Review: An appeal to reason

Review: An appeal to reason: A cool look at global warming
Nigel Lawson

This isn't the kind of book I normally review here, but it raises some interesting questions, so Happy New Year, and enjoy!

Lawson complains that he had trouble getting this book published, that most publishers wouldn't dare touch it. That is of course a shame, but is also indicative of the problems surrounding this topic.

You could argue, of course, that publishers were wise to shun the manuscript, since Lawson seems to fail to address the right argument, in places. The very fact that he deliberately puts "global warming" rather than "anthropogenic climate change" in the sub-title seems calculated to annoy some. In his cursory treatment of the scientific case, he looks more at the scale of the warming anticipated by the climate models, rather than the rate of change: it is widely accepted that the climate has changed much, historically, but the thing which worries many today is the speed at which some measurements are moving.

There is, of course much ignorance about the important issues here (I'll come back to that later). Would you, gentle reader, know, for example, whether the current IPCC predicted rise in sea level through the 21st century is on the order of 5mm, 5cm, 50cm, 5m, 50m, or 500m? I think that all of these (with the possible exception of the last) has been seen in the media at some stage. Or could you state the predicted range of global mean temperature rises, and enumerate the principal feared impacts of them? Lawson is meticulous in referencing, with about 25% of the book given over to footnotes: he may be selective in his choice of data, but the research is impeccable. Moreover, he relies heavily on the IPCC report and the UK Government's Stern report, both of which are highly influential for public policy and are scholarly interpretations of other data.

Lawson is less than convinced by the arguments for the extent of warming, and the impact on sea levels. He is even less sure about the link with CO2 emissions. But once he gets past those, he is onto firmer territory because he discusses economics and politics, his own speciality (he was formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief Finance minister in the UK government). His argument runs something like this: assuming the IPCC predictions are correct, is it better to try to reduce CO2 emissions to forestall the warming, or to adapt ourselves and our economy to cope? If we are to reduce CO2 emissions, what real prospect is there of reaching (globally) sufficiently low emission levels that the predicted catastrophy is averted? And if that is achieved, what will be the impact on the global economy?

He begins to turn the discussion to a moral argument: in most countries, there are many more deaths from the impact of cold weather than from too much heat. Even assuming we do not adapt at all, a warmer world will probably see fewer temperature-related deaths. There is some evidence of a warmer, CO2-richer world seeing better crop yields. The IPCC worst-case scenarios are based upon people in the developing world being 50 times better off at the end of the 21st century than at the start - the impact of global warming being to reduce that to 45 times (if I understand correctly). Or, in another scenario (with less warming), being 8.5 times better off instead of 9 times. Is it just to try to deny them the fruits of rapid industrialization in order to try avert that disaster?

As I report it here, the polemic seems hollow and fanciful: Lawson is reasonably persuasive. He goes on to talk about the "discount rate" for future benefit, too: to what extent is it just to sacrifice the well-being of the current generation, for enhanced well-being of future generations? The answer depends on far too many unknowns.

It strikes me that the whole issue of climate change has become so politically charged, and so mired with spurious argument, that it has become impossible to have a reasonable debate. This book (and even more so, the one by Lomborg which I am just starting to read) is an important contribution. There is a very good argument to be had, starting from the assumption that the IPCC's data is correct, about what to do about it. The UK government's commitment to reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 is widely trumpeted, but (a) unachievable, without some enormous break-throughs in power generation and storage, and (b) pointless unless the rest of the world follows - and India and China show no sign of being interested in doing so.

One school of thought says that we have already passed a "point of no return". Suppose that were true. What is the moral response? To cut emissions anyway? or to eat, drink, and be merry?

Lawson's final chapter looks at climate change as a religion. I want to come back to that, separately. He's not the first to make the observation, I think, but the parallels are quite, quite striking.