Slide 1Acid RainUncertaintiesHow do we know it’s Anthropogenic Sulfur?Was acid rain causing damage?Enter the Merchants of DoubtSlide 7Slide 8Singer’s Argument from IgnoranceThe Panel’s ResultsSlide 11Slide 12Super Sonic Flight!Chlorofluorocarbons & IndustryVolcanoes!Montreal ProtocolConstructing a CounternarrativeSlide 18Slide 19Slide 20Merchants of DoubtChapter 3Sowing the Seeds of Doubt: Acid RainAcid Rain•Smokestacks from Coal plants had to use scrubbers•The scrubbers removed some particulate matter out of the smoke•But the particles removed helped to neutralize the acid effects•Without the particles, the remaining pollutants make the rain more acidic•Taller smokestacks reduced local pollution, but spread out acidic effectsPotential Negative Effects•Nutrient leaching in soil and plant matter•Acidification of lakes/rivers•Harm to wildlife•Damage to human structuresUncertainties•American Chemical Society, Chemical and Engineering News (1976)“The acidity of rain and snow falling on parts of the US and Europe has been rising – for reasons that are still not entirely clear and with consequences that have yet to be well evaluated.”•Anthropogenic sulfur was certainly implicatedHow do we know it’s Anthropogenic Sulfur?•Mass balance in Sweden3 potential sources: human activity, volcanoes, sea sprayHuman activity: smokestacks allow Sulfur to travel farVolcanoes: No active volcanoes in northern EuropeSea Spray: Does not travel very farBest explanation is Human Activity, but it is an indirect argument•Fingerprinting: Isotopic Analysis in CanadaSulfur-34 levels are different in minerals mined in the area than in volcanoesThe atmospheric signature matched the Sulfur-34 levels from the mines, so the Sulfur could not have come from the volcanoesWas acid rain causing damage?•1979 Scientific American Article – Results of major peer reviewed literature says YES“In recent decades, the acidity of rain and snow has increased sharply over wide areas. The principle cause is the release of sulfur and nitrogen by the burning of fossil fuels.”•1981 Norwegian study integrating all lines of evidence, published in Nature“It has now been established beyond doubt that the precipitation in southern Scandanavia has become more acidic as a result of long-distance transport of air pollution.”Enter the Merchants of Doubt•1979 UN Action, US-Canada negotiations•1980 – Reagan•1981 – National Academy of Science: “clear evidence of serious hazard to human health and the biosphere.”•1983 – initial US-Canada agreement had changed to US emphasis of uncertainties: did not accept that cause-effect had been established•1984 – US Rejects joint pollution control program•WHY?•Chairman of National Clean Air Coalition: “This was during the Reagan years, when acid rain was almost as verboten as global warming under George W. Bush.”“Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”Bill Nierenberg•Nuclear Physicist who rose to prominence during the Cold War•Held various important positions, including director of Scripps Institute of Oceanography•Played a role in SDI advocacy with Jastrow and Seitz•Assembled and Chaired the government panel to oversee acid rainBrings Fred Singer on Board, at the request of the Reagan administrationAs mentioned by a student in class, the case that Bill Nierenberg was one a leading Merchants of Doubt appears to be the least strongest. Considerations for Nierenberg as motivated (or otherwise likely) to distort/misunderstand the science:•Co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, which (Chapter 2) distorted the science behind SDI and Nuclear Winter•Had no qualifications related to Acid Rain•Considered environmentalists to be Luddites•Changed content agreed to by the panelists (besides Singer), by order of the White House (Nierenberg denied this, but notes found after his death prove otherwise)Considerations that Nierenberg was interested in having a well-rounded scientific panel•Listed certain scientists with high credentials that the White House crossed off the list, and included very good scientists in the panel•Fred Singer was recommended from the White House, not from Nierenberg•Public quotes from Nierenberg suggest at least an attenuated and cautious view on acid rain (Slide 9)Fred Singer•Fred Singer An environmentalist in the 1970sSwitched views in the 1980s•Recommended language by SingerUncertainty of all causesControl technologies are costly and unreliableInstitutional problems remainSinger’s chapter in the panel was relegated to an appendix•Singer did not have a background in the field•Chosen by Reagan administration (through Nierenberg) as opposed to brought in on the basis of credentials•Consistently created problems in the panelSinger’s Argument from Ignorance•Singer emphasized cost-benefit by looking at control costs, but excluded things such as ecosystem services and damages, and continually emphasized uncertainty•Logic of Singer’s PositionIf you can’t prove the value of things (e.g., a lake, bacteria), then they have no value.•Even Nierenberg pushes back on this thinking: “Even in the absence of precise scientific knowledge, you just know in your heart that you can’t throw 25 million tons a year of sulfates into the Northeast and not expect some peculiar consequences.”“If you sit around and wait for the laboratories to give you the exact answer to what you should do,” he said, “the problem you started out to work on shall have changed. You have to take the attitude that you just can't wait.”This topic may bring up the issue of ecosystem services to mind.A very rough account of global ecosystem services discussed in 1997 put the value at $33 Trillion per year (link), or about $50 trillion in 2016 dollars (adjusting for inflation). More recent studies put it in the $100+ Trillion category (link). Others criticize the very notion of ecosystem services, claiming that the value of nature is infinite, and beyond the scope of economic calculation. However, the important point remains that Singer appears to take a very narrow view of ecosystem services, considers at most human health and direct productivity impacts when assessing benefits, rather than ecosystem services or the intrinsic value of nature.The Panel’s ResultsControversy in Publication•Language in
View Full Document