文化 Culture

Books: tipping into exaggeration

Clive Hamilton’s Requiem for a Species is more pessimistic than most writing on climate change. It’s too soon for doom-mongering and drastic conclusions, argues Tan Copsey, though it is time to act.

Article image

Requiem for a Species
Clive Hamilton
Earthscan, 2010


In Requiem for a Species, the Australian author Clive Hamilton outlines a story that will be familiar to readers of chinadialogue: climate scientists keep telling us that things are getting worse, but emissions of greenhouse gases keep growing. Scientific urgency is met only with political sluggishness. Dangerous climate “tipping points”, where things get a lot worse very quickly, may be just around the corner, with horrifying consequences for humanity.

What marks Requiem for a Species out from many other similar books about climate change is its pessimism. Hamilton believes that dangerous climate change is essentially inevitable. No matter how many wind farms we build, we’re in for a very rough ride.

As an author and a founder of the Australia Institute, a Canberra-based think tank, Hamilton has tracked the development of climate-change science, policy and politics for the past two decades, with a particular focus on his native Australia. His 2001 work Running from the Storm shone a light on the murky world of climate-change politics and policy under the government of former Australian prime minister John Howard, revealing corruption, conflicts of interest and embarrassing mistakes in assessing the economic impact of climate-change policy.

In 2007’s Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change, he went further, claiming that Australia, along with the United States had been “actively working to destroy the Kyoto Protocol” and prevent international action on climate change. In Requiem for a Species, Hamilton has changed tack somewhat. Though the climate villains who undermine political action are not spared, Hamilton is now more interested in recent, alarming developments in climate science and their potential ramifications for human life.

Hamilton’s examination of recent scientific progress in the field focuses largely on recent advances in the study of “tipping points” – where small increases in temperature trigger much larger, abrupt shifts in the earth’s temperature. He cites the work of a leading climate scientist and evangelist for radical action to halt emissions – NASA’s James Hansen.

Hamilton goes on to suggest that if key tipping points like the melting of the Siberian permafrost are triggered, things will become “worse than the worst case” envisaged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific body on climate change. Melting permafrost would likely release more methane into the atmosphere, which would, in turn, lead to a faster increase in temperatures and very abrupt climate change.

Here a problem arises. Hamilton’s description of the science is not particularly satisfying. He moves almost immediately to address the bogus concerns of so-called climate sceptics, rather than taking us deeper into the nuances of scientific debate. His analysis is stronger as he moves into more familiar territory -- how humanity is failing to address climate change. Hamilton addresses and attacks familiar targets, including excess consumption, “growth fetishism” and “mad” economists.

Solutions both serious – international attempts to negotiate coordinated policy responses – and faddish – schemes to geo-engineer the planet to minimise the averse affects of climate change – are then expertly inspected, dissected and found wanting.

But if traditional approaches to addressing climate change are all but useless, what should we do instead? Hamilton implores us to
“Despair, Accept, Act”. To confront the fact that humanity is in serious trouble. He suggests that we can’t move forward in any meaningful way as a species unless we come to terms with how bad things really are. This includes facing up to the real possibility of human extinction.

Is he right? Should we really despair now? The most recent report of the IPCC outlined the seriousness of the challenge we face. But it didn’t suggest that it was insurmountable. In making the claim that it is too late, Hamilton relies on very recent work by climate scientists. Much of this work, including that on tipping points, is subject to vigorous, ongoing debate within the scientific community. That is not to say Hamilton is necessarily wrong, rather that it probably is too soon to draw such drastic conclusions.

These conclusions also rest on the assumption that humanity will not make significant cuts to emissions of greenhouse gases in the very near future. Here, unfortunately, Hamilton is almost certainly right. Attempts to agree a far-reaching international treaty on climate change have essentially failed and the issue still is not taken seriously in major emitting nations such as the United States. Hamilton’s thinking also will have been shaped by recent events in Australia, where -- despite record temperatures, drought and unprecedented bushfires -- successive governments have failed to reduce emissions.

Requiem for a Species
is an ambitiouswork. Hamilton attempts to lay claim to a place among other landmark environmental texts, including Silent Spring and The Limits to Growth, by trying to challenge “the most deeply held assumptions of western civilisation”. But the conclusions reached by his predecessors Rachel Carson and the Club of Rome seem relatively restrained in comparison to those made in Requiem for a Species.

This may be a problem. Hamilton has previously been accused of favouring the polemic over a more prosaic approach to presenting the facts. Requiem for a Species is a polemic and though these issues are urgent, his argument loses some of its impact because he is willing to overstate his case.

This is not to say that some of his pessimism isn’t warranted. An examination of the dangers of technological optimism is particularly sobering. Politicians who champion the cause of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and “clean coal” are given particularly short shrift. Relying on coal-fired power plants that are “capture ready” means that we better be “Rapture ready”, says Hamilton. The acceleration in warming that the plants are likely to cause may mean “the End of Days”.

Requiem for a Species
ends up making an extremely awkward contribution to the climate-change debate. For a politician or environmentalist to speak as Hamilton does would be politically suicidal. “Doom mongering” undermines the case for taking decisions that are politically and personally difficult. Despite increasingly alarming scientific evidence, it may not be time to despair just yet. But it’s certainly time to act. Hopefully Hamilton can stop despairing and do the same.


Tan Copsey is operations and development manager at
chinadialogue.

 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
tdeanxx

悲观主义抑或“灾难情景”?

我并未拜读以上所讨论的那本书,然而,根据科普塞的讨论,我不得不怀疑他/她是否已将风险加权分析与恐惧渲染术连同悲观论调糅杂在了一起。即便人类——由于人为气候变化——将于下个世纪灭绝的可能性仅有百分之一,那也仍是一个非常巨大的,需要我们严肃考虑的风险。然在我看来,以科学为依据的项目以及建模——它们的概率本质——不过是拒绝论者用来讨好能源巨头的工具;利用这些建模迷惑公众,将人们的注意力转移到质疑气候变化“争辩”的科学支撑上来。我不认为科普塞的讨论对于此问题有建设性的贡献。

Pessimism or "Worst Case Scenario"?

While I have not read the book in question, based on Copsey's discussion, I have to wonder if he/she isn't conflating risk weighted analysis with fearmongering and pessimism. Even if there is only a 1% chance that our species will preside over a mass extinction in the next century due to anthropogenic climate change, that is still a very, very significant risk and needs to be seriously considered. It seems to me that the fundamentally probabilistic nature of science and scientifically based projections and modeling is what has allowed the denialists serving their masters in the energy industries to confuse the public so effectively to focus on doubting the very, very solid science underpinning the climate change "debate". I don't see Copsey's discussion of the topic via this review as a constructive contribution to the debate.