CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?

Day 3 - Rising Ocean Levels: Nothing New

The characters in this seven-day dialogue are described in the Foreword. Please read it first to get a better appreciation of what they're saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaud: Yes! I do have another reason.

When the polar icecap and the mountain glaciers melt, ocean levels will rise and many islands and coastal towns will be flooded. A significant fraction of the earth's population lives along the ocean coast. People will have nowhere to go. The impact will be disastrous.

Froid: The ocean level has been rising since the last ice age, more than ten thousand years ago, when the ice that covered the northern hemisphere started melting. The polar icecap and glaciers are remnants from that age, and sooner or later they too will disappear, unless the next ice age starts before that happens. It's a cycle that's been happening with regularity since time immemorial. It can't be stopped!

Chaud: That doesn't mean it's not a big problem!

Froid: I agree that it may be a big problem in the future, but it's one we can't do much about. So, why worry?

Chaud: We can certainly reduce greenhouse gas emissions!

Froid: And what will that do?

Chaud: You know as well as I do that it will slow down the melting of the ice caps and the rise in ocean level!

Froid: It just delays the inevitable and we don't even know by how much. What we do know is that, before the onset of the last ice age, ocean levels were about three or four metres higher than now. And one hundred thousand years ago CO2 levels had peaked at about 280 ppm. We are now close to 400 ppm. Even if we could roll that back to 280 ppm, which is impossible, we couldn't stop the ocean levels from rising. We have a runaway freight train and we can't stop it!

Chaud: It's easy for you to say, but if you had oceanfront property that will be underwater fifty years from now, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it.

Froid: You're right about that, but your comment sheds light on the reason climate change has gained so much political support.

Chaud: I don't understand.

Froid: It's a problem of the super rich: the ones who own all those beautiful beachfront properties and islands the world over. They have the most to lose by rising ocean levels, and they are the ones that have the power to force governments into taking action, at taxpayers' expense, to protect their properties. Unfortunately, they are not scientifically literate to know that it's all in vain.

Chaud: What do you have to lose by reducing CO2 emissions? It seems to me like you're just objecting on principle. What harm can they do?

Froid: I never said I was against reducing CO2 emissions. In fact, burning less coal, of which I'm an ardent supporter, will reduce them significantly. But, it has to be done properly.

Chaud: What do you mean by that?

Froid: There are various ways of doing that, but not all of them have the same effectiveness. For example, I'm in favour of governments imposing a carbon tax on a global scale. Every ton of carbon burned would be taxed the same way around the world. The tax revenue generated in each country would go into a national trust fund. The income earned by the fund would be used in two ways: firstly, to fund research into renewable energy technologies; and secondly to compensate current and future generations for the loss of non-renewable resources, which our generation has been consuming as if there was no tomorrow. This approach would reduce the consumption level of fossil fuels, and would reduce the level of contamination of our biosphere, which is the more pressing problem.

Chaud: A CO2 trading scheme is the best way of reducing emissions because it rewards those who take the risks to develop and implement new technologies. The private sector is much more efficient at finding solutions than government agencies. Once the tax revenue goes into government hands, it will find its way into other things. The government should be kept out of it.

Froid: I quite agree. The government should be kept out of it! That's why I propose a trust fund with independent trustees to manage it according to strict guidelines. However, I strongly disagree that a global CO2 trading system is the most effective way to manage the problem. To start with, it would eventually be dominated by the financial industry, possibly the most corrupt of all. Under its control, it would soon become a means for extracting more profits and executive bonuses. Sooner or later, they would subvert the system so that the main objective would be financial profits and not clean air.

Chaud: You're being a bit too harsh on the financial industry.

Froid: Perhaps, but the scars of the 2008 financial crisis are still fresh. Many countries still haven't fully recovered from the catastrophes unleashed by their reckless practices aimed solely for their own enrichment. In the end, the perpetrators were lavishly rewarded with taxpayer money. And you say I'm being too harsh?

Chaud: Without a CO2 trading system, how would you get people to invest in CO2 capture technologies?

Froid: We have no need for such technologies. Given the uncertainties about CO2 effect on global temperatures, why would we want to spend money on them? Overconsumption is what's led us to our contaminated biosphere, and the only solution is less consumption. Planet Earth is a spaceship with limited resources and an ever-increasing population. We have to scale back both. That's why the most pressing problem is sustainability, not global warming, or climate change!