Green on the outside, red, in--one way to describe a watermelon. In the context of climate change--the "green" reference is self-explanatory, but the "red"? Red as in communist? Yup. Good to know.
So, to consider climate change as possibility is to inveigh God, democracy, open society, freedom of travel, assembly and print. Excellent. Global warming as code for latter day Bolshevism--frivolous and off-point--but effectively confusing. Nice.
The honorable senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, needed no facts nor measurements to support his invective in the 1950s---he allowed the overhang of doubt to perform his work. And, like the madness that follows a host once invaded by a pernicious parasite--purging doubt once it takes hold is messy business. (It is also important to remember that McCarthy was no pioneer of fear mongering; his art is an old art, and the preferred motif of the unimaginative and the cheapskate. It is, moreover, very effective and very low cost).
The subject of climate change, nevertheless, is interesting to consider: Google the anecdote of Greenland's massive glacial thawing and you may need to go no further. If sea levels rise, we will adapt. It would be remarkably difficult to pro act against such possibility, anyhow. Just because Greenland glacial retreat is remark-able, doesn't mean it is "anthropogenic", to use the vernacular. If it is man-made, it was not intentional. This may be the more interesting point. Unintended consequence is the true stuff of doubt---and the nagging sense that "we missed it" creates a temporary vacuum easily filled by fear mongers in the tradition of McCarthy. It may be easier to acknowledge global warming as a fact than to agree to its cause.
If you find the subject of climate change interesting but wonder how to cull through all the input without catching a label--you have company. Lots of company. Why is this topic a Share-Capital topic? Education, for one. Share-Capital tries to identify discrete notional information items that people can add to their tool kit as they develop a point of view on the large topics of our day. Global warming qualifies. Considered as a capital event, climate change is a poster child. It would require heaps of capital that would dwarf as bus fare even the BP escrow of $20 billions. This is another reason why this topic is so daunting to consider--because it exceeds even the imagination of capital markets. Bingo.
If we could assign a number to capitalize a credible remedy for global warming---we would run out of zeroes quickly. Capital markets love big opportunity--unless the opportunity is incalculable. Global warming has to become a problem comprised of "bite size" ideas before it becomes the stuff of opportunity. Share-Capital has tried to make clear--looking to public policy makers (politicians) for leadership-- can only be done in arrears. We will have to spill more oil, devastate more credit systems--before we can fix "yesterday's" problems through regulation and law. Global warming is all ahead of us--it thereby disqualifies government for any leadership role. Capital markets will lead once the "opportunity" is perceived to be far less ephemeral.
Who is Charles Keeling? He was a prominent scientist (he died in 2005). In 1957 he started to measure systematically the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere. The baseline measurement in 1958 was recorded at 315 ppm (parts per million). Today the carbon dioxide concentrations measure at 380ppm. It is clear that 380 is more than 315. It may not be clear if this is good?
The "Keeling Curve", named for his work, measures the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The work he started at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is ongoing.
The op-ed inputs for this blog entry, are compliments of the Share-Capital Foundation.
We bid you peace.
