SUPERFREAKONOMICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (3)

Superfreakonomics is the sequel to Stephen Levitt's and Stephen Dubner's highly successful earlier collaboration Freakonomics, a quirky look at aspects of everyday life from an economist's viewpoint.

I have to admit that I was slightly disappointed. Part of that was inevitable, I think; the first book was totally new, so "more of the same", even if the specific examples are different, is never going to have that same shock impact.

The other reason was a rather long section on climate change, which - according to them - we could solve both now and cheaply. The argument runs as follows. We know from previous volcanic explosions that the earth's temperature falls in the immediate aftermath, We also know why; sulphur dioxide gets into the stratosphere (i.e. above the atmosphere), and that does something to the sun's rays. So, if we ourselves could get sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, then we could cool down the planet. But this we can do; by building chimney-like balloon structures on top of existing power stations, which emit a lot of the stuff. This would not be cheap; but it would be a fraction of what other people are saying needs to be spent. More importantly, it could be done today.

I am afraid I am experiencing a growing sense of climate change fatigue. I accept Levitt's and Dubner's argument - backed up by their other examples - that solutions to seemingly intractable human problems are often right there in front of our noses, and surprisingly cheap. I also accept their premises both that human behaviour is the most difficult thing in the world to change, and that it is all the more difficult when there are vested interests trying to stop any such change. Nevertheless, part of me keeps whispering "if it was really that easy, wouldn't someone else have picked up the ball and run with it?"

Normally I would come to my own view on such things. But the problem with climate change, for me at any rate, is that the data are vast, opaque, and often conflicting; in short, a bit like the climate itself. To take but one example. July, which was hot here in Denmark, was in fact the fourth hottest July since records began 150 years ago, 18,7 degrees celsius on average instead of the long-term average of 15,6 degrees celsius. A sign of warming? Well, yes and no. It is true that the hottest July on record was 2006, so two of the top five have been during the past 5 years; on the other hand, the other three were 1994, 1941 and as long ago as 1901. So what does that say?

It's all very confusing.

Walter Blotscher