Go ahead -- call me a hypocrite. I claim to be a cleantech venture capitalist
yet I tell you here and now that I am not convinced of anthropogenic (human-caused)
climate change (aka global warming). And
I will audaciously tell you that my convictions on climate change in no way run
contrary to my strong belief in the need for a cleantech revolution.
Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as though
anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact. To some of them anthropogenic climate change
is almost like a religion where any debate or doubt is not tolerated. Some of them may call me a heretic just for
writing this post.
At the same time, those on the other end of the spectrum are
equally religious in their fervor and certainty that anthropogenic global
warming is a fraud. They are certain
that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases could never
impact our climate. And they may twist
this post to use it as yet another data point against claims of global warming
and added rationale to do nothing except increase fossil fuel exploration.
In both groups, it is my perception that most have read
little about the topic other than the popular press. And I find both groups equally sad in their
myopic viewpoints. If both of these
camps would open their eyes, I suspect there would be much greater agreement on
the need for action on clean technologies rather than the divisiveness that
their polarizing views create.
There are solid scientific theories and extensive data,
anchored by the
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, that indicate the
possibility that over time man-made emissions of greenhouse gases could impact
the global climate and may have already begun to do so. To dismiss them out of hand because there is some
reasonable doubt is irrational.
Similarly, to speak about anthropogenic climate change as a
certainty or to claim that there is no disagreement among scientist is simply incorrect. There are reputable climate scientists who remain
unconvinced. The reality is that all
predictions of global warming are based on very complex climate models. We can
forecast the weather a few days out with reasonable accuracy but if you try
predicting next year’s summer temperature -- let alone long-term global climate
conditions -- things fall apart quickly.
Long-term climate models are anything but accurate.
We know with certainty that past natural occurrences have
caused significant changes to the atmosphere, resulting in climate
changes. So, there is little question
about whether changes in the atmosphere can cause climate changes. Rather, the question is whether man-made
emissions are significant enough to cause a change on their own and to overcome
the large natural forces on our climate that include sun spots, variations in
the earth’s orbit, and volcanoes all of which have not been taken into account
in forecasts of global warming.
Often there is a focus in the media on recent variations in
climate as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Variations in climate over short periods of
time are highly suspect as evidence. While most scientists seem to agree that there have been
increased temperatures and other climate changes over the past century or so,
what cannot be said with certainty is that the increased CO2 levels caused this
as opposed natural climate change events that have and continue to happen
regularly to our planet. Even the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which is the backbone of
support for anthropogenic climate change, found that its confidence in human
contribution to such measured weather events (e.g., temperature, severe storms,
sea level, etc.) could be as low as 50% for most of the events and 66% for the
others (pages
23 and 52 of the Technical Summary).
Climate
change is measured over extremely long periods of time – not a few years or
tens of years. Some of the best long-term
data on historic CO2 concentrations and temperatures is derived from glacial
ice core data that spans back 400,000 years.
This data shows that the concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today
are strikingly more than 20% higher than any level measured in the past 400,000
years (See Figure 1). The recent rapid
increase corresponds well with the industrial age and temperature variations
are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is hard data to ignore or
simply write-off.
Figure 1 – Data
from Vostok Ice Core (400,000 years)
Figure 2
–Estimated CO2 and Temperature Changes over 500+ Million Years
But interestingly over longer periods, the level of CO2
today is far below the estimated levels during many times in history (Figure 2)
raising the possibility that the current spike may have other natural
contributors. And the correlation
between temperature and CO2 that seems so apparent in the 400,000-year ice core
data becomes much less clear when looking over many millions of years.
While most scientists seem to believe that, in isolation,
increased CO2 concentrations create an increased “greenhouse” effect whereby
the CO2 acts like a blanket, preventing more of the heat radiated by the earth
from going back into space, at what concentration level and over what time
period remains a point of uncertainty and debate. In addition, how other
factors that may occur with warming such as increased moisture and clouds as
well as changes in absorption of CO2 into the ocean at varying temperatures
will affect the warming dynamic and other climate change is
much more uncertain.
The bottom line is that we won’t truly know if man has caused climate
change until after it has already occurred for a very long period of time.
And that’s the rub. The
theoretical costs to the human race of global warming are high: rising ocean
levels, decreased polar ice, increased severe weather and significant changes
in precipitation patterns. If they
occurred to a significant degree, all could have sizeable economic and health
implications. But there is no certainty
that we will ever pay such a price. More compelling is what we know with near-certainty:
·
Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they do
pollute. Reduction of pollution is always
a good thing. And with booming energy
demand in China
and India, fossil fuels are a resource that will become scarcer and more
expensive. You can argue about the pace,
but few argue that it will happen. Even oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia have
begun to accept this fact.
·
Increased sources of cost-effective energy and
more energy-efficient consumption have and will continue to lead to increased
standards of living.
·
Nations with greater diversity of energy
sources have greater economic and national security.
·
The U.S. Defense Department believes that
climate change will
impact our national security.
·
If anthropogenic global warming is real, by the
time we start paying the price for the damage we have done it will be too late
to turn things back quickly.
To claim with certainty that man is causing climate change or to claim
there is no risk of anthropogenic climate change are both incorrect and both are polarizing.
While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests
that human emissions of greenhouse gases may be changing our climate in ways
that could have dramatic impacts. We can do nothing and roll the dice
that everything can be OK. Or we can take steps to diversify our energy
sources away from fossil fuels and increase our energy efficiency, thereby not
only reducing the risk of anthropogenic climate change but also increasing the
robustness of our economy and our national defense.
Although there should be debate about the specifics of how
to best advance the availability and utilization of cleaner technologies, support
for cleantech innovation should be the ultimate bipartisan issue without the divisiveness created by
talking about anthropogenic climate change as if it is a fact or as if it is
fiction.
