文章 Articles

Thinking rationally about global warming

Are there benefits to global warming? Yushi Mao sees human knowledge as a tool which will help us to cope in a world where sustainability is more a social than an environmental issue.

Article image

The actual impact of global warming on humankind is unclear, instead of just being a Pandora’s Box which only brings misfortune to mankind, global warming, to certain degrees, benefits us in certain ways.

There is no absolute standard against which we can decide whether the temperature is suitable for living or not as it is very much decided by the adaptability of human beings. If human beings fail to keep up with the pace of temperature increase, then global warming will surely threaten our existence. Therefore, the problem is a race between humans and nature in terms of adapting to a new living environment.

Resources do not only include natural resources but more importantly knowledge and technology. From this perspective, the capital in terms of resources that will be owned by our offspring is much more than what we have now.

Compared with problems caused by natural resources, man-made problems are the biggest threat facing human kind. Therefore, sustainable development is more a social issue rather than an environmental one.

Global warming is one of the biggest issues facing the world today. It has a direct influence on our living environment, one which no one can escape. It has been nearly 30 years since some forward-thinking minds first considered the possible consequences of global warming. Recently, it has become a major focus of environmental protection and is one of the most controversial issues in international politics, attracting the involvement of a number of experts and scholars from various fields.

There have been many discussions and debates over what is the most accurate model of global warming. Experts disagree with one another on how much the atmospheric temperature will increase by the end of the 21st century, and there is no consensus regarding the possible environmental consequences. What’s more, nobody knows for sure what will happen to our economy as temperatures increase; there is no definitive answer as to how much it will cost if we make up our minds to act, to take preventive measures now. Most of the experts adopt a cautious attitude, saying that they would rather spend more money on preventive measures than run the risk of causing further damage because of our ignorance. I would like to share with you my opinions on global warming after an objective and logical analysis. 

First of all, I would like to point out the true nature of the global-warming issue. Global warming may become problematic, not because humans and animals cannot stand heat, but because we may or may not be able to adapt to it. Nobody can prove that the temperature levels we have now are optimal for humans and other living creatures on earth. Higher temperatures may benefit us more, but no one has provided any real evidence either way.

For example, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere help with plant photosynthesis, which lead to better crop harvests. If the concentration of carbon dioxide were to double, the output of such crops as potatoes and wheat could increase by 20 to 45%. If photosynthesis were to accelerate, the water-use efficiency of plants would be increased by two-thirds, and drought-afflicted areas which used to be unsuitable for cultivating plants could improve and become farming areas. Plants’ resistance to pests could also be enhanced.

In another example, the rise in sea-water temperatures could mean some of the ports on the Arctic Ocean would stay in operation throughout the whole year, boosting their local economies.

These analyses point out some of the benefits that global warming can bring to the world, but the problem is that nobody can tell if the benefits will outweigh the costs, or vice versa. After millions of years of adaptation, humankind and other life on earth has got used to the present temperature levels. If they increase, human beings will have to adapt themselves to a new temperature range, and the result of this process could be good or bad. If it takes too long, or human beings fail to keep up with the pace of temperature change, we will find it really difficult to get used to the new living environment, which will lead to a series of problems. So, the problem is all about human beings and other living creatures adjusting to a new living environment. If we can adapt ourselves to it within a short time, it won’t be a problem.

For example, land will be covered by sea water as a result of the rise in sea levels and properties will be lost to it. According to statistical projections, if the sea level rises by 4.6 meters, the total land area of the 48 contiguous states of the United States will be reduced by 1.5%, which will result in a displacement of 6% of the total population and loss of 6% of the real estate.

However, these changes will take place slowly within the next 100 years, and most of the properties will be rotten and out of function before they are covered by sea water. Even if the losses are twice as high than the current projections indicate, losses taking place every year are equal to the subsidies given by the US government to its dairy industry, and much less than its current national defence budget. What’s more, humankind has plenty of time to build dikes to prevent the invasion of sea water in the next 100 years. Building dikes can be done much faster than sea levels can rise, and the costs will not exceed those of such construction projects as the building of subway systems.  

We often worry about our offspring. We are afraid that we may use up resources and leave nothing for them. As a matter of fact, succeeding generations will have much more capital than we had when we were born. Our generation (and previous ones) have built a lot of railways, highways, airports, ports, skyscrapers and modern production plants for them. They can use them without making much further sacrifice. More importantly, the knowledge and technology which the next generations will have at its disposal is more than we had when we were born. The more knowledge they have, the better lives they can enjoy. Today, a lone sailor can travel across the Pacific Ocean safely in a boat just several meters long, whereas 500 years ago -- when Columbus sailed across the Atlantic – he had three big ships and 87 sailors and the task was very risky. That’s the difference knowledge makes.  

If we look at the wider picture, humankind has entered a new stage of fast development since the 19th century. Tremendous wealth has been created and people’s livelihoods have been improved dramatically. Statistics released by various international organisations also demonstrate that the global economy, either in terms of total volume or per capita, is increasing very year. Although there are countries which showed signs of economic setbacks during certain periods of time, or witnessed a decrease in average life expectancy, these have nothing to do with natural resources. These are man-made problems.

A decrease in life expectancy in Russia, the financial crisis in Argentina which dragged the country into economic recession, tens of thousands of lives lost to AIDS and wars in some African countries -- these are all man-made problems. In some cases, environmental pollution and over-consumption of resources may have resulted in human losses, but they have not yet exerted significant influence on humankind as a whole. Therefore, if we, as human beings, can keep doing what we are doing now and keep ourselves away from self-destructive behaviours, it is quite likely that our children will be able to enjoy a much better life.  

In fact, problems within our society are the real threat to human existence, particularly wars, social chaos, hate, prejudice and clashes among cultures and traditions. Each year human losses due to these reasons are hundreds of times more than the losses caused by environmental problems. Therefore, sustainable development is more a social issue rather than an environmental one. What we really need to deal with is not environmental problems but social problems, problems between people. This is not to say that the environment and resources are not issues for sustainable development.

Environmental pollution, for example, has become so serious in some regions that it is threatening local people’s health, even their very lives. While problems such as large-scale deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and damage to ecosystems require urgent action and need to be addressed, they do not yet pose a threat to human existence if we look at the statistics on the total number of these environmental problems. In comparison, social problems may pose far more urgent problems that we need to solve.  

Professor Akerlof knows the Chinese leaders’ minds very well. He’s persuading them to look at this issue from a morality angle, and to take the initiative to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, so that China can surpass the US to become the world’s model in protecting the environment. I agree that whether a country is powerful or not is judged not only by its productivity, but more importantly by its ability to promote its ideology. The US has become the world’s leader because of its people’s success in promoting equality and freedom and because of its political system, which prevents the government from abusing power, as it is under the supervision of its people. What makes the US less trustworthy in international affairs is its arrogant attitude of looking down upon others and its ignorance of international laws. Based on the current situation within China, there is still a long way to go before China can take the lead in promoting its ideology, and it cannot be achieved only by reducing emissions.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Most research would not agree

I'm not quite sure what your point is and I can't bring myself to read through your garbled arguments again for clarification. I will just say that your suggestion that global warming may prove advantageous to humanity is frankly laughable. Most research suggests that shifts in temperature and rainfall will create dustbowls and famine. Yet you argue that "higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in soil [will lead] to better crop harvests", an argument which you are clearly unaware has recently been debunked by studies financed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Chinese leaders minds

Can you explain more about the Chinese Leader's minds? We get very little insight into them from the West.

Will an argument from morality work best? Or an argument of creating a dominant world view? Or a long term economic argument?

What are their concerns, their desires for a place in history?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Author's response to comment number 1

In response to the comment posted on July 7: You claim that the majority of research would not support my ideas - is this because you have actually investigated it yourself? You claim that my piece is garbled - what would you point to specifically? As for what you said about CO2 concentration in soil - where did I say just that? Have you really read through my article?
posted by Mao Yushi

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


茅于轼的文章中有一处英文翻译"higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in soil help with plant photosynthesis" 更正为"higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in atmosphere help with plant photosynthesis"。



note on translation

A change has been made to the english translation of Yushi Mao's article. "higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in soil help with plant photosynthesis" has been changed to "higher concentrations... in atmosphere".

Apologies for the mistranslation.


Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



a few words on Yushi Mao

"The problem is all about human beings and other living creatures adjusting to a new living environment." - I really appreciated this phrase! It gives us a new perspective on the interaction of humans and nature. Environmental protection needs robust debate, only seeing things from one point of view will not benefit environmental protection!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



I agree with Yushi Mao's viewpoint

Yushi Mao has a positive and optimistic standpoint. He not only wants to improve the environment, but also to improve humankind's ability to adapt to environmental change. Everyone discusses all kinds of threats from climate change, and they get very anxious and worried. It would be better to improve people's ability to adapt to climate change than blame and accuse people.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Mr Mao is really sweet!

Mr Mao's point of view is like a child's, honest, naive and quite genuine, but I'm afraid most people would not agree with him. However, his voice is still very helpful to us.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



I don't agree

If you want to make crops grow well, why not build lots of greenhouses? We can channel industrial carbon dioxide emissions to the greenhouses, then greatly increase the concentration and keep the temperature high. In this way plant photosynthesis can be encouraged. I remember reading this method in science and technology books when I was young.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous





I don’t agree with Mao

If only think of the output of the crops, there is a great deal of solutions substituting for. Why not to build large quantity of greenhouses to make the crops grow better? We can discharge the industrial CO2 and waste gas like this into the greenhouse,. It will make the air denser, and the temperature will be high. Those will both promote the photosynthesis of plants. Moreover, M.r. Mao should have given estimation to the benefit proportion of global losses and the so-called crops increased-production that the greenhouse effects bring about. It’s not enough to discuss them qualitatively. It is unforecasted to know a series of consequences the greenhouse effects may bring about, but the so-called benefits are little to count.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Something called spin.

It's easy to print percentages like 1.5 or even 6, but they belie the massive impact 1.5% or 6% will have when one considers the fact that 1.5% of 300 million (the current population in US, never mind its projected growth in the coming century) is still 4500000 people to relocate and resettle. China's population is much greater and even more densely concentrated along the coast: 70% of major cities and 60% of the national economy (figures from a xinhua news report), all of which must be relocated with the rising ocean levels due to climate change and environmental destruction. There is a reason for this concentration: it is the most fertile part of China. The challenges in the coming century will test the strength of the Chinese people, as well as human kind as a whole. But for them to be met, they must first be acknowledged.

Debate is fine and good, but it is shameful and detrimental to meaningful discourse for one to hide under the cover of 'rational thought' when the true intention is to downplay the facts and mislead the reader.

Now, let's get down to business and see how we can actually make some progress against these problems.