Well, Someone Got It Right -- Way Back Then

During the past eight years, the idea that people with expertise could make reasonable estimates of "what would happen if" has taken a big hit. The Bush administration, of course, was particularly bad at foreseeing consequences in places like Iraq -- so bad that it made light of the whole idea. ("Stuff happens.") But the failure to foresee the meltdown of the financial system had the fingerprints of experts from both political parties and several ideological stripes.

So does anyone ever get it right? Yes, actually, and in the environmental arena this is particularly true when thoughtful science is brought to bear. President Obama's newly appointed science adviser, John Holdren, is an old friend of mine. I just got a copy of this prediction he made with Peter Gleick 28 years ago -- way back in 1981. Take a look. It turns out that wars in Iraq, the emergence of global warming as a crisis, and the fear of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists were not only in principal foreseeable, they were foreseen:

...the most important environmental liability of oil as an energy source is probably not air pollution or oil spills but the chance that war will be waged over access to the world's remaining supplies. The most important environmental liability of coal is not the occupational toll of mining or the public toll from coal-transport accidents (the most easily quantified impacts of coal), or the direct damage to public health from airborne sulfates (quantifiable in principle, but highly uncertain in present practice); rather it is the threat of global climate change posed by accumulating atmospheric carbon dioxide, the consequences of which (through disrupted agricultural productivity) are potentially enormous but highly resistant to convincing quantification. The most important environmental liability of nuclear fission is neither the routine nor accidental emissions of radioactivity, but the deliberate misuse of nuclear facilities and materials for acts of terrorism and war. (American Journal of Public Health, September 1981)

Of course, what's equally stunning is not that Holdren and Gleick predicted these dangers more than a quarter of a century ago -- it's that so many commentators still deny their relevance today.

Comments

[greendrake]

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'irony' yet, RightDiatribe.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Finally, some wise men in the presidents ear...

[tompoe]

And, of course, Holdren and Gleick would certainly have championed decentralized energy, e.g., solar and wind at the individual level. Obama could easily rally the nation in a call to arms, to establish solar and wind energy at the community level, at the individual level. Each soldier digs not a foxhole, pitch a tent, but install solar and wind energy kits. Government fronts the cost, and the nation switches. Idealistic? Only if you're a corporate thug.

[RightDialogue]

Only an hour had gone by after awarding Atrius the ‘Irony of the Day Award’ when I stumbled across this beautiful prediction, touted by Carl Pope at Huffington as ‘Someone Got It Right’:

…the most important
environmental liability of oil as an energy source is probably not air
pollution or oil spills but the chance that war will be waged over
access to the world’s remaining supplies. The most important
environmental liability of coal is not the occupational toll of mining
or the public toll from coal-transport accidents (the most easily
quantified impacts of coal), or the direct damage to public health from
airborne sulfates (quantifiable in principle, but highly uncertain in
present practice); rather it is the threat of global climate change
posed by accumulating atmospheric carbon dioxide, the consequences of
which (through disrupted agricultural productivity) are potentially
enormous but highly resistant to convincing quantification. The most
important environmental liability of nuclear fission is neither the
routine nor accidental emissions of radioactivity, but the deliberate
misuse of nuclear facilities and materials for acts of terrorism and
war. (American Journal of Public Health, September 1981)

So the Global Warming conspiracy theory has been completely debunked, the Iraq War produced zero barrels of oil for the US, and there have been zero incidents of nuclear war in the 27 years since the prophecy. This, by the way, from Obama’s new ‘Science Advisor’.

Better than a night at the Improv!

[Verbalobe]

@RightDialogue

I'm not sure what your point is. First, there's no 'conspiracy' around Global Warming. Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is a fact, and the threat remains "potentially enormous." No amount of comedic heckling will make this go away.

The "prophecy" did not mention Iraq, and nor did Pope. So even if one were to argue that the current Iraq war had NOTHING to do with oil (itself a laughable proposition), one need only point to Kuwait, Iraq I, and Georgia to note armed conflict around oil.

Lastly, neither did the "prophecy" predict nuclear war. It just suggested the most profound danger associated with nuclear technology is proliferation of know-how and materiel to those apt to misuse it for acts of terrorism. This argument is more true now than ever, and is key to US relationships with Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, among others.

Science can produce consensus on the issues, but often -- even usually -- not policy. The people and their representatives have to figure it out. I'd rather listen to all the facts, and not selectively close my ears to the ones that happen to suggest policies that are costly or difficult.