Climate Warming Skeptics Denied!

An SF Gate article begins with, "A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming [Richard Muller] spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly."

Although the scientific method triumphs, public discourse on the topic still reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between science and public policy decisions. This misunderstanding is evident in the SF Gate article. The notion that global warming must be "proved" to some irrefutable level of certainty before public action, or that it matters whether the source is natural or human-made for public action, or that it is "too expensive" to pursue are all points that do not have a scientific answer. Thus, the scientific method is not the basis for public action. The scientific method is essential for producing the best possible knowledge and characterizing the uncertainty and consequences, but smart public action requires a different, political and policy method and basis--the best of which would reflect humanity's highest intelligence and wisdom in light of the different probabilities and consequences of different public options. 

Hopefully, this scientific affirmation of the science of global warming will help the world's citizens focus on defining the smart response. When many intelligent people examine the issue deeply, one of the conclusions drawn is that the costs of reversing climate warming now are small and inconsequential compared to the worst-scenario costs of doing nothing and being wrong (earth/human systems collapse). In addition, they are a huge business opportunity.

In addition, many also find that the climate warming reversal path may even be the best path for economic development and international security, not only for a warming world, but for an increasingly flat and crowded one as well (see the powerful synthesis by Thomas Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded).

A deeper dive into this arena leads one to the power and potential of creating regenerative economic prosperity by mimicking the economic and engineering design principles of the earth's living systems developed over 3.5+ billion years of evolution. In fact, that was the insight 20 years ago of some of the smartest businesses, communities, and people on the planet, from Dupont, Coca Cola, Interface Corporation, IKEA, Nike, and others to The Natural Step, Paul Hawken, and a variety of regional and municipal ecological intiatives.

Since that time, the vanguard of humanity's innovators have been pursuing an expanding portfolio of inspiring innovations in this emerging integrative arena of strategic sustainability. The Rocky Mountain Institute's recent Reinventing Fire Initiative represents the current culmination of one thread of this thinking. Reinventing Fire is a voluntary program that will move the U.S. off fossil fuel by 2050 because it is now cheaper and the best competitive business move. Once business and community's realize this, they will "pile on," with early responders reaping the first adopter/first-to-market advantages.

The real tragedy over the climate denier agenda is not the healthy scepticism upon which science should be based, but the exploitation for special interest gain of society's confusion over the legitimate basis for public policy decisions in light of scientific knowledge, which will always have some element of uncertainty in it. The imperatives of action often preclude the luxury of waiting for perfect certainty. Instead, action requires smart, if not wise, decisions based on imperfect information and the associated probabilities and consequences of the options. Good decisions can have bad outcomes, as well as good ones. This is the basis for any successful business. Why should society not develop the same capacity?

The denier diversion wasted precious time that could have been better spent clarifying the legitimate basis for public policy action in this case and identifying the smartest response. When the probabilities for devastating consquences are high, but perceived as low, and the costs are relatively inconsequential, and the response is a better business model and would likely be ultimately required in the future anyway, what is the rationale for denial and procrastination? Particularly when the actual probabilities of devastating consequences are extremely high and avoiding them requires instant mass mobilization. What is the down side? To whom? And why are we letting them drive the public response? Why is what can only be termed an ostrich-head-in-the-sand, reactive basis of denial somehow the legitimate basis for a public response to climate change? What exactly is the legitimating basis for that approach to public policy? It certainly is not free-market economics producing maximum social welfare in a world full of imperfect price information, particularly for the information that would be the game-changer in the markets supporting action now to reverse climate warming!

It's time to get smart and get going. The data is in. The choices are clear. Climate change mitigation can be the first volley response to the larger sustainability challenge. Done correctly, the volley would boldly advance the larger sustainability response of creating a regenerative and restorative economy using ecological constraints as the design parameters for redesigning and reengineering economic products and processes. The net result would be durable and secure prosperity and avoidance of the systems-crashing business-as-usual scenario. Fundamentally, sustainability is the economic innovation platform for humanity's next, and likely last, frontier for exploration and long wave of economic development. Sustainability is the DNA for a new restorative economy and society required for humanity's regenerative success. It can be constructed as a win-win, and any other option will be a lose-lose.