Is the science on climate change 'settled?': Fuel for Thought

First, one should be discomfited by that lightning-rod shorthand for certitude; science is never “settled.” Saying so is the antithesis of science. The scientific method by definition suggests a permanent state of open-mindedness, of questioning the common wisdom, of rigorously testing and retesting the hypothesis. Where does one draw the line between acceptance of scientific consensus and blind faith?

That said, it isn’t necessary to don sackcloth and ashes to see troubling trends in climate data. It isn’t fanaticism to dismiss the silly charge that the climate change issue is a “hoax”—any more than it is heresy to question some of the claims made by proponents of the catastrophic climate change scenarios. What’s especially concerning about the latter is that these scenarios center on the notion that the planet is certainly doomed by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) if fossil fuels aren’t immediately supplanted by non-carbon energy—and that only good can come from that change.

Questioning the consensus

Maybe it’s time to stop asking whether climate change is real. But asking questions about the details isn’t apostasy. The real questions should be:

* How bad will it get? *How much time do we have? *What can we do about it without making other things worse?

That last qualifier is a very real concern. Humankind will not quickly transition to a world fueled by rainbow-shine and unicorns if we can only slay the fossil fuel dragon.

Some AGW adherents espouse what seems to be an eminently sensible approach to the issue: the Precautionary Principle. This principle is generally understood to mean that if anything might have a deleterious effect on the public or environment, but lacks scientific consensus as to its harm, then the burden of proof that it isn’t harmful falls on the person or group taking the action.

In other words, to borrow from the Hippocratic Oath, “First, do no harm.” What AGW disciples often forget is that the Precautionary Principle cuts both ways. Herein lies the math problem.

Questioning the numbers

It may seem oxymoronic to state that there is more than one consensus on the climate change issue, but indeed there are several different views on how to implement the transition to a “clean” energy future.

Gaining traction of late is a coalescence around a Big Idea: “Keep it in the ground.” This is shorthand for a 2015 study in Nature magazine that concluded that 80% of all known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas must be left in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

This view provides much of the impetus for the heated opposition to high-visibility projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline as well as hydraulic fracturing.

The first problem with this notion is whether “known” reserves are actually “known.” The concept of reserves as a number is a moving target, dependent on technology, cost, and price. So what is a “resource” or “possible reserve” today can transition to a “proved reserve” tomorrow, if the demand, technology, and price warrant it.

This is why the US, for example, has estimated “proved” (the most stringently defined category) oil reserves totaling 48 billion barrels, with a reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio of 10.6 years, at year-end 2016, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017. Which might seem worrisome if one didn’t consider that US oil reserves totaled 30 billion barrels in 2006, with an R/P of 11.9 years.

The US isn’t the only country with this abundance. BP reckoned the world had an oil R/P of more than 40 years in 2006. That number has climbed to more than 50 years as of 2016, all while oil consumption has continued to climb.

Or take coal. Please. Kidding aside, the US Energy Information Administration not long ago estimated the US has 283 years of coal reserves plus resources at current rates of consumption—and consumption has been plummeting—by 9% from 2015 to 2016 alone.

In sum, the most widely accepted forecasts continue to hold that fossil fuels will still account for three-fourths of global energy consumption through the midpoint of the current century.

Crux of the math problem

Here’s the dilemma: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world has perhaps only 30-40 years left before reaching a tipping point on climate change—before AGW is irreversible. Some AGW advocates say it may already be too late.

So for the “keep it in the ground” proponents, the math doesn’t add up.

But so many on the AGW side insist on severely limiting production and use of fossil fuels as the only real solution to climate change. Possible solutions such as geoengineering and carbon sequestration—already being successfully implemented by the oil and gas industry—are often dismissed out of hand. And energy affordability seems to end up the red-headed stepchild in this debate.

Here are some more problems with the numbers:

*According to the United Nations, more than 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuel sources such as wood and animal dung for cooking and heating. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 4 million people die each year from illnesses attributable to burning these traditional biomass fuels—including 50% of early deaths among children under five. *More than 20% of the world’s population has no available electricity; uncounted many more have access but can’t afford it. *Lack of affordable energy can hinder availability of sanitation, potable water, and cooling and heating—i.e., the more “personal” climate control.

First, do no harm, indeed.

So let’s keep an open mind and all options on the table.