How the views of climate-sceptic Steven Koonin could influence the UK’s path to net-zero
Derrick Wyatt discusses the views of American climate-sceptic Steven Koonin in the aftermath of COP26, remarking on his concessions to climate orthodoxy, and his endorsement of at least some steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Dissent amongst Conservatives about the pace of progress to net-zero and its costs (one of the issues which led former Brexit-negotiator Lord Frost to resign from the Government) could soon push climate change up the political agenda, and with it the views of Steven Koonin.
Professor Koonin is a theoretical physicist who served in the Obama administration and came to international prominence with a book published in 2021 entitled Unsettled? What Climate Science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters. In the polarised world of climate change s politics he billed himself as a sceptic and his book was received accordingly, being welcomed by fellow sceptics in the USA, and given a rough ride in mainstream scientific journals.
In the UK Koonin’s views resonate with some Conservative MPs – including Steve Baker and Craig Mackinlay. Baker, who has praised Koonin and his book on social media, is a trustee of the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, which invited Professor Koonin to give its annual lecture in November 2021. Donors with links to the Foundation have given financial support to a number of Conservative MPs, including members of the Cabinet. Doubts on the climate change issue go almost to the top, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak said to be concerned about the cost of net-zero and its impact on low-income voters. Understanding Koonin’s views could be a key to understanding British climate-change politics if Conservative dissent to current policies grows.
Supporters and critics alike tend to overlook the occasions where Koonin accepts climate science orthodoxy, which is not surprising because Koonin downplays such concessions. Yet he agrees that human influence is playing an increasing role in global warming and that it makes sense to take some action to combat this. Far from rubbishing the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Koonin rates its reports as the “gold standard”, though he questions some of its findings.
On top of this, Koonin accepts that human influence on climate is growing and that it is five times greater than it was before 1950. He also accepts that the effects of accumulations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could become irreversible. But, and admittedly it is a big but, he maintains that the precise extent to which human action influences global warming is still uncertain.
There was a period of global warming in the early twentieth century and the IPCC admits to uncertainty about its precise causes. The IPCC has no such doubts about late twentieth century warming, however, which it attributes mainly to human influence. This is “deeply unsettling” says Koonin, because if the science isn’t up to telling us what caused the early warming, then how can it tell us that the later warming is man-made? Koonin leaves it at that, rather than engaging directly with the research underlying the IPCC’s assessment that warming in the later period was mainly man-made. Hardly a killer point.
Koonin cites the IPCC’s forecast that if the world overshoots Paris Agreement targets, and warming reaches 3 degrees Centigrade by 2100, the cumulative loss of world gross domestic product (GDP) will be only 3%. He finds reassurance in this that severe global warming will not have serious economic consequences. He is surely wrong to do so.
GDP growth is a bad measure of the impact of natural disasters. GDP growth measures the extra goods and services produced in any given year, so that damage done by an extreme weather event typically shows up, if at all, as the plus to GDP caused by remedial construction work. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was one of the most costly disasters in American history, yet there was no discernible impact on the GDP of the United States. If global warming inflicted dozens of extreme weather events of the magnitude of hurricane Katrina around the world, the GDP dashboards of the countries concerned would barely flicker.
The evidence is building that global warming will inflict more severe extreme weather events on mankind than would otherwise be the case. The first instalment of the sixth report of the IPCC, released in the run-up to COP26, records that it is an “established fact” that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases “have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes”. It notes that climate change made Europe’s record-breaking heatwave in 2019 (which saw the UK’s highest recorded temperature ever) as much as 100-times more likely.
Professor Koonin does not oppose steps towards net-zero. He says that all things being equal it might be a good thing to eliminate or reduce carbon emissions. As it is, he says it makes sense to cut methane emissions, and to seek cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions. He says he is “less bullish” on “forced and urgent decarbonisation”, either through a price on carbon or by way of regulation, because the impact of human influences on the climate is too uncertain and very likely too small compared to the daunting amount of change required to achieve net-zero by, say 2075.
He insists that decisions on reducing emissions must balance the cost of these measures against the certainties and uncertainties of climate science.
Even assuming that this balancing approach is right, it is still necessary to put all the relevant factors into the balance. Such as the fact that a switch from fossil fuels to renewables (or nuclear) will be inevitable for many countries before the end of the current century, as reserves of fossil fuels decline.
Net-zero is a rational option for national policymakers, both to combat climate change, and as a declaration of energy independence from unreliable foreign suppliers, such as Putin’s Russia, which provides natural gas to Europe, including the UK.
The Paris Agreement allows national governments to design their own commitments to achieve net-zero, and thereby to undertake and implement something like the cost-benefit analyses which Koonin advocates.
China plans to “phase down” coal, and be carbon neutral by 2060. It is interesting that proven coal reserves in China are estimated to run out about 2055. China, which already supplies three-quarters of the world’s solar panels, has the ambition to be the world’s leader in solar power. China may yet become the world’s loudest cheerleader for net zero.
Flexibility means that there will be problems with the timing of net zero – such as India burning coal until 2070 - and deadlines and warming limits may be missed, as Koonin says they will.
And no doubt, during the transition to renewables, national governments will find it politically and ethically difficult to pre-judge every single decision on, say, an airport expansion, or opening a limited-life coal mine, on the basis that it must be ruled out by their commitment to net zero. Why ethically difficult? Because each generation will claim its own share of inter-generational equity.
But renewable sources of energy are increasingly competitive. Energy from new renewables is cheaper than energy from new fossil fuel generation for nearly half the world’s population. Major drivers of this innovation have been the Kyoto and Paris Agreements and the political decisions and regulation to which they have given rise.
Public opinion in the UK is fairly receptive to the need to combat climate change, but willingness to accept mandated lifestyle changes or impacts on living standards has yet to be tested. That may be about to change. If the public believe that living standards are suffering because of the Government’s commitment to reach net-zero by 2050, some will question that policy, and some Conservative politicians will champion their cause. Signs are that those who do will turn for support to the views of Professor Koonin. The result could be to nudge the UK towards “net-zero lite”, in the form of a flatter trajectory to carbon neutrality, or even a compromise on the net-zero target itself.
Derrick Wyatt, QC is Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Oxford, former barrister specialising in litigation before the EU Courts, and Member of the International Academic Council of Fundacion Fide, an independent and non-partisan Spanish think-tank.