Global Warming

[ALB]

There have been two recent interesting news items on this. One that the amount of CO2 recorded in the atmosphere has passed the figure of 400 parts per million. Actually, the figure for CO2 equivalent (ie including other greenhouse gases) has long been above this level. Anyway, it confirms that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing year by year. The other report shows, however, that the Earth's average global temperature has remained static since 1996.

What does this mean? The "climate deniers" have been having a field day, claiming that this shows that measures to reduce the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere are unnecessary.  Actually, what is shows is that scientists have been able to refine their theories, especially about "climate sensitivity", i.e. the relation between an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and an increase in Earth's average temperature. This is a key figure for forecasting how much hotter the Earth will get and how fast. As we pointed out in an article in the December 2007 Socialist Standard:

Quote:

Socialists are not scientists so all we can do is to exercise critical thinking while taking into account what the majority of scientists in the field have concluded, knowing that they could be wrong.

The majority of scientists in the fields involved have concluded that the undeniable rise in average global temperatures has been caused since at least the 1970s by the rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. In other words, that it is man-made or “anthropogenic”as they put it in their language.

What is not clear –scientists are still arguing about it –is what precise temperature rise is caused by the emission of a given extra amount of CO2. This of course is a key ratio since more and more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere by the continued burning of coal, oil and gas.

If you assume the “climate sensibility”of CO2 to be low, then the rise in average global temperature at particular levels will be low. If you consider its “climate sensibility” to be high, then by 2100 the rise could be 2, 3 or 4ºC. A 3 or 4º rise could cause huge problems: sea levels rising by a third to a half a metre (one or two feet), more stormy weather, more forest fires, more droughts and desertification.

So, without necessarily subscribing to the higher figures put forward by the more engaged scientists, it can be accepted that it is desirable to cut back on CO2 emissions. The question we look at in this issue is how likely is this to happen under capitalism given its competitive and anarchic nature?

This cautious approach has allowed us to avoid some of the more alarmist views put out by some (and used to argue that the problem is so urgent that we can't wait for socialism and so should subordinate campaigning for socialism to campaigning to reduce greenhouse gases within capitalism).

For instance the Anarchist Federation brought out a pamphlet Ecology and Class in 2003 or 2004 which made the following claim on page 7:

Quote:

Global warming will expand ocean water and raise sea levels by two feet by the year 2010.

It didn't happen and they (and the others whose claim they accepted) were made to look fools. Ironically, the scientists' explanation for the pause in global warning since 1996 is that the heat has been absorbed by the sea, maybe to be released later and more slowly.

So, instead of making unsubstantiated claims in a bid to show how bad capitalism is, we should stick to what we advised in 2007:

Quote:

Socialists are not scientists so all we can do is to exercise critical thinking while taking into account what the majority of scientists in the field have concluded, knowing that they could be wrong.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/scientists-narrow-global-warming-range

Quote:

The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.

The uncertainty between models (and the range of changes) has always been grist for the mill of the AGW skeptics, although I can see some people breathing a sigh of relief over 'only 2 degrees'.An example of the threats we face can be seen here:https://theconversation.com/climate-change-threatens-global-fish-stocks-14293

Quote:

Ocean warming has already affected global fisheries in the past four decades, a new international study has found, driving up the proportion of warm-water fish being caught and posing a threat to food security worldwide.[…] “Continued warming in the tropics to a level that exceeds the thermal tolerance of tropical species may largely reduce catch potential in this region.”

[alanjjohnstone]

I see that Tim Yeo appears to have joined the ranks of those who decline to blame human [capitalist] activity as a cause of climate change.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10086694/Tim-Yeo-humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming.htmlIt seems from this Australian university research that such denial is common amongst free-marketeers.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/22/1902101/study-finds-free-market-ideologues-doubt-climate-science-yet-buy-conspiracy-theories/?mobile=ncThe authors also state : " if an overwhelming scientific consensus cannot be accepted as the result of researchers independently converging on the same evidence-based view, then the very existence of the consensus calls for an alternative explanation."Thus, we have the basis of a conspiracy !!

[moderator1]

Just picked up this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPdc75epOEwWhilst the cause is mentioned at 15.55 unfortunately it ends on the usual note that the problem can be resolved through market mechanisms.

[Author]

Posts