Scraping the bottom of the barrel for "experts"

From The Independent

Expert View: Global warming: 100 years of living dangerously

By Bill Robinson

Published: 06 August 2006

As we fly off for our holidays, with the memory of a record hot July still fresh in our minds, our thoughts turn to global warming. Is it happening? Will it be disastrous? What can be done to stop it or adjust to it?

Not many people now dispute that it is happening. Although variations in temperature are nothing new (the Romans made wine in northern Britain, Samuel Pepys recorded oxen roasted on the frozen Thames), the speed and size of the increase in the global average temperature in recent times is unprecedented. Moreover, it is readily explained by the greenhouse effect, which is a long-established piece of 19th-century science. Layers of gas allow the sun's rays in but bounce back the sun's reflected rays. So the atmosphere warms up, just like the air in a greenhouse, where glass plays the same role. The industrial revolution has put in place additional layers of greenhouse gases, and this explains the sharp rise in global temperatures.

There are many greenhouse gases but the contemporary focus is on carbon dioxide, which is a by-product of burning fossil fuels. CO₂ is not the most damaging greenhouse gas but it is the most plentiful and increasingly so. So we know (A) that the earth has got warmer, and (B) that concentrations of CO₂ have increased, and we have a long-established theory which says A is caused by B. That is good enough for me. Global warming is happening and it is caused by burning fossil fuels.

But will it be disastrous? Here the evidence is much less compelling. But plausible disaster scenarios include the melting of the polar ice caps causing flooding of low-lying lands around the globe; diversion of the Gulf Stream, causing a huge drop in temperature in northern Europe; and other changes in weather patterns which could seriously disrupt agricultural production.

Even if the probability of any one of these things happening is no more than 5 per cent, and even if future damage is discounted in today's money, the present value of the expected cost to the human race is still measured in trillions of dollars. That is the case for taking action.

The key difficulty is that the cause of global warming is the stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere. All we can do is reduce the rate at which we add to that stock. We know that concentrations have been increasing, and temperatures rising, for at least a century. Global emissions today are vastly higher than 100 years ago, so it is almost impossible to imagine reducing them to a point where CO₂ concentrations will fall - particularly when the newly industrialised nations (China, India) are rapidly increasing their energy use. The best we can hope for is to reduce the rate at which the planet heats up.

But that is still worth doing: it buys more time for adapting to the effects of global warming. The key to reducing CO₂ emissions is to recognise that there is a social cost attached to energy use, and to put in place regulation and taxation that reflects the social cost. Simply exhorting people to use less energy does not work; setting industry limits on the amount of CO₂ they can emit, and making them buy permits to emit more, does. So does the relatively crude device of putting taxes on fuel.

A significant proportion of fuel emissions are associated with aviation, so as you fly off to the sun, ponder on the social costs of your actions. Higher tax on aviation fuel would reflect some of those costs, and help to reduce emissions, but this requires international agreement (otherwise planes simply refuel where taxes are lowest).

There is no shortage of viable policies to address the global warming problem. The challenge is to secure an international consensus for implementing them.

Bill Robinson is director of economics at PriceWaterhouse-Coopers

As we fly off for our holidays, with the memory of a record hot July still fresh in our minds, our thoughts turn to global warming. Is it happening? Will it be disastrous? What can be done to stop it or adjust to it?

Not many people now dispute that it is happening. Although variations in temperature are nothing new (the Romans made wine in northern Britain, Samuel Pepys recorded oxen roasted on the frozen Thames), the speed and size of the increase in the global average temperature in recent times is unprecedented. Moreover, it is readily explained by the greenhouse effect, which is a long-established piece of 19th-century science. Layers of gas allow the sun's rays in but bounce back the sun's reflected rays. So the atmosphere warms up, just like the air in a greenhouse, where glass plays the same role. The industrial revolution has put in place additional layers of greenhouse gases, and this explains the sharp rise in global temperatures.

There are many greenhouse gases but the contemporary focus is on carbon dioxide, which is a by-product of burning fossil fuels. CO₂ is not the most damaging greenhouse gas but it is the most plentiful and increasingly so. So we know (A) that the earth has got warmer, and (B) that concentrations of CO₂ have increased, and we have a long-established theory which says A is caused by B. That is good enough for me. Global warming is happening and it is caused by burning fossil fuels.

But will it be disastrous? Here the evidence is much less compelling. But plausible disaster scenarios include the melting of the polar ice caps causing flooding of low-lying lands around the globe; diversion of the Gulf Stream, causing a huge drop in temperature in northern Europe; and other changes in weather patterns which could seriously disrupt agricultural production.

Even if the probability of any one of these things happening is no more than 5 per cent, and even if future damage is discounted in today's money, the present value of the expected cost to the human race is still measured in trillions of dollars. That is the case for taking action.

The key difficulty is that the cause of global warming is the stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere. All we can do is reduce the rate at which we add to that stock. We know that concentrations have been increasing, and temperatures rising, for at least a century. Global emissions today are vastly higher than 100 years ago, so it is almost impossible to imagine reducing them to a point where CO₂ concentrations will fall - particularly when the newly industrialised nations (China, India) are rapidly increasing their energy use. The best we can hope for is to reduce the rate at which the planet heats up.

But that is still worth doing: it buys more time for adapting to the effects of global warming. The key to reducing CO₂ emissions is to recognise that there is a social cost attached to energy use, and to put in place regulation and taxation that reflects the social cost. Simply exhorting people to use less energy does not work; setting industry limits on the amount of CO₂ they can emit, and making them buy permits to emit more, does. So does the relatively crude device of putting taxes on fuel.

A significant proportion of fuel emissions are associated with aviation, so as you fly off to the sun, ponder on the social costs of your actions. Higher tax on aviation fuel would reflect some of those costs, and help to reduce emissions, but this requires international agreement (otherwise planes simply refuel where taxes are lowest).

There is no shortage of viable policies to address the global warming problem. The challenge is to secure an international consensus for implementing them.

So who is Bill Robinson and why is he an expert on global warming? It turns out he's director of economics at PriceWaterhouse-Coopers. I guess he's an expert on something, but certainly not atmospheric science. Not only does he know absolutely nothing about the mechanisms of climate change, he can't even describe the Earth's greenhouse effect correctly. As Blackadder would say, this is complete and utter crap.