Global warming: Do the benefits of taking no action outweigh the risks?

Culture Artist column by Chuck Hall              

[FEB. 7, 2007]  On Jan. 30, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on government interference in research conducted by climate scientists working for federal agencies. The panelists included Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program, and Rick Piltz, formerly of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Plitz resigned that post in 2005, citing government censorship of climate change scientists as his reason for doing so.

At that hearing, the panelists continually cited references to the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that human activities are significantly contributing to global warming. In spite of this, there are many who insist that global warming is solely a natural phenomenon and that human activities play no significant part in planetary climate change.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that something is amiss when daffodils are blooming in January. So the question is whether we are contributing to global warming, not whether it is actually occurring.

Let's ignore the majority scientific opinion and assume for a moment that humans play no significant part in climate change. Granted this assumption, would the proposed actions to curtail greenhouse gases serve any benefit whatsoever? Since the majority of planned action on global warming involves curtailing the use of fossil fuels, consider the following:

• Even if humans play no part in global warming, would lessening or even eliminating our dependence on foreign oil by developing biofuels and other fuel alternatives be a good thing or a bad thing?

• Even if humans play no part in global warming, would producing more hybrid cars that can get 100 mpg be a good thing or a bad thing?

• Even if humans play no part in global warming, would reducing or even eliminating coal-burning power plants by replacing them with alternative energy sources that don't pollute the atmosphere be a good thing or a bad thing?

• Even if humans play no part in global warming, would building homes with green technology so that they use less energy and resources be a good thing or a bad thing?

• Even if humans play no part in global warming, would eliminating runaway deforestation be a good thing or a bad thing?

There are two possible answers to whether humans are contributing to global warming: either we are, or we aren't. If we aren't, but if we still take actions to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, there are significant benefits to be gained by creating a cleaner environment and minimizing or eliminating dependence on foreign oil. But if the majority scientific consensus is correct and we are contributing to global warming, yet take no action on it, do the benefits of taking no action outweigh the risks?

Chuck Hall is a sustainability consultant and author. His latest book, "Green Circles," will be available in spring 2007. You may contact him by e-mail at [e-mail] or visit www.cultureartist.org.

(Text from column received from Chuck Hall)