Good global warming

Local blog All Things Conservative has a post about a recent article from a British newspaper, the Telegraph, that claims that global warming will bring about plenty of good things.

If only.

Organic Matter has already laid into portions of the article.  But I can't resist commenting further.

"Global warming is good."  This is actually an old talking point.  In fact, an entire organization exists to promote it: the pleasant-sounding Greening Earth Society, funded by the Western Fuels Association.  Yes, the coal industry. 

The Telegraph article, focusing on these alleged benefits of global warming, fails to mention any real benefits that apply outside of northern, fairly wealthy countries such as the United Kingdom, Russia, Canada, and the United States.  And some of the benefits for those countries that it mentions are pathetically meager:

Last year, a team at the University of Hamburg showed that a modest temperature rise would lead to 30 per cent more tourists visiting countries such as Russia and Canada.

The benefits to UK tourism may also be substantial, according to a recent study by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which concluded: "We may witness not only an expansion in the domestic market, but an expansion in the inbound international market as the UK develops a more Mediterranean climate."

Left unsaid is the distinct possibility that climate change brought on by global warming could end up shutting down the Atlantic gulf stream that currently keeps northern Europe far warmer than most other areas at such high latitudes.  But perhaps the UK could develop a new skiing industry to attract tourists in that case.

After all, as the article points out, humans are endlessly adaptable, and we really shouldn't sell them short.

Climate scientists have made little of the benefits of a warming planet, and even less of the ability of humans to cope with the consequences. From the changes in irrigation and new crops made by American farmers that prevented a repetition of the 1930s Dust Bowl, to the sea-wall system that protects northern Vietnam, there is no lack of evidence for human inventiveness in the face of climate change.

Left unsaid is how much this coping will cost, and how much human suffering will take place in the meantime.  A repetition of the Dust Bowl was avoided, but wouldn't it have been better to have prevented it in the first place?

The low point of the article comes with a quote from Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London.

"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity".

As Organic Matter puts it, this is "surprisingly idiotic."  I would prefer not to use such harsh words (especially since Professor Stott has his own blog!), but the fellow at Organic Matter does have a point.  What would Stott's vote be if given a choice between the Little Ice Age of a few centuries ago and, say, the planet Venus?

Back on Earth, the climate is a lot more complicated than simple choices between "warm" climates and "cold" ones.  Stott also neglects that we are starting from a period as warm or warmer than any other period in at least the last thousand years.

The only interesting point the Telegraph article brings up is global warming's effect upon agriculture.  But even here, the article overemphasizes modest potential benefits in northern, wealthy nations, while neglecting the almost certain downsides for agriculture in developing countries.  This is an interesting subject, though, that I am now inspired to learn more about.

Finally, the article closes with the old canard, from Professor Stott, about how doing anything to combat emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce global warming will destroy the global economy.

Even if we shut every fossil-fuel power station, crushed every car and grounded every aircraft, the Earth's climate would still continue to get warmer, according to Prof Stott. "The trouble is, we would all be too impoverished to cope with the consequences," he said.

Someone tell Stott not to worry—no one is proposing any such actions!  Developing the new energy technologies that necessary to reduce greenhouse gases should be a net economic boon, as almost all innovative work is.  Someone with the supreme confidence in human invention that Stott has should be able to see that.

On his blog, Stott wrote yesterday:

It is nearly obscene, with all our resources, to think that we shall not be able to adapt once again - unless, that is, we have lost our evolutionary dynamism and drive.

With that attitude, Stott should feel comfortable with our ability to adapt to using the new energy sources necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.