Global Climate Change

Earlier this week, it has been reported that a climate research facility in England was illegally hacked and hundreds of internal e-mails suggesting manipulation of climate data were discovered. Climate change skeptics have highlighted this manipulation extrapolating that this puts into doubt all climate research data.



It is an interesting story and goes towards the hubris of any organization, but what does this story tell us about the state of climate change in the world today.



First, there is no doubt that the climate has been changing; not just regionally, but globally as well. Unfortunately, when a debate becomes as heated as this, disinformation proliferates to the point that supporters of either side of the debate make crazy claims and take extreme positions.



I'd like to look at this from a slightly different perspective; one which I believe goes to the heart of how we address these concerns. Let me start off by saying I am not a scientist, but a mere salesman of financial services products. I have no specific knowledge of how the climate changes, how climate research is done and I won't address the validity, or lack thereof, in any of the arguments. Quite simply, I don't know and I am not willing to quote statistics to prove "my side" or not.



First, the climate of the earth, as well as certain regional ecosystems has been changing. This has occurred since the earth was created and will continue long after we have left. Sometimes it changes quickly (relatively speaking) and sometimes it changes slowly. Most climate change occurs due to factors beyond our control, as it always has. The debate is not and should not have anything to do with natural climate change. What the debate should be about (and is in scientific circles, but not so much in the non-scientific community) is about how do we reduce non-natural climate change, if we can, or at least address the implications of such change.



Second, what are the worst case scenarios if our positions are wrong? If we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to halt non-natural climate change, what impact will this have on societies, economies and governments? If we don't spend the money, same question? What impact would climate change have on societies, economies and governments?



This is the bottom line for me. The cost to arrest non-natural climate change, if it can be done or if it even necessary, would literally cost the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more. Will this expense be able to make a difference and if we commit to spending this money, can those efforts even have an impact? In America, we have been told that we will have to make changes to our lifestyles. Have we been told realistically what these changes will entail? We have been given carbon emission targets, but what does this translate into lifestyles? If America were told that they needed to reduce consumption (housing, electricity use (heat during the winter, air conditioning during the summer), travel, etc) would they buy into it? Shouldn't the people be told what kind of sacrifices they must make in order to curb non-natural climate change, if it can even be done?



But the problem is, people don't know. They figure someone else will bear the burden or that technology will bail us out. The reality is that people will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles be reducing or eliminating air travel, or moving into smaller homes, consuming fewer goods, eating less energy intensive foods, setting their thermostats higher in the summer and lower in the winter, driving less. Even if all of these tasks could be undertaken, it will likely have devastating impacts on the economy as we now know it. Money which would have been spent on entitlement programs and local services must instead be directed towards reducing carbon emissions, jobs programs, etc. Is this is sacrifice most Americans or Europeans or Asians are willing to make? Or are these people more likely to spend money combating the effects of the change as they happen, such as resettling populations impacted by rising waters. That is the debate we should have in this country.