I’ve long been concerned that the “climate change” debate has morphed from a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry into an ideological movement that pits liberal world views vs. conservative, and that reasoned discourse has transmogrified into tribal, us-versus-them combat. I hope fervently that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s commission on climate change can avoid falling into that trap.
I find some cause for optimism after reviewing a work plan for the commission between now and November. This document, volunteered to me by Preston Bryant, secretary of natural resources, addresses many of the issues that I have raised in this blog, as well as many that I had not thought of, and it does so in a seemingly dispassionate manner.
Expected impact. How will climate change affect Virginia? Topics include rising sea levels and ocean acidification; impact on agriculture, Chesapeake Bay fisheries and natural systems such as forests, wetlands and wildlife; impact on the built environment such as transportation, utilities, ports, tourism, military installations and (as I interpret it) oceanfront development.
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Where do greenhouse gases originate in Virginia? How much comes from electric utilities and industry? What impact do development patterns have on transportation and automobile emissions? What contribution can “carbon sinks” (such as forest land, I presume, or perhaps carbon sequestration technologies) make to absorbing greenhouse gases?
Adapting to climate change. What options do Virginians have to cut emissions? What emerging technologies, such as wind farms and algal biofuels, can we turn to? What potential is there for conservation through building practices, energy use management, and building codes?
Cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost-benefit ratio of the various strategies proposed?
Overall, the approach seems reasoned and technocratic — but I am perturbed by one inherent bias in the work plan. The Kaine administration has boxed itself in by laying out a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared to what they would be otherwise. That goal is all fine and good, but Virginia could cut emissions to zero and we would have an infinitesimal impact on global trends. Conservation and renewable fuels are good, very good. But, if by focusing on those goals we neglect priorities such as adapting to adverse impacts, we’re doing ourselves a tremendous disservice.
Climate change will be whatever it will be, however much we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, however much hot air we vent in debate. If sea levels are going to rise, nothing that Virginians do can stop them. If Virginia is destined to experience droughts and higher temperatures, we cannot alter that fate. But we can adapt to those conditions. How we adapt is very much within our control. That, in my humble opinion, is where the Governor’s Commission should focus more of its attention. But we’ll see how the study unfolds before drawing any conclusions.