August 23, 2013
By Dana Nuccitelli
Humans are very
good at managing risks, except when it comes to the greatest risk we've faced -
climate change
Humans are
generally very risk-averse. We buy insurance to protect our investments in
homes and cars. For those of us who don't have universal health care, most
purchase health insurance. We don't like taking the chance - however remote -
that we could be left unprepared in the event that something bad happens to our
homes, cars, or health.
Climate
change seems to be a major exception to this rule. Managing the
risks posed by climate change is not a high priority for the public as a whole,
despite the fact that a climate catastrophe this century is a very real
possibility, and that such an event would have adverse impacts on all of us.
For example, in
my job as an environmental risk assessor, if a contaminated site poses a cancer
risk to humans of more than 1-in-10,000 to 1-in-1 million, that added risk is
deemed unacceptably high and must be reduced. This despite the fact that an American man has a
nearly 1-in-2 chance of developing and 1-in-4 chance of dying from cancer
(1-in-3 and 1-in-5 for an American woman, respectively).
To that 42 percent
chance of an average American developing cancer in his or her lifetime, we're
unwilling to add another 0.001 percent. The reason is simple - we really,
really don't want cancer, and thus consider even a small added risk
unacceptable.
Yet we don't share
that aversion to the risks posed by human-caused climate change. These risks include more than half of global
species potentially being at risk of extinction, extreme weather like heat waves becoming more
commonplace, global food supplies put at risk by this more frequent extreme
weather, glaciers and their associated water resources for millions of people
disappearing, rising sea levels inundating coastlines, and so forth.
This isn't some
slim one-in-a-million risk; we're looking at seriously damaging climate
consequences in the most likely, business-as-usual scenario. The forthcoming fifth IPCC report is likely to
state with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main drivers of climate
change over the past 60 years, and the scientific basis behind this confidence is quite sound.
It's the result of virtually every study that has investigated the
causes of global warming.
Yet in a recent interview with NPR, climate scientist
Judith Curry, who has a reputation for exaggerating climate science uncertainties,
claimed that based on those uncertainties,
"I can't
say myself that [doing nothing] isn't the best solution."
This argument,
made frequently by climate contrarians, displays a lack of understanding about
risk management. I'm uncertain if I'll ever be in a car accident, or if my
house will catch fire, or if I'll become seriously ill or injured within the
next few years. That uncertainty won't stop me from buying auto, home, and
health insurance. It's just a matter of prudent risk management, making sure
we're prepared if something bad happens to something we value. That principle
should certainly apply to
Uncertainty
simply isn't our friend when it comes to risk. If uncertainty is large, it
means that a bad event might not happen, but it also means that we can't rule
out the possibility of a catastrophic event happening. Inaction is only
justifiable if we're certain that the bad outcome won't happen.
Curry is
essentially arguing that she's not convinced we should take action to avoid
what she believes is a very possible climate catastrophe. That's a failure of
risk management. I wonder if she would also advise her children not to buy home
or auto or health insurance. Maybe they'll be a wasted expense, or maybe
they'll prevent financial ruin in the event of a catastrophe.
Climate
change presents an enormous global risk, not in an improbable
one-in-a-million case, but rather in the most likely scenario. From a risk
management perspective, our choice could not be clearer. We should be taking
serious steps to reduce our impact on the climate via fossil fuel consumption
and associated greenhouse gas emissions. But we're not. This is in large part
due to a lack of public comprehension of the magnitude of the risk we face; a
perception problem that social scientists are trying to determine how to
overcome.
At the moment,
climate change looks like humanity's greatest-ever risk management failure.
Hopefully we'll remedy that failure before we commit ourselves to catastrophic
climate consequences that we're unprepared to face.+(124x76).jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment