we should spend less effort quantifying the risks in an abstract way, and more effort evaluating the benefits and costs of practical choices we can make. For a perhaps fairly broad range of estimates of the timing and probability of catastrophic ice sheet melting, there are actions we can take today that yield expected benefits far in excess of their expected costs (as well as other actions that are almost certainly not cost-effective). Polishing the proverbial chrome on the risk estimate itself is not informative about which portfolio of actions is superior to doing nothing.

3.("SLC"): Where did either Chris Mooney or I accuse Samuelson of being "in favor of doing nothing"? He apparently is willing to support the four items you mention, which says to me that although his head may be in the sand, it is not also shoved somewhere else. But had we ever said "Samuelson is in favor of doing too little," would that have been "unfair"? (and the second comment by "DarkTent" makes this same point better than I just did).

4.("Eric"): I agree that we should frame this issue as more than just a morality play, but Samuelson doesn't say there is more to the issue than this--he says that there is no one out there playing the parts of the "fools, cranks, or industry stooges." I'm not sure what Magic Kingdom Samuelson resides in, but on the planet I've been living on, there are fools and stooges aplenty. Also, I'm a lifelong advocate of cost-benefit analysis, but I would never suggest that actions with positive net benefit cannot also be immoral. See below for my take on the "tremendous cost" of mitigation. On your second comment (2:13 pm), who said that skeptics "have been and continue to be the only impediment"? All the original Newsweek story said, which Chris and I echoed in our comments, is that the denial machine made it harder to solve a hard problem. Some percentage of Hummer drivers sporting the yellow "Support our Troops" ribbon on their bumper would continue to behave as they do no matter how clearly the denial machine would recant its position, so in that sense the doubters-for-hire are only one impediment among many.

5.("Lance"): What a depressing comment. I wrote government regulations (for OSHA) for five years, and solved other problems by entering into partnerships with employers. I am confident that if I ever took one drop of freedom away from someone we regulated, it produced a torrent of freedom for the beneficiaries. That's what grown-ups call "the wise restraints that make us free." If I wanted to engage in name-calling on the level of your "totalitarian" remark, I would list the ten restraints on freedom in the U.S. that produce the fewest benefits in return--and I bet all ten would be among those brought to us by the totalitarians of the current Administration and its "base."

************

"Eric" and others are right, that the crux of this issue is "cost"--how big it is, and more importantly, what we actually mean by it. If the cost of solving the problem is in fact "tremendous," that doesn't end the discussion, because surely there's a substantial possibility that the harm of not solving it is more tremendous still (keeping the prices low at Wal-Mart is not that useful if the stores are under water).

Unfortunately, economists (and Samuelson's B.A. in government doesn't make him one, just as my seven years as a scientist in an economics think-tank [Resources for the Future] doesn't either...) have a HUGE problem thinking adequately about uncertainty in cost, and they tend to "solve" it by ignoring it. On a good day, they can tell us something about how much money is needed to drive the "partial equilibrium" phase of a regulatory program--the one in which some people have to give up something to provide the environmental or other benefits. The polluters may have to purchase control technology, the consumers may have to absorb higher prices for some goods, and if we're lucky the economists will not vastly overstate these costs, and put some error bounds around their estimates. But that's not what "cost" is. The cost of a social program is the sum of all the changes in economic welfare impelled by the program, including the changes to the producers of the control measures themselves, the employees who work for them, the people who buy goods whose prices go down because of the program, etc., etc.

We simply have no idea whether the "general equilibrium" post-mitigation is less "tremendous" than the partial one, is even worse, or is all the way through the looking glass to a true "win-win" outcome (where we save the climate and also improve the economy over its current state). Some economists don't believe this can happen (the ones who believe that anything other than the free market has to somehow by definition be "second best"), but examples abound of regulatory programs whose costs were wildly overestimated by industry and government, and of ones that produced environmental benefits and cost less than nothing (economic gains exceeded economic losses, irrespective of the tangible additional environmental benefits).

Another amateur scientist/economist on Newsweek's payroll is the inimitable George Will, who wrote Samuelson's column six months before Samuelson did. Will mused about the possible joys of agriculture in Greenland, and asked a legitimate half-question: "Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?" If economists would ask, and help us answer, the more interesting half of the question--"Are we so sure the economy at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?"--we might actually understand something about what we might lose, and gain, by taking the steps Samuelson says, with no foundation, are "too difficult."

Thanks again to Chris for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on what is probably the most important "intersection" of all.

Adam M. Finkel, Sc.D.

Will mused about the possible joys of agriculture in Greenland, and asked a legitimate half-question: "Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?"

Underneath all that ice, Greenland has roughly the same geology as the Canadian shield. A vast expanse of very hard rock that takes an awful long time to turn into any kind of soil. Glaciers tend to scrape up soil and transport it from higher elevations to lower elevations. Since nearly all of Greenland's glaciers reach the sea, the vast majority of the soil that enabled forests to grow on Greenland during the Eemian has long since been scraped up and pushed into the ocean. In this respect, Greenland is again similar to the Canadian Shield; during the most recent glaciation, the Laurentide ice sheet scraped up all of the soil in the Canadian Shield, and moved it elsewhere. It's been over 10,000 years since the Laurentide ice sheet melted, and there's some soil on the Canadian Shield, but not enough to profitably grow the vast majority of major food crops, like wheat, barely, rye, typical garden vegetables, and so on. Although it is possible that the presently ice-free areas in the least inhospitable areas of Greenland may become less unsuitable for agriculture in the near future, essentially every part of Greenland presently under ice will remain unsuitable for agriculture for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of years after the ice sheet has melted. In this context, George Will's choice of possible to benefits to muse about is laughable.

Not to mention if those sheets melt we're going to be seeing increases in sea-level in terms of meters.

True, we don't know what the "ideal" is, but the fact of the matter is we've got many cities on the coasts that will face catastrophe with loss of the ice sheets.

Mr. Finkel and others believe that global warming is a pollution crisis, subject to some kind of regulatory analysis. Superficially yes, but the fundamentals are much deeper. Thus any news of species extinction related to the rise of average global temperature, changes in in projected rainfall distributions, the ominous acidification of the oceans, the possibilities of innundated coastlines and cities following the Greenland and Antarctic melt, or even an increase in the intensity or frequency of hurricanes are met with some combination of horror, outrage, or sadness. If only the polluters would stop polluting and the cost of regulation be weighed against this unacceptable outcome. And, by the way, how the denialists have stepped in the path to enlightenment and redemption.

Except this is not just a pollution crisis. It is an energy crisis, a population crisis, and a financial crisis. In short, an anthropological crisis. And the cultural history of H. sap. sap. has much to reveal about the likely outcomes. In any case, until these are addressed somehow, the pollution crisis will continue and it will be impossible to "regulate." Nobody is going to be forced to accept "control technology," should it exist in any meaningful way, in the presence of shortfalls in the life-blood of industrial civilization and when immediate survival (or even air-conditioning) is at stake. Actually, it is far more likely that war will be waged than any other outcome (oh, wait...). I'm worried, only because I have seen no evidence to the contrary, that these fundamentals are poorly understood by the Scibling community.

That is unfortunate since the community is populated by scientists or those who associate themselves with that community. It is further unfortunate because it is some of our fellow scientists, among others, who are leading the way in documenting the global energy situation, but seem to be beneath the radar of this community. That some of this research is only now hitting the mainstream media (see the October issue of the Atlantic Monthly) only means that somebody is not doing their homework. Fred Bortz and a few others may be an exception on this blog.

Eric the Leaf said: "Mr. Finkel and others believe that global warming is a pollution crisis, subject to some kind of regulatory analysis."

Finkel's response to some of the comments above shows that your criticism (of him, at least) is not warranted:

"Eric" and others are right, that the crux of this issue is "cost"--how big it is, and more importantly, what we actually mean by it. If the cost of solving the problem is in fact "tremendous," that doesn't end the discussion, because surely there's a substantial possibility that the harm of not solving it is more tremendous still (keeping the prices low at Wal-Mart is not that useful if the stores are under water)." -- Adam Finkel

Cost includes all the things that you mentioned and more.

The fact is, there are many people who recognize that climate change is not simply "a pollution crisis, subject to some kind of regulatory analysis." [technically, CO2 is not even "pollution", not in the usual sense of the word]

Anyone who doubts that need only visit the website of Rocky Mountain Institute. RMI has been working on energy issues for over a quarter century. They understand full well that addressing climate change involves all the issues that you mention.

But the folks at RMI are bit more optimistic than you and Samuelson are -- and their optimism is based firmly in reality. In fact, they believe that, if done right --with a focus on efficiency and alternative energy sources -- addressing the energy problem would address the climate change problem as well.

What sets the people at RMI (far) apart from people like Samuelson is that 1) they actually understand the issues involved and 2) they believe that we actually can do something to address all these problems pretty much simultaneously. They recognize that the energy issue is the key.

Critically, they are not just idly speculating about these issues. They have a proven track record. Their research and other work have produced tangible results (eg, development of ultra-high efficiency vehicles and high efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs) that demonstrate the potential of their approach for success.

And after you read what they have to say, ask yourself whether what they are proposing amounts to "regulating our way out of the problem."

Sorry Mr. Finkel if you found my remarks "depressing". I am not surprised that someone that "wrote government regulations (for OSHA) for five years" is likely to view massive government intervention on a world wide scale as the answer to the non-problem of AGW.

A response to "Lance"-- I was being too polite; I found your original comment remarkably ignorant, not merely depressing. I'd be interested to know what in your current or past experience makes you so overwrought and irrational about "massive government regulation." Did someone once give you a speeding ticket, or make you spend a few bucks to protect someone you had in your employ from harm? I know a few true libertarians, and find them interesting in a peering-through-the-bars-at-the-zoo sort of way, but most of the anti-regulatory zealots I know are all too happy to see government impose the most bizarre restraints on behavior that they find annoying (or more commonly, against the original writings of their particular religion). OSHA, when I worked there, did a few things that saved lives at essentially zero cost. Do you have anything in your career that you're proud of having done? I suspect not.

Adam Finkel

Dark Tent,
Thanks for the RMI link. My most recent comment was not directed to efficiency and alternative energy technologies, but to the general concept of regulating the amount and nature of emmisions. But one of these days when I have time, I'd love to address this other subject in depth. Not as if I gave the first topic more than superficial attention.

My suggestion would be that that Chris and Sheril begin to post in-depth articles on these issues so they can be batted around. I wish they would, and get out of the business of worrying about global warming debunkers and the latest warnings about the dangers of climate change. They are preaching to the choir. But, that's their deal.

Yes, I'm not an optimist, although I prefer "realist." I have my own concept of solutions, but they are not traditionally considered as such. Again, a much longer discussion. A poster some days ago, John McCormick, had some intiguing notions, but nobody paid him much attention. So go blogs. It would be great if this blog would turn its attention to these pressing issues.

I applaud efforts like those seemingly embodied by RMI, although the reading material is rather thin and it's hard to get enough of a handle on their projects in order to do some of the math for myself. I am a little concerned, however, when they champion hydrogen fuel cells. If the hydrogen isn't being separated through PV electrolysis, it isn't doing anybody any good. And that is another discussion as well, for which a few sound-bytes are insufficient.

In any case, I believe wholeheartedly that a number of interesting technologies are available and even profitable. What concerns me is their scalability not only in the time frame of interest, but in the face of what will soon be depleting stores of petroleum and natural gas (a fascinating question with some startling data sets and models), itself embedded in a context of growing demand and a growing world population.

Again, I submit the latter two topics do not seem to be either widely appreciated, acknowledged, or even discussed on this blog. If I am wrong about that, then I must stand corrected.

In the light of morning, I want to apologize to everyone, especially "Lance," for the last three words of my reply above. For all I know, he is a doctor, a firefighter, a construction worker, or part of any other profession whose members are justifiably proud of what they do everyday. I was reacting not as much to the cheap shot about government workers-- I'm used to that-- but to the remarkable arrogance of dismissing AGW as a "non-problem." All because he, like so many of the knee-jerk anti-regulatory crowd, hates to be told what to do in a society (and *perhaps* belongs to that large subset of that crowd who nevertheless wants to regulate private behavior with a vengeance). Nevertheless, I'd like to end my previous comment with the implied question, not my unfair speculation about the answer.

Adam Finkel