This is the first in a recurring series of comment and analysis on the petroleum industry's stances and strategies on the issue of catastrophic global warming. Others in that series will follow in the next 2 weeks.
One of the most enduring joint scientific and political debates in recent times has been the debate between those who believe that human influences on climate are warming the earth, with consequences that may be detrimental to humankind, and those who believe that the earth's dynamic systems are too large to be significantly influenced by human activities.
It is unfortunate that the debate was initiated by political action before scientific research had formulated, constrained, and data-backed the concept. The present US debate was initiated in 1988 from the testimony of one scientist before the US Congress, who argued that human activity was changing climate.
International political action resulted in the Kyoto protocol, signed by the executive branch over the objections of the US Senate, which holds absolute authority to ratify international treaties (95-0, Byrd-Hagel resolution, 1997).
Many sincere scientists and nongovernmental environmental organizations have participated in the debate. All have good intentions, working to advance their positions.
The problem remains the lack of science to substantiate either side of the debate. Science must progress unhampered by politics if it is to be effective in helping shape public policy.
This writer has no vested economic interest in the eventual outcome of the debate but requires that all data and theory be carefully considered before the debate is considered resolved. The debate can be likened to a complex forest ecosystem. Identifying a few trees cannot characterize the forest.
Scientific debate basis
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850. Best estimates of initial concentration are about 280 ppm. Current Mauna Loa measurements are about 356 ppm.
Since the late 1800s, the global temperature is estimated to have risen perhaps 0.6° C. The coincidence of the two events is the basis of the argument that human greenhouse emissions are driving the climate. Computer models of several groups project that earth temperatures will rise 2-6° C. over the next 100 years because of these emissions.
Laws of physics require that increases of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere increase temperature. The same laws require that if greenhouse gases are driving climate, the effect must be seen first in the upper atmosphere.
Satellite data, now vetted, do not show that effect. Therefore, on that basis, any current climate change cannot be attributed predominantly to greenhouse gas increases.
Carbon dioxide levels of the Late Precambrian-600 million years before the present (MYBP)-are estimated to be 18 times the present concentration, and the Cretaceous (63 MYBP) concentration was 3-4 times the present concentration. Low estimates during glaciation are around 170 ppm.
Recent research has demonstrated that there is historically a lag of as much as 400 years between temperature changes and consequent CO2 concentration changes.1 That hypothesis requires climate drivers other than CO2.
The single most important basis for human impact on climate is computer modeling. Current general-circulation models are sophisticated compared to former efforts but are still primitive compared with the complexities of real climate control.
The computer models are not yet able simultaneously to back-model 1,500 years, encompass modern measurements, and project the same temperature predictions. Computer models result in hypotheses, not information.
Placed in a petroleum context, if computer models were real information, we would never again drill a dry development well.
The consensus of those who do not subscribe to human control of Earth's climate is that the climate changes observed are natural variations in climate, well within range of recorded geological history.
Although artificial increases in greenhouse gas concentrations will have some effect on climate, the argument is that any such increases will be overwhelmed by natural variations, so that any human effect will be masked and not measurable.
Solar and orbital controls on climate are frequently cited as being the most likely large-scale natural climate controls.
Climate change tends toward regional change, not global change. Even the current computer projections are truly Northern Hemisphere predictions, not global. There are disconnects between north and south and between regions. Many of these are oceanographic disconnects, as the oceans are the major heat transfer device.
At any time in history, it is clear that some regions warm, others cool, and others may see little change. It is not yet understood why.
Geological, archeological, and human historical records demonstrate that climate is naturally unstable. It is constantly changing. Climate science has not progressed far enough to predict those natural changes, in either direction or magnitude.
There is hope that computer simulation of orbital, solar, and oceanographic dynamics may shed light on some natural climate change drivers and effects.
Natural climate change demonstrated in geological and archeological records has been much greater than any reasonable forecast of human-induced change. Whatever the human component of climate change may be, it is likely to be dwarfed by the amplitude of natural change.
Ice core data suggest that there has been long-term cooling over the last 8,000 years, interrupted by large and small-scale thermal events that rapidly increase and then more slowly decrease temperature.
Human historical records show the same patterns of large-scale change, with pockets of little change or negative change. There is much study and research to do before this debate is settled.
Political science debate
Against this backdrop of incomplete science are several major issues that dominate the public debate about climate change. Because the public debate was initiated in a political setting, we must deal with public perception, for in politics, "perception is reality."
In the last few decades, public perception of the importance of humanity in earth processes has changed. Evolution of the perceived im- portance of humankind has come full circle, from a Ptolomeic geocentric universe (the sun orbits around the earth), to the science-based heliocentric universe (the earth orbits around the sun), to the latest, the "humanocentric universe," in which the universe revolves around humankind.
Belief systems drive opinion on science issues. Because the current climate paradigm is based on a belief system, it has ignored data that conflict with belief, and promulgates those information sets and models that sustain the belief.
For example, recent reports illustrate anthropogenic warming of the global climate by a graph showing that global temperature is rapidly rising. The same report that provided that graph-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1999-also provided the climate chart for the US that shows that the US today is cooler than it was in the 1930s.2
The first is cited as evidence of global warming. When both are viewed together, however, there are several other probable interpretations.
The data clearly show that the US is cooler than it was during the 1930s, the previous "sawtooth" jump. Therefore, one conclusion is that a "heat island effect" is shown in the global data, knowing that the US has placed its thermometers so as to minimize the heat island effect of cities, but much of the rest of the world has yet to do so.
Another interpretation might be that there is no global climate-each continent and ocean has its own climate, and some are warming while others are cooling. When all the data is examined, the conclusions may change, and the debate is fundamentally altered.
Selective use of data is also an issue. The draft IPCC (Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international governmental body) report uses Mann et al.'s (1999) tree ring temperature analysis for the last 1,000 years.3
The draft report, normally not quotable prior to an official release, was released in draft form near the end of the last US national election. The Mann et al. result is the well-known "hockey stick" diagram that shows slight cooling for most of the last thousand years with an abrupt and large warming only since about 1930.
Most scientists recognize that the "Medieval Climate Optimum" multicentury rapid warming event, followed by the Little Ice Age, hampers computer modeling of future climate change because models can't back-model through these historical observations and still maintain current climate projections.
The IPCC draft report disposes of this inconvenience by using the Mann et al. paper to explain that the Medieval Climate Optimum never existed. There is overwhelming, well-documented evidence that it did exist, such as Lamb's (1996) voluminous historical record.4
All other temperature curves show the same event (Bluemle et al., 1999).5 To take the IPCC position is to ignore the Viking agricultural settlements on Greenland, restriction of alpine glaciers, advent of wineries in England, and distribution of Native American cultures, among many other well-documented events. Daly (2000) discusses the Mann et al. hypothesis in detail.6
All data must be presented in a scientific argument, not just selected portions that support a specific viewpoint.
On the other side of the debate, some still insist that the earth's temperature is stable and has not been rising. The crux of their argument lies in temperature data that they assume is biased by proximity to heat islands and inaccurate measurements.
Other arguments that contrarians raise are mostly about the relative benefits of climate warming and the inability of proposed policies (Kyoto) to mitigate any human-induced change.
In some ways, this debate has become more philosophical than scientific. In reviewing scientific arguments, an explanation that best fits all the evidence is the most likely. An explanation that accounts for only part of the evidence is likely to be fallacious.
Political spin is also present in the debate. For instance, after using standard scientific notation of temperature in degrees Celsius for its last two reports, the IPCC has been widely quoted in the media as issuing statements about its latest report in degrees Fahrenheit. This makes the forecast numbers nearly double-9/5 greater than if they had continued standard Celsius notation.
Readers may recall the uproar after the last report because the consultants to the project issued an executive summary that differed from the original scientific text.
Economic policy
The reason for the climate issue may be simply economic. The nations most favoring a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels are the oil-importing countries. The climate issue may be useful for reducing imports that are economically damaging and for raising revenue.
In 1980, the US had a $400 billion net positive foreign investment position. By 1997-latest data available-the US was in a negative $1.3 trillion position.
That change results in foreign ownership of US assets and means of production. Recent foreign-investor buyouts of US corporations illustrate the issue. Daimler Benz AG bought Chrysler Corp., British Petroleum PLC bought Amoco Corp. and ARCO, the concrete industry is dominated by foreign enterprises, the pharmaceutical industry is heavily internationalized, and foreign investors now own much farmland. The list continues to grow.
The US is being bought with its own money, the result of profligate spending for imports, a significant portion of which is imported oil and the cars in which to burn it.
According to US Energy Information Administration figures, a carbon tax of about $348/tonne of carbon would be necessary to increase the price of oil and other fossil energy sufficiently to reduce demand and thus carbon emissions. This translates to an annual tax of about $325 billion on oil alone, about $42/bbl of new tax on oil that has, until recently, sold at the relatively high price of $33/bbl.
Oil would then cost the consumer $75/bbl. Coupled with taxes on natural gas and coal, this writer estimates that the new federal tax revenues would be about $750 billion/year.
Nearly all countries favoring the Kyoto Protocol plan increased energy taxes to enforce the agreement. The climate debate becomes an economic debate, of governmental revenues vs. consumer expense.
The proposed solution to a hypothetical climate problem is a carbon tax. One of the earliest programs of President Bill Clinton's administration was to enact a carbon tax, prior to the debate over climate.
Some of the intended consequences of forced climate-change mitigation appear to be to raise revenues and to decrease the nation's reliance on imported energy. Intended consequences may have little to do with any environmental issue or climate change.
European governments push the US to reduce energy consumption, not for environmental reasons, but for competitive economic advantage.
Unintended consequences
Many public policies and laws have unintended consequences. Despite the best efforts of legislators, unintended consequences frequently turn problem solutions into new problems.
Saving sand on your beach from longshore drift by building a groin solves your problem, but down-current erosion removes more sand from a neighbor's beach. The loss of sand from your neighbor's property is an unintended consequence.
The unintended consequence of the current paradigm of human-induced climate change is to make people believe that humans can control climate. By raising false hope, the result is that people will believe that changing energy use habits can ameliorate the rising sea level and a future cold period.
However, sea level is going to continue to rise naturally, as it has episodically since the end of the Wisconsin Glacial Stage, and there will be another very long, very cold period. When that happens, how will we feed people?
By failing to recognize true climate drivers (see chart) and plan for natural change, the current paradigm may condemn humans to homelessness and starvation.
There is a bright side to the debate. The ferocity of the debate has caused much more research in climate science, computer modeling, and geologic analysis of past climates than otherwise would have been accomplished.
Science that is being published today contains better data, much of which avoids taking sides in the debate and sheds much light on climate stability and drivers. The laws are applicable equally to all sides of the debate.
The laws of physics should drive the debate, linked to observations, measurements, and better analysis of apparently conflicting data.
What to do?
The petroleum industry should view this issue in terms of each company's national interest, linked to new scientific knowledge.
Because the European community is leading efforts to control CO2 emissions, it is important for those companies headquartered in Europe to acknowledge their political realties. Both BP PLC (Great Britain) and Royal Dutch/Shell Group (the Netherlands) have elected to support their countries' positions on the issue through corporate policy.
US companies have been less enthusiastic about accepting anthropogenic climate change. The US position, clearly spelled out in the overwhelming vote in the Senate, is that efforts to control CO2 emissions by taxation of fossil fuels are not acceptable. Therefore, there is little incentive to embrace expenditures that do not reflect the direction of federal policy. Political realities will drive corporate actions.
On the other hand, the US government is clearly encouraging the substitution of natural gas for liquid petroleum where possible. While natural gas is emission-benign compared with other fuels, the US has a larger potential natural gas supply than much of the rest of the world, and exploitation of that resource for transportation fuel could significantly reduce the national's dependence on imported oil. Companies that produce gas are reaping benefits of US climate policy today.
The domestic industry should recognize political realities in the US from the US viewpoint, as BP and Shell have in Europe from a European perspective. The petroleum industry must address real energy needs and concerns and work to develop a national energy supply policy.
Economics and ethics
Belief systems are appropriate to politics. They are less so to science in the public interest. Beliefs drive agendas, and the agenda of science should be to seek the truth. The common belief system argues that the world is unchanging.
Climate changes all the time, in both directions at many scales; there is no "flat line" in climate. The Earth's climate is always either getting warmer or cooler. Data clearly show that natural variability greatly exceeds any human-induced potential temperature change.
One of our biggest jobs is to separate natural change from human change. To believe that humans control climate is to make people believe that humans can prevent sea level from rising and climate from changing.
If economics and revenues drive the climate debate, it should be acknowledged. If they do not, then a much better scientific case must be made for significant anthropogenic climate modification.
Those who are unconvinced of human impact on climate are willing to accept the results of impartial and full scientific scrutiny of the entire climate change issue, wherever it leads.
Collapse of the recent climate treaty implementation talks in Europe creates an opportunity for enhancing climate science and rigorous testing of hypotheses about climate change before embarking on additional efforts to manipulate earth dynamic systems.
Are we meeting the ethical standards society has a right to expect? Yannacone (1999) argued that scientists have a non-delegable duty to use their special skills and special knowledge for the good of humanity.7 Scientific method demands no less.
References
- Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastoianni, D., and Deck, B., "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Science, v. 283, 1999, pp.1712-14.
- Goddard Institute for Space Studies, "Global Temperature Trends, Continued Warmth in 1999," National Aeronautical and Space Administration, 1999, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarm1999/.
- Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium, Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations," Geophysi- cal Research Letters, v. 26, n. 6, 1999, pp. 759-62.
- Lamb, H. H., "Climate, History, and the Modern World," 2nd ed., Routledge, NY, 1995, p. 433.
- Bluemle, John P., and Sabel, Joseph M., "Various types of evidence delimiting the rate and magnitude of past global climate changes," Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, n. 2, 1999.
- Daly, John L., "The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science," 2000, http:// www.microtech.com.au/daly/hockey/hockey.htm.
- Yannacone, Victor John, Jr., "Science, Ethics, and Scientific Ethics in the Modern World," Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, n. 4, 1999, pp.164-71.
The author
Lee C. Gerhard is principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, having retired from the directorship and as state geologist in 1999. He also has been state geologist of North Dakota and served as the Getty professor of geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Gerhard received a BS in geology at Syracuse University and his MS and PhD at the University of Kansas. He is licensed as a geologist in Kansas and Wyoming. Gerhard is experienced in petroleum exploration, exploration program management, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology, and research management. He is an honorary member of the Association of American State Geologists, the Kansas Geological Society, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, where he served as past president of its Division of Environmental Geosciences. He lectures widely in the US and in Europe on the environment and global climate issues.
Nearly all countries favoring the Kyoto Protocol plan increased energy taxes to enforce the agreement. The climate debate becomes an economic debate, of governmental revenues vs. consumer expense.
