One day back in mid 2006, the CEO of the $10 billion energy firm I was working for let it be known that carbon was keeping him up at night. Carbon as in carbon dioxide – CO2 – a notorious member of the greenhouse gases gang. CEOs of other large power companies started making similar statements. They knew it was coming and wanted to get ahead of the curve lest they be found unprepared and plowed under when the changes came. And yes, the changes were indeed coming. Seeds of new regulations restricting CO2 emissions were soon planted in California and the Northeast. Seeds with names like the proactive “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” and the perhaps overly confident “California Global Warming Solutions Act”. Seeds destined to bloom a few years hence even though nobody really knows if the resulting green growth will save us or strangles us. What my CEO revealed that day, and what  has been reinforced since then, is that a sea change had occurred in the debate on global warming.

The essence of that change was acceptance. Acceptance that climate change was real, it was happening now, humans were central to the cause, and that the effects were potentially catastrophic. In an unusual reversal, corporate America got ahead of political leadership and began calling for a national blueprint for action along with a single set of rules – and not 50 variations thereof. As with all afflictions and addictions, one has to first travel down the river of denial into the land of acceptance before treatment and healing can begin. You know acceptance has occurred on global warming when the presidential candidates from both parties have essentially identical affirmative policy positions on what still remains a highly contentious subject.

Inquiry into the global warming debate is not for the faint of heart. The science is complex, nonlinear and defies reduction into simpler accessible equations or rules of thumb. Evolving computer models are approximate and not definitive. Even within the transparent world of science where truth trumps politics and ideology, there are dissenting views held by careful and thoughtful people. Failure to achieve universal agreement within the scientific community is often held up as “evidence” that insufficient information exists to justify the cost of taking action against climate change.

Dissent notwithstanding, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of 2,500 scientists from over 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.

So what’s the worst that can happen? The IPCC report released in April 2007 concludes:

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water. Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century’s end. A rise of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world’s population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean’s circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

Grim stuff. But taking action against something bad that might happen but hasn’t yet is a tough sell. People are naturally suspicious of motives regarding preemptive actions as well they should be. Are we not all too terribly familiar with acting upon insufficient information about a potential catastrophe? Our current bill for that “1% possibility” of WMDs will reach more than $1 trillion dollars, thousands dead, and tens of thousands maimed and injured before it’s over. Small wonder we grow cynical and don’t know who to trust. Yet by comparison, the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and the bill for doing nothing could make Iraq look like a paper cut.

If the likelihood of a ruinous car crash were greater than 2.5% per year insurance companies would get out of the business – too damn risky. The consensus is a 2 degree Centigrade rise in the average global temperature will be disastrous. At that point precaution and mitigation may be moot. The IPCC concluded that a rise in temperature of between 1.5-4.5C has a 95% level of certainty. Do you think you could get car insurance at that level of risk?

Dealing with climate change is going to be expensive and disruptive to the status quo. And as Upton Sinclair once noted, “It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it.” And there are lots and lots of paychecks involved.

Tags: energy policy, global warming, leadership