Climate Change

Global warming and climate change

Is climate change a hoax? Some thoughts...

Lobbyists against climate action use a variety of arguments to sow doubt and influence policy to protect the interests of their clients - the fossil fuel industry.

Lobbyist argument	Counter point
Climate change is natural and cyclical - long term trends show cooling and warming of the planet	While the Earth's climate has changed naturally over millennia, the current warming trend is happening at a rate unprecedented in human history.
Climate models are unreliable - The computer models cannot be trusted because they have failed to accurately predict past climate features and have sometimes exaggerated the rate of warming.	Uncertainty is a normal part of all science, but the fundamental findings related to climate change are not in doubt. Uncertainty does not justify inaction; instead, it indicates a risk that must be managed.
Scientific studies are influenced by money. There is too much scientific corruption, so you cannot trust Science.	Overwhelming consensus - over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change attributable to human activity is real. Those who deny climate change are the ones likely to be funded by oil and coal lobbies.
CO2 is not a major factor; CO2 is only 0.042% of atmospheric gases (420 ppm)	In the last 200 years, CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to over 420 ppm, which is approximately a 50% increase. Scientists say this contributes to trapping more heat
Cost of mitigation is high, better to adapt	This ignores the far higher costs of climate inaction - weather events (flooding and droughts, hurricanes), sea-level rise, and biodiversity loss
Regulation stifles free markets - an infringement on personal and economic freedoms	Not through overarching regulation, but by imposing a small cost for using polluting fuel that can then subsidize renewables. For example, we have higher GST on large cars that consume much more fuel compared to smaller cars.
It is a hoax – a pretext used by elites or governments to increase their power and control over the population	It doesn’t increase government power. It only affects the profits of oil and coal industries
Wait for future tech - Future tech will easily solve the problems, no need to worry now	Need to stop procrastinating. Delaying action increases future costs and risks.
Blaming other countries - China produces more greenhouse gases than everybody else	Everyone must chip in, in proportion to their consumption and not just production.
Priority - Money is required for other pressing issues	There is not much money required for this as compared to the military spends. Only policy changes encouraging renewable energy. We actually earn a lot of money thru enormous taxes on petrol and diesel.
Human activity is irrelevant in geological time scales – The earth has been around for over 5 billion years and has been cooling down from a molten blob to what it is today. It has also undergone massive changes to climate over the eons, e.g., the ice age. Humans have been around for only 100,000 years and cannot possibly have a significant impact on climate	Human technology has grown by leaps and bounds, and humans have developed weapons of mass destruction that can destroy the earth many times over or destroy most life forms on earth. Also, human population has grown from 1 billion in 1804 to 8 billion in 2025, along with increased per capita consumption of all resources. Surely human activity is having an impact on climate, in a manner that is adverse to human life.

 

In conclusion:

First thing to do is to agree on facts and accept that this is a potentially serious problem. Only if we recognise a problem, can we solve it. We are at such a partisan stage in politics that we cannot even agree on scientific consensus now.

Globally, we are burning 90 million barrels of oil per day and 25 million tonnes of coal per day. These resources had remained buried for millions of years and are now being burnt and released into the atmosphere. This is additional CO2 getting released at a record rate into the atmosphere. And CO2 traps heat. These basic facts should not be controversial and be acceptable to everyone.

If there is a 5% chance of heart attack in the next 10 years, would we not take action to minimize the risk, rather than wait for the attack and then getting a surgery. If there is a 5% chance of war with a neighbour, would we not spend enormous amounts on the military to stave off the threat. Well, there is a big chance of ocean levels rising significantly in the next 50 years, and hence we need to approach it the same way as the above scenarios. There is a high cost for inaction.

Also, the known oil reserves will last for only 60 years. Why not use it sparsely and leave some for our great grandchildren.

We have one planet, let us keep it safe and habitable for our descendants by reducing our carbon footprint, among other things.