By John A. Warden III, CEO, Venturist, Inc.
The Essence of Strategy, at the highest level, consists of asking yourself (and answering!) four one-word questions before embarking on any enterprise that entails risk or reward.
- Where? Where do I want to be in the future (and am I sure I will be happy with that future)? In other words, the Future Picture I want to achieve.
- What? What am I going to put my resources against?
- How? How am I going to apply my resources?
- Exit? How am I going to end and under circumstances am I going the end the whole enterprise or any part of it?
The order in which you ask yourself those questions is paramount. If you don’t think the WHERE through very clearly, the answers to the remaining questions will have little value. The Strategic Thinker knows this and will use the Where, What, How and Exit framework to evaluate the strategy (or lack thereof) behind the myriad of tactical proposals that confront business, governments, politicians, societies and the military every day. In many enterprises, the Where is a relatively simple question to answer, however, in complex enterprises such as nations, international organizations and global communities, the Where can be extremely difficult to formulate, decide and agree on. Nevertheless, doing so for any enterprise is essential if the What, How and Exit elements of strategy are going to have any meaningful impact on the future.
To illustrate not only the difficulty in deciding the WHERE, but the imperative to do so before proposing tactical options (“solutions”), I want to tackle, at least superficially, the WHERE as it relates to Global Warming or Global Climate Change (the new term designed to accommodate global cooling?). Think of Global Warming as a hypothesized change direction of climate, and most if not all, the tactics being proposed today are attempts to either slow down the rate of change or as some have said, stop it all altogether. Thus, it is useful to think about the strategic WHERE of an ideal global climate which we all would find desirable. The rules for the WHERE or Future Pictures as I choose to label them are simple: A Future Picture is high resolution, clear, concise, compelling, measurable and desirable statement of the future state of any enterprise or entity.
So, without getting into the complexities and controversies associated with climate science and climate data, how could we describe the most desirable Global Climate at some point in the future? It is a very difficult, but essential strategic question.
A Future Picture for the Global Climate
You must describe the Future Picture in high-resolution, measurable terms. In other words, it wouldn’t help much to choose very low resolution statements like “a better world” or “less risk” or not “warmer.” For the highest possible level of measurable resolution, one really needs to go beyond average global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Both, in themselves, are close to being abstractions (at least within the ranges currently under discussion). So thinking more about the net effect that temperature and carbon dioxide level changes have on climate, will lead to a Future Picture with a higher, more measurable resolution.
There are many consequences commonly hypothesized for higher temperatures and greater carbon dioxide concentration. I’ve chosen five to illustrate the difficultly, yet importance of describing a clear, concise, compelling, measurable and desirable WHERE for Global Climate Change. Note that all of these are interlinked in some way, but to start at least, we will look at each individually.
- human mortality rates (health)
- agriculture production (enough to eat)
- useable land (places to live and produce)
- storms (threats to safety and production)
- biodiversity (number of species)
There are obviously others but these seem to be of primary concern. Let’s now take each one and convert it into Future Picture (WHERE) statements and then explore climate possibilities that would help us get there.
Of course, we could take the Panglossian approach from Voltaire’s Candide that we are in the best of all possible worlds so we should not change anything-or that we should stop change. The latter idea, however, might be self-contradictory in that the world has been in constant state of change so trying to freeze (pun intended) the change at the current state would suggest that we are not in the best of all possible worlds.
Is the Global Climate Better or Worse?
As a slight excursion before beginning the strategy analysis, let’s take a look at the state of the Global Climate as it might be today if humans had magically disappeared in 1890-a popular date from which to start showing a warming trend. Of course, our first observation might be “who cares?” for if there were no humans, there would be no knowledge as we humans know it. That aside, assuming standard claims for anthropogenic global warming, the earth might be: colder, warmer, or about the same. If it was much colder, the climate might be in a new version of the Little Ice Age which might have led to extinction of species unable to adapt to a colder world. The climate might even have already entered an overdue new period of glaciations. If the climate had stayed constant, conditions would be as they were in 1890.
the year was marked by a mild winter and hot, dry summer. In spite of a moderate cold wave in mid-January and a strong cold wave the end of February, the winter was unusually mild. Compared to official records, this would be the warmest winter on record, a pattern widespread over eastern half of the country. (NOAA Annual Weather Review: 1890′s)
If it had warmed by a degree or two, conditions might be very similar to today. In all three cases, there would be less carbon dioxide by whatever amount mankind would have added, so plant growth would be reduced with concomitant strains on many species. Very simply, there is no way to know whether “the earth” would be in better or worse shape than it really is today.
Now let’s put humans back into the equation.
Human Mortality Rates: Do we desire higher or lower rates? Mortality rates are reasonable indicators of overall health. If we wanted lower rates than now, should we make it warmer or colder to achieve that effect? Mortality rates are higher in the winter than in the summer in temperate zones so if we could make it warmer in the winter, we might reduce mortality. (Winter Mortality-Excess winter mortality falls) Major plague outbreaks also seem to be historically correlated with drops in European temperatures. There also seems to be a correlation between colder temperatures and social disturbances such as wars over the last 1000 years where their highest incidence from China to Europe was in cold periods when, among other things, crop yields were down and prices were up.[i] Now let’s put Human Mortality in a Future Picture form (always written in the present tense for the date chosen):
In 2050, human mortality rates are 25% lower than they were in 2000. Is a warmer or cooler global climate better to achieve this end state? From the data above, we might suppose a warmer climate would help with this factor.
Agriculture Production: Do we desire more food in the world or less? If we wanted to increase available world per capita calories while maintaining or lowering costs, we might want higher temperate zone temperatures to increase growing seasons and make more land available for crops, or make existing land more productive. For example, much of the Sahara Desert was lush and productive (Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated) during the middle Holocene when it was warmer than now.
Likewise, higher carbon dioxide levels spur plant growth (Elevated carbon dioxide changes soil microbe mix below plants). If we want to make it colder (perhaps to 1890 values), we might need to increase land in production and raise fertilizer usage to compensate for lower temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
In 2050, sufficient food is available for everyone in the world to meet recommended daily nutrition needs at real costs 25% lower than 2008 levels. Is a warmer or cooler global climate better to achieve this end state? We might need warmer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to achieve this-or significantly more land in production accompanied by higher fertilizer use.
Useable Land: The use of this label allows us to deal with sea level change in a meaningful way as it probably doesn’t make too much difference what the sea level is outside of its impact on useable land. Land is essentially unusable when it is underwater or permanently covered by ice. It may become almost impossible to use economically if it is desert or tundra. Do we want more or less land? If we want land that is currently underwater, we need to lower temperatures as we know that sea levels were hundreds of feet lower at the end of the last period of glaciations.
If we want to put land into production that is currently inaccessible or uneconomical because of permafrost or because it is desert, we probably need to make it warmer. Much of the Alps were ice-free during the period of the early Roman Empire[ii] and many towns and fields in the Alps were lost to advancing glaciers in the late Middle Ages. Agriculture in Greenland thrived in the Middle Ages but vanished as it became cooler. Warming temperatures might inundate coastal areas but would presumably open large tracts in the higher latitudes for economical human habitation so the net effect might be positive. In any event, barring draconian measures to reduce population growth or to reduce land per capita, more land will be needed or desired (at least by most individuals) in the future.
In 2050, there is 5% more useable land for human use and agricultural production than in 2008. Is a warmer or cooler global climate better to achieve this end state? This is difficult as we might need cooler temperatures to reclaim land from the sea and warmer temperatures to reclaim lands from deserts and permafrost.
Storms: Atlantic hurricanes may be a useful proxy for storms and the data is fairly good for the last 60 years. Since 1945, there have been an average of about 7 hurricanes in the Atlantic each year with years as high as 15 and as low as 2. There is also some evidence of a cycle. How many annual hurricanes are desirable? The first inclination might be to suggest none but hurricanes have beneficial aspects as well as destructive. For example, hurricanes may clean up reefs and wetlands, mix water levels, bring up nutrients, and help species which might be overcome if conditions remain stagnant in the absence of hurricanes. In other words, hurricanes, apart from there adverse impacts on humans, apparently play a critical role in global ecosystems. (Even Hurricanes Have Silver Linings) After deciding how many hurricanes we wanted, we would need to determine the climate conditions that promote or demote them. We know from historical records that there were more inundations in England and the low countries from Atlantic storms (not hurricanes but we might assume a degree of correlation) during the Little Ice Age. Some people believe that warmer sea temperatures produce more storms while others point out the fall in hurricane incidence in the last couple years despite a warmer ocean.
In 2050, there will be seven (7) +/-3 (the average for the last 60 years) hurricanes in the Atlantic (as a proxy for global storms). Is a warmer or cooler global climate better to achieve this end state? If storm incidence is associated with temperature, then the answer would be to try to maintain the temperature at its average for the last sixty years-but note that during that period, there were as many as 15 hurricanes in a season including many that were quite devastating.
Biodiversity: According to some sources, 99% of all the species once on earth are now extinct largely as a result of at least five major extinction events. Estimates of the total number of species today range from two (2) to 100 million which would mean that in the past, 200 million to 10 billion species existed. Do we have too many now? Would it be better for some if suddenly many disappeared? How many is the right number? Do we want more or less than we currently have? Are there species we don’t want? Why? If we want more we probably want a much warmer climate as total speciation and species survival seems to be correlated with periods in the earth’s history when it was far warmer such as what followed after the Cryogenian period and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was far higher (20-30x current values). If we want fewer species, we might want to see it much colder such as it was during the hypothesized snowball earth episode (or episodes). Additionally, if we wanted to eliminate disease causing or destructive species, we might need it to be cooler or warmer depending on what species we wanted to eliminate.
In 2050, species extinction will not exceed the average background rate over the last 1,000 years. Is a warmer or cooler global climate better to achieve this end state? Warmer is probably the right answer.
One’s point of view complicates
One could easily complicate this climate Future Picture exercise even more by looking at it from the viewpoint of people who live in different places around the world. People in San Diego would probably like to see the temperatures remain about the same, but would appreciate more precipitation. People in Seattle might prefer less precipitation with slightly warmer winter temperatures. People in Yellowknife, Canada, would probably like to see winter temperatures much warmer than today’s. People in Florida would like to see slightly cooler summer temperatures while those in Maine (who go to Florida in the winter) would appreciate warmer winters and summers. People in Libya are well acclimated to very hot temperatures but would be delighted with more precipitation even if it became a little hotter.
Thinking Strategically about the Global Climate is Difficult
To Think Strategically about Global Climate Change is a difficult and complex task. If the United States and the global community are going to expend billions of dollars of resources and risk the impacts of tactical solutions such as carbon offsets, carbon taxes, bio-fuels, etc., then there should be a clear, concise, compelling, measurable and desirable statement of the Future for the global climate. If the global community cannot make that statement with reasonable resolution, then we really don’t know what elements of the climate producing system should be altered, either by how much or in what direction. These are tactical things one needs to think about very carefully before spending a lot of money in ways that may create other and more serious problems.
The Strategic Thinker knows that if you don’t know where you want to be in the future–a Future Picture, the tactics you employ may take you anywhere but where you really want to be!
[i] Zhang, D.D., Brecke, P., Lee, H.F., He, Y.-Q. and Zhang, J. 2007. Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 19
[ii] The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central Swiss Alps. Anne Hormes,* Benjamin U. Muller and Christian Schluchter Quarta¨rgeologie, Geologisches Institut, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012, Bern,Switzerland
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I couldn’t agree with this post more. Bad, or at best very poor, science provides for no vision towards which to formulate action plans. And by bad I mean that although the basic research is obtained under a sound methodology for the most part, the selection of data is almost always colored by agendas — both pro and con.
I address this point in
The 12 Angry Men Blog.
A nice application for alot of things. thanx!
I looked at this “John A. Warden’s” piece of psuedo-logic (or just plain old fake logic) and his pseudo-”data” (for whatever that was worth there is not a single reference backing up his statements, and most of them are simply wrong) and the only sentence worth replying to was this one:
“If the United States and the global community are going to expend billions of dollars of resources and risk the impacts of tactical solutions such as carbon offsets, carbon taxes, bio-fuels, etc., then there should be a clear, concise, compelling, measurable and desirable statement of the Future for the global climate.”
There is a clear answer to this question, and it is obvious to anyone who has bothered to actually read some of the scientific literature on climate change, or even the more educated mass-media pieces.
The current problem has been caused by excessive pollution in the form of greenhouse gases, with the worst of the bunch being CO2.
In order to attempt to reduce humanity’s impact on the global climate (noone is seriously suggesting that we can stop climate change completely; but maybe we can stop catastrophic climate change before it’s too late), we are going to need to reduce CO2 emissions (as a starter, with a serious think about methane as well).
Therefore, the first major goal (and we probably won’t have to worry about anything else if we can’t achieve it, because we’ll be too busy trying to save our hides) is to stabilize CO2 emissions at a level the planet can deal with and hence stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Where exactly CO2 levels should be stabilized is still being debated, with many scientists believing that anything much higher than background levels for the last 1,000 years is seriously dangerous. Most calls are currently for something along the lines of this paper by Hansen et al, Columbia University (2008):
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Of course stabilizing CO2 is just the first target.
The final question is not so much:
“When will we know dangerous climate change has been stopped?”
but more like:
“What do we have to do to maintain the planet in a sustainable state for future generations?”
This is much the same as the question:
“How can we keep people and society safe?”
The answer is that this is not a one step process. Just as with law and order we need to maintain a safe society, with responsible planetary management, we will need to maintain a safe planet. And as per law and order, this is not something that will stop, it is an ongoing process that will require fine-tuning at every step.
Midority
You said “noone is seriously suggesting that we can stop climate change completely; but maybe we can stop catastrophic climate change before it’s too late.”
Since everyone that’s on the Global Warming Bandwagon uses the phase “Stop Global Warming” or “Stop/Halt Global Climate Change”, does your comment mean that they are not really serious about stopping it or that they just don’t communicate their positions very well. If as you suggest, that Global Warming is a life/death situation for the earth, then a bit more precise language might be useful for those of us who have to evaluate what you are suggesting. If you don’t really want to “Stop Global Climate Change” don’t say it.
Former US Vice President Al Gore is well on his way to making his first billion dollars riding on the climate change bandwagon. Who do you think you are to get in his way?
I like the idea of thinking strategically, as opposed to fixating on tactics. Thinking strategically works well when the persons you advise are rational beings of good will and integrity. But search as I might, I cannot find many such persons in the leadership of the public sector of any nation.
Al,
Re: “Former US Vice President Al Gore is well on his way to making his first billion dollars riding on the climate change bandwagon. Who do you think you are to get in his way?”
I wrote a short piece early last year about this very subject: Top 10 Careers in the 21st Century
Glad you enjoyed John’s piece.