Moderating Climate Change Fears

The threat is real, but often overstated

Could it be that the climate change catastrophe reformers have been warning us about is further away and more modest than what they’ve been suggesting?. A recent UN report seems to suggest that’s so, but in an opaque way that challenges my decoder while spotlightingt the gap between expertise and the electorate.

At issue is a rowback on an older UN report, known as RCP8.5, that predicted maximum pain in a warmer world with a growing population and an increasing dependence on coal power, a series of possibilities that seem increasingly unlikely now as both trends move in the opposite direction. The actual document is far beyond my comprehension.

But a critical AEI analysis cites this paragraph:

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

In order words, the projections responsible for launching numerous warning reports about a coming cataclysm absent rapid radical action, now seem too far out to be worthy of serious consideration.

We’re not talking about climate-change deniers here. There’s widespread belief that there’s a serious problem that demands a response. The issue is magnitude and urgency, both of which seem like relevant considerations as we decide how much we should change our ways and spend in an appropriate response.

The alleged overreaction to the initial report is analyzed in recent blogs that strike me as credible.

But I’m puzzled by the media response to this report suggesting things aren’t as bad as we were initially told. There apparently hasn’t been one. Perhaps that’s merely confirmation of the editorial view that there’s no news like bad news.

Call me confused. Have I once again been duped by apologists for evil? I’m obviously not an expert, but see myself as part of a larger constituency that’s being asked to participate in a debate about how much inconvenient change to impose in an attempt to mitigate future damage and am at the mercy of advocates on both sides trying to pull me in their direction.

Earlier in life I bought into the argument that the media could provide clarity on such issues, but I don’t see much evidence that’s happening. At the moment democratic governments everywhere are confronting a stability problem that deflects a reasoned approach to such issues. Here in America the emphasis on oil production and reversing renewable initiatives despite substantial earlier investments isn’t much help either.

For the moment, the Chinese approach to this issue seems to make more sense. But the larger issue for me is how democracies can respond to such issues– If you’re already flummoxed by climate change, try AI– in such a confusing context.