Dr. F – There are two critiques I’d offer.

1) I think you overestimate the extent to which “the public” pays attention to the developing science around climate change. This is a gross generalization as there is no one single public BUT – most folks generally get that there’s a problem, that we’re causing it, and that there are solutions. It took a long time for that to happen, and it will take a long time for the “no exit” conclusion to sink in as well, assuming that consensus emerges among the scientific community. Politically, the push for renewables, emissions constraints, etc is already rolling, and I think emerging arguments of irreversibility is unlikely to change it. And frankly, I don’t know if that many folks will care who don’t have an anti-climate agenda already. Neither “the public” nor their leaders have ever tended towards defeatism in most cases, thankfully.

2) Let’s assume that climate change is, in fact, irreversible. What are the commonly-held remedies to climate change? Efficiency, renewables, adaptation, and emissions restrictions? The first two are not effected significantly by a “no exit” conclusion because there are reasons to do them not driven by climate concerns. All emitters prefer more efficient operations for economic reasons; renewables are an eventual necessity in terms of economy, prices, and security. Adaptation obviously becomes more important in a “no exit” scenario. The only thing that might suffer is a policy to limit emissions – which a) is likely to come to fruition before the public loses the political will to defeatism as I argued above; b) is an inherently good idea anyway, for pollution and human health issues, and c) probably matters a little bit less anyway if it won’t stop climate change.

So the 900 pound gorilla is scary in the sense that irreversibility is scary, but not so much for its impact on policy.

Do you think this will compel industry to somewhat positively engage with Congress to reach some kind of compromise?