If climate change is totally untrue, we don't have to do a thing. There is no problem; at least not a climate change one.
If climate change is true, in part or in full, whatever we may may do to alleviate its consequences may not be effective at all, or it may be effective to any degree, from marginally to totally alleviating the consequences of climate change. I'm talking of consequences still in the future.
If nothing we can do will have any effect, the worst is going to happen, whatever the worst will be.
This leaves us with the final scenario; climate change is true, either in part or in total, and we can do someting about it.
From the standpoint of taking action on climate change there are really only two scenarios:
- we might as well do nothing beacuse there is no climate change or whatever we do won't help
- we'd better do something because climate change is real and we can do something about it
What will the costs of doing nothing or going all out be?
If we do nothing and there is no climate change the cost will be nothing.
If we do nothing in the case that whatever we do won't help, doing nothing will cost nothing - whatever is going to happen will happen with us watching helplessly on.
If we do nothing in the case that we could have alleviated the consequencs of climate change the cost will be those consequences, whatever they may be: an ice age for north western Europe, vastly expanded deserts, we don't know in detail.
The cost of doing something will be the same in all cases: economic upheavel, work moving from some industries like coal to other industries like nuclear, wind, solar and other forms of power generation. Some countries and areas in countries will become less wealthy while others will become more wealthy. Coal and oil exporters will be hardest hit. Everything that uses energy will become more energy efficient.
Apart from the obvious benefit of alleviating the effects of climate change in the case that we can do it, there will be other benefits. These other benefits will be the same in all scenarios: decreased air pollution, a decreased reliance on oil and a saving on the balance of payments for oil importing countries, new industries in some cases with in others existing industries becoming much stronger and less oil money in the hands of Islamic terrorist sympathisers - there are a great many of them.
The problem most politicians face is how they can be perceived as doing something about climate change while in reality they are doing nothing about it. They will no doubt use their old allies - empty words, promises and obfuscation. Political campaigns cost money. To stay in politics they need financial backing. People are making money from polluting industries. And these people have much influence on who gets elected and who doesn't. Politicians can't upset these people. Expect very little from countries in which polluting industries are big, like the USA and Australia. Most of the bosses and workers in these industries care only about their money and jobs. And they have a lot of clout.
Just look around you on the road, what do you see? Every driver of a big, fuel hungry vehicle couldn't care less about global warming. And there are many of them. Some of the big four wheel drives have three or four small kids in them. Do their fathers or mothers driving these vehicles care what type of world these kids will inherit? Obviously not. And all the big vehicle manufacturers still make these thirsty vehicles. According the the Australian Government's Green Vehicle Guide the Nissan Y61 Patrol 4.8L 6cyl, Auto 5 speed drinks 16.4 litres of petrol per 100Km mixed driving (it goes up to 23.2L/100Km of city driving) and coughs up 393g CO2 per Km. I'm sure Nissan is very proud of themselves.
As we don't know which scenario is true, the clever thing is to prepare for the worst and do everything we can that may possibly help. The possible costs of doing nothing are just too great. But this is not going to happen. There are too many who just couldn't care less.
Till next time.
