Denying Climate Science in Multiple Dimensions †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Denying Climate Science in Multiple Dimensions. Answer: Introduction: Global warming is considered to be one of the most pertinent and bothering issue which has been a matter of primary concern among scientists, economists and global leaders. The term refers to an overall increase in the average worldwide temperature, in an abnormal pace, which has short term as well as long term implications on the conditions of the earth as a whole, the implications being mostly negative. Global warming, if not checked, also poses deep threats on the mere existence of life forms on this planet as the increase in the overall levels of temperature may lead to wide changes in climate, demographic patterns and the life style of people all over the world (Trenberth et al., 2014). One of the primary reasons of this phenomenon is likely to be human influence on the global environment over the years, the dominant one being emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane, in huge amounts over the years and especially over the last century. The report tries to study this issue and in details and it tries to answer several related questions related to this issue of concern, based on an article on Global Climate Change by Kenneth J. Arrow (Peter et al., 2013). The article tries to evaluate critically, the effects that are projected to occur on global environment as a whole due to the inevitable global change in climate. It throws light on the ongoing debate regarding the huge future costs to be borne by humanity due to global warming and tries to recommend Carbon dioxide emission reducing measures to be implemented from current period only to avoid catastrophic damages in near of far future. According to the author, increase in the global temperature is to considerable extent attributed to the presence of trace gases, namely water vapor, CO2 and methane primarily (Arrow, 2007). The emission of CO2 has increased drastically since the Industrial Revolution leading to greenhouse effects on earth, which in turn is increasing the average global temperature in abnormal pace. This may have severe implications on global environment, like rising sea level majorly, effects on vegetations and agriculture (not all negative) and others. The article tri es to calculate the costs and benefits of inducing restrictive measures on CO2 emissions on the global economy (Proops, Faber Wagenhals, 2012). In his article, Arrow tries to suggest that it is better to take measures to reduce emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as much as possible from current period in order to avoid the catastrophe that can occur because of uncontrolled greenhouse gases emission, in near as well as not so near future (Arrow, 2007). There are several highly valid reasons behind his suggestions, which are elaborated in the discussion below. One of the dominant causes of global warming has been unanimously considered to be the emission of the greenhouses, both naturally as well as manually, over the years. These greenhouse gases are adding bulk in the share of trace gases present in the atmosphere of the earth. The trace gases have the inherent and unique property of being transparent to radiations at high frequencies but absorbing radiations if emitted in low frequencies, like that of infrared (Seinfeld Pandis, 2016). This absorbed radiations in the trace gases, contributes substantially in increasing the global temperature levels. One of the primary components of these trace gases is carbon dioxide, much of whose emission is attributed to non-natural factors. Human beings have been contributing to the emission of this gas since their origin. However, the emission of carbon dioxide in the environment has drastically increased after the initiation if the Industrial Revolution and it has been increasing then (Ballantyne et al., 2012). It is evident from Figure 1 that the emission of carbon dioxide has drastically increased from 1851 and the increase gained even more pace post 1951, with emissions being nearly of amount 8000 million metric tons by 2001. Much of this increase in the emissions is due to the stable and increasing growth of industries post Industrial Revolution (Hansen et al., 2013). This in turn has created a greenhouse effect on the earth, thereby leading to an upward trend in the global temperature in the recent decades, which can be shown in the following figure: The above figure shows a direct positive correlation between the emission of carbon dioxide and increase in the global temperature as both has almost proportionately increased with time. This shows that the concern as put forward by Arrow has significant relevance and it needs to be addressed with priority (Hansen, Sato Ruedy, 2012). Research shows that the level of carbon dioxide emissions has currently increased from 280 parts per million before Industrial Revolution, to almost 430 parts per million post the Revolution and if the current pace is not slowed down, carbon emissions are expected to increase up to 550 parts per million by 2035, which is scarily high (Arrow, 2007). The projected level of carbon dioxide emission is almost two times as high as that was during the times prior to Industrial Revolution and if reached, it will be a level that has never been received in the last few millions of years. According to this article and most of the studies conducted regarding this issue, the emission of carbon dioxide in such high amounts has direct effects on the global mean temperature levels. Studies show that if the projected increase in the concerned emissions do occur, it will in all probabilities lead to an elevation of the global temperatures by at least 2o Centigrade. If the same patterns are maintained then there is almost fifty per cent chance of a massive hike in the average temperature of the earth by almost 5oC by the beginning of 2100 (Ballantyne et al., 2012). These statistics of future hikes in the global temperature has direct and mostly negative implications on the overall environmental conditions of the world. One of the primary and most dangerous consequences of increase in temperature of the earth is the possible rise in the sea level (Ainsworth et al., 2012). It can be concluded from the above figure that the sea levels have alarmingly increased in the time span between fifteenth century to twentieth century. In absence of any precautions or controlling measures to reduce the level of carbon emission, there will be further increase in the global sea levels, which in its turn will lead to wiping out of many island countries and will also drown substantial land areas of many countries at low sea levels, like that of Bangladesh (Trenberth et al., 2014). Many highly populated places like Manhattan and others will be completely wiped off the world map permanently. The losses will be even more huge and catastrophic if two of the major ice sheets of those of West Antarctica and Greenland melt (Climatecentral.org, 2017). One of the other significant consequences of this unfavorable phenomenon, is the projected changes in the global climatic patterns. With the current trends continuing, there are high chances of countries in Europe to experience climatic conditions of that of Greenland. There will be changes in the nature and intensities of the tropical storms too, leading to greater destructions of lives and properties (Goulder, 2013). Other consequences of global warming include decrease in the glacial reserves of the world, which can lead to a tremendous shortage in the water supplies. Much of the vegetations on earth and the current agricultural patterns will also be significantly affected by these changes, which are expected to have direct impacts on human lifestyles almost in all parts of the world (Hansen, Sato Ruedy, 2012). Collectively, these pose serious threats to the existence of life forms and the quality of life in the future, creating confusions and questions regarding the future of the world. To avoid these massive negative consequences in the coming periods, immediate and appropriate measures are indeed required as been rightly suggested by the author. Sources of Market Failure: In economics, market failure is said to have occurred if the market fails to maximize the welfare of the society as a whole. This concept is highly relevant in the concerned issue. It is highly evident from almost all the research conducted on this field that the emission of CO2 has significantly increased with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The fruits of this Industrial Revolution, however, have been mainly enjoyed by the current developed countries as it fuelled their economic growth and prosperity significantly (Keohane Olmstead, 2016). Due to absence of proper awareness of the future long term threats of carbon emission on the world, these countries have in general contributed significantly in the global levels of carbon emission, the burden of which has to be borne by the future generations. In this case, the cost of global warming, primarily created by the developed countries are not borne by them in general. Much of the costs are to be borne by the developing and po or countries as much of the restrictive policies are implemented now on them, thereby making them face a tradeoff between their own economic growth and long term global welfare. These are the primary sources of market failure in this scenario (Goulder, 2013). Possible Solutions to Problems for Global Warming: Several measures can be undertaken globally, to reduce the levels of current carbon emission or to at least restrict it to current levels. Few of such measures are discussed as follows: Replacing energy resources used currently, like coal and fossil fuels, by those whose carbon emission rates are comparatively lower, like natural gases, can help in reducing the emission rates significantly (Williams et al., 2012). Innovations are highly necessary to create technologies which tend to lower the intensity of energy input for production purposes. If created, fast and effective implementations of such technologies by developed as well as developing countries can help in reducing the credible threat if global warming to considerable extent (Proops, Faber Wagenhals, 2012). Manual deforestations has been one of the factors contributing to the current threats of global warming. Therefore, rapid initiatives of planting trees worldwide can lead to reduction in the threats of global warming as plants absorb carbon dioxide, which is one of the primary components of greenhouse gases (Williams et al., 2012). The developed countries being technologically privileged and having enjoying the fruits of technological renaissance at the cost of growth of the developing countries, it will be judicious on their part to take initiatives to control carbon emission and to lead others in achieving the collective targets of averting global warming (Keohane Olmstead, 2016). In this article, to see the preferences of people in general, between current and future outcomes, especially consumption, the following formula has been used: Here, shows the consumption discount rate, which indicates the rate at which an individual tend to discount losses that will occur in future consumption given that the individual wants to consume in the present period. In other words, it shows the individuals preference of current consumption over future consumption. Higher implies higher consumption discount rate, which means the individuals prefer current consumption more to future consumptions (Goulder WILLIAMS III, 2012). Here, signifies the time preference rate, which shows the preference between current and future well being. Higher the value of this symbol indicates higher preference of current welfare over future welfare. In this equation, g shows the expected rate of growth of mean consumption whereas shows the social weight elasticity due to change in the level of consumption. basically resembles the concept of diminishing marginal utility from consumption as consumption increases (Pindyck, 2013). The intuition behind this equation is that there are two contributing factors to the value of the consumption discount rate in a generalized framework. On one hand, the time preference has a positive relation with the discount rate, that is, with the increase in the time preference of consumption, people tend to assign more weight to current consumption over future consumption thereby increasing the value of . On the other hand, g together shows the addition to the discount rate with increase in average consumption rates, given that more g will tend to decrease the value of (Ackerman Stanton, 2012). According to a critique uncertainty in g can lead to low values of . However, this in general may not be the case because with higher uncertainties in expected consumption growth rate, people will try to emphasize more on current consumption, thereby increasing the consumption discount rate. In other words, the two variables tend to have a different relation than what the critique suggests (Ackerman Stanton, 2012). In the present scenario, with significant evidences of manmade global warming, a country with low value of signifies that the consumption discount rate in that country is low. This means, the residents generally have a low preference of current consumption if it is at the cost of future consumption. In other words, future welfare is also important for the country. This implies that the economy is expected to actively participate in reduction of carbon emission as that can hamper their future consumption to great extent. The country will be expected to be in favor of implementing changes to work towards restricting global warming, even at the cost of sacrifice of their current consumption (Pindyck, 2013). According to the article by Adam Morton, Australia has experienced significant upward growth of prices of power which has almost doubled following axing of carbon taxes in the country. It is evident from the above figure that due to the hike in the wholesale prices of power, the cost of electricity consumption has drastically gone up in the present years. Main reasons behind this huge hike are the constantly rising gas prices and the uncertainty in investments that the power sector is currently facing. The uncertainty is highly attributed to the doubts regarding the future production and prospects of the power plants that are supposed to replace the traditional coal factories. This has led to return of carbon trading in order to restrict the current and near future hike in the power prices (Smh.com.au, 2017). This shows that in face of the current energy prices crisis, thought the country does not completely give up on their measures to restrict carbon emission by using renewable resources, they are skeptic towards taking up highly restrictive policy of pursuing a target of using renewable energy quantifying to half of their total energy resources. This change in behavioral pattern of the policy makers has a direct implication on the value of in the country. With more and more surge in the prices of renewable power resources, using these types of energy is becoming increasingly difficult for the country (Roozbehani, Dahleh Mitter, 2012). However, that would have been a judicious step towards the increment of welfare of their future generations, as these resources, especially natural gases, tends to emit almost half the amount of carbon dioxide than that of coal and other fossil fuels. This implies that the country is expected to see a rise in their consumption discount rate. This means, if the soaring prices of gases are not brought in check as soon as possible, the residents will prefer to go back to the usages of the traditional fuels for their current sustenance (Smh.com.au, 2017). This expected change in the consumption discount rate can be explained by the inherent human behavior. Human beings, in general, are said to attach more importance to current sure consumptions than to future consumption levels. This is mainly because future consumptions and benefits are subjected to some levels of uncertainty and people do not surely know whether they are going to get the benefits at all (Roozbehani, Dahleh Mitter, 2012). In this case, such behavior may occur as there are high uncertainties in investments on the power plants that are expected to replace the coal generators. The uncertainties are mainly arising because there are doubts regarding whether these plants will be able to show prospects and profitability. Thus, all these factors cumulatively may induce people to attach more importance on their current consumption level. People may tend to force the authorities to enable usage of traditional energy resources such that the prices come down and they can be abl e to consume their desired quantities even if it comes at a cost of future consumption of power by the succeeding generations (Peters et al., 2012). denotes the time preference, that is, the preference of individuals between current well being and well being in future. This means higher the time preference, the more the individual is expected to prefer his current well being than his welfare in the coming years (Sen, 2013). In this context, a high value of this indicator will lead to a high value of the consumption discount rate too which in implies that the concerned individual or country will be less bothered of the welfare of the future generations. They will not be not very much in favor of restrictive carbon emission policies if that implies a decrease in the current level of consumption to keep the welfare of the future generations at least same or increasing (Egan Mullin, 2012). In this context, the withdrawal of the USA, under its President, Donald Trump, from the Climate Accord of Paris, can have significant global implications on the environmental conditions, present and future (Goldenberg et al., 2015). The USA is one of the highest carbon emitting nations across the world, contributing around almost 25 per cent of the global emission of carbon dioxide. This implies that its own policies regarding carbon emission have considerable impact on the global carbon emission rates and conditions. Keeping that in account, the exit of the country form the Climatic Accord will led to nullification of the restrictive policy imposition on the activities of the country. This can have a direct impact on the time preference of the country as a whole. Given a chance to choose, the residents will choose to maximize their current consumptions, as they are uncertain about the future benefits that they can get by sacrificing their current well-being (Egan Mullin, 2012). This indicates towards increase in , which in turn will increase their consumption discount rate. USA being one of the major contributors in the global scenario, a drastic increase in their consumption discount rate will directly affect the value of global consumption discount rate. This implies that under this scenario, the global value of is subjected to increase, thereby increasing the possible threats of global warming more in the coming years (McCright, Dunlap Xiao, 2013). References Ackerman, F., Stanton, E. (2012). Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon. Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J., Emberson, L. D. (2012). The effects of tropospheric ozone on net primary productivity and implications for climate change.Annual review of plant biology,63, 637-661. Arrow, K. J. (2007). Global climate change: A challenge to policy.The Economists' Voice,4(3). Ballantyne, A. P., Alden, C. B., Miller, J. B., Tans, P. P., White, J. W. C. (2012). Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years.Nature,487(7409), 70. Climatecentral.org, J. (2017).Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise.Climatecentral.org. Retrieved 23 August 2017, from https://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055 Egan, P. J., Mullin, M. (2012). Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans perceptions about global warming.The Journal of Politics,74(3), 796-809. Goldenberg, S., Vidal, J., Taylor, L., Vaughan, A., Harvey, F. (2015). Paris climate deal: Nearly 200 nations sign in end of fossil fuel era.The Guardian,12. Goulder, L. H. (2013). Markets for pollution allowances: what are the (new) lessons?.The Journal of Economic Perspectives,27(1), 87-102. Goulder, L. H., WILLIAMS III, R. C. (2012). The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation.Climate Change Economics,3(04), 1250024. Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D. J., ... Rockstrom, J. (2013). Assessing dangerous climate change: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature.PloS one,8(12), e81648. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R. (2012). Perception of climate change.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,109(37), E2415-E2423. Keohane, N. O., Olmstead, S. M. (2016). Introduction. InMarkets and the Environment(pp. 1-10). Island Press/Center for Resource Economics. McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., Xiao, C. (2013). Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA.Climatic Change,119(2), 511-518. Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Boden, T., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Le Qur, C., ... Wilson, C. (2013). The challenge to keep global warming below 2? C.Nature Climate Change,3(1), 4. Peters, G. P., Marland, G., Le Qur, C., Boden, T., Canadell, J. G., Raupach, M. R. (2012). Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.Nature climate change,2(1), 2. Pindyck, R. S. (2013). Climate change policy: What do the models tell us?.Journal of Economic Literature,51(3), 860-872. Proops, J. L., Faber, M., Wagenhals, G. (2012).Reducing CO2 Emissions: A Comparative Input-output-study for Germany and the UK. Springer Science Business Media. Roozbehani, M., Dahleh, M. A., Mitter, S. K. (2012). Volatility of power grids under real-time pricing.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,27(4), 1926-1940. Scienceblogs.com. (2017).Denying Climate Science in Multiple Dimensions.Greg Laden's Blog. Retrieved 23 August 2017, from https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/02/27/denying-climate-science-in-multiple-dimensions/ Seinfeld, J. H., Pandis, S. N. (2016).Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change. John Wiley Sons. Sen, A. K. (2013). Approaches to, the Choice of Discount Rates for Social Bene?tCost Analysis.Discounting for Time and Risk in Energi'Policy, 325-53. Smh.com.au, A. (2017).Wholesale power prices have doubled since the carbon tax was axed.The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 23 August 2017, from https://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/energy-crisis-wholesale-power-prices-have-doubled-since-the-carbon-tax-was-axed-20170308-gutf8t.html Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Van Der Schrier, G., Jones, P. D., Barichivich, J., Briffa, K. R., Sheffield, J. (2014). Global warming and changes in drought.Nature Climate Change,4(1), 17-22. Williams, J. H., DeBenedictis, A., Ghanadan, R., Mahone, A., Moore, J., Morrow, W. R., ... Torn, M. S. (2012). The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity.science,335(6064), 53-59.