|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 2, 2012 21:41:25 GMT
I'm not impressed by the article either. There are other effects of climate change that are harder to adapt to. Rainfall patterns are expected to decrease in several already arid areas. If sea level rise is more extreme than the current predicted scenarios (in other words, if we don't reach the 2 degrees centigrade target), more extreme measures have to be taken in low lying areas. In any case, I agree with James that it is prosperity and technology that will improve technology and improve energy efficiency, not punitive taxes and anti-business legislation. Technological progress can be quite stimulated by reforms, taxes and legislation, though. Market reforms like a feed-in tariff have actually been important in realising demand in Germany (especially PV) and Denmark, which are more likely to have improved technology than prosperity alone. And environmental taxes don't have to be punitive for all companies. If you're an early adapter as a business, such taxes can be quite beneficial. It's not about punishing or encouraging business in general, but what types of business. Besides, it seems little more than fair that polluters pay for the societal damage caused?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 2, 2012 21:47:20 GMT
In any case, I agree with James that it is prosperity and technology that will improve technology and improve energy efficiency, not punitive taxes and anti-business legislation. I'm not arguing what is the best method to combat climate change, but each country becoming more prosperous is not going to work, as far as I can see, for two reasons: 1. The earth can't cope with that much resource usage, unless we find some amazing new ways to do things efficiently and safely - fusion energy or matter transmutation or the like. 2. Parts of North Africa are struggling to survive now, and combatting the projected reduction in available water will be economically impossible for many countries (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, etc, at the very least). Conclusion: we in the west will have to accept a lowering of our presently profligate standard of living, (i) to reduce our carbon and environmental footprints, and (ii) to help fund those countries that can't make it on their own. That is the message that no politician wants to give to our selfish and indulgent societies, and that is a major reason why climate change is being combatted so poorly.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 2, 2012 21:48:27 GMT
Bear in mind that the Australian newspaper is a notoriously right wing propaganda machine. I'd like to see the full article before making any kind of assessment. Where's their evidence that the climate change commission has misused the data? Apparently the link between storms and climate change is 'complicated', yet the IPCC maintains there is a connection: ( Source). Nobody's going to disagree with that. In fact, I can't think of any nation which has introduced 'punitive taxes and anti-business legislation' to fight climate change. Even Australia's carbon tax (which I vigorously oppose) has been accompanied by legislation which provides huge financial compensation to industries and individuals alike.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 3, 2012 1:50:11 GMT
Hmm, a paywall seems to have appeared on the link. If you google the headline, you'll find the whole article. The source of the claim is a US scientist: "However, senior NOAA climate scientist Martin Hoerling said the higher sea-surface temperatures quoted by the Climate Commission were not significant in relation to Sandy. Dr Hoerling told US public radio in the aftermath of Sandy that ocean temperatures adjacent to the US eastern seaboard had been running several degrees higher than normal. But he said the unusually warm waters were in areas where the background temperature was relatively cool. "So adding a few degrees Fahrenheit at that cool water temperature doesn't matter too much for the intensity of a hurricane," Dr Hoerling said. Dr Hoerling is a research meteorologist, specialising in climate dynamics, in NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory located in Boulder, Colorado." As for anti-business legislation: while a tax might be compensated for, it imposes compliance costs on business and increases costs of government. Then there's legislation blocking efficient energy production, such as nuclear, while using taxpayer's money to fund expensive bird-chopping wind farms. Anything business pay in taxes or to accountants is money they cannot invest in technology. Finally, there's the assumption that AGW has caused storms. Dubious to say the least. Here is the chart for Australia: www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml Hurricane frequency for the US: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hurricane_frequency.png?w=640
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 3, 2012 4:40:05 GMT
Hmm, a paywall seems to have appeared on the link. If you google the headline, you'll find the whole article. The source of the claim is a US scientist: OK, so it's just one guy's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 3, 2012 8:00:09 GMT
Hi UnkleE,
No, we don't need radically better ways, we need incremental improvements at the same sort of rate we've enjoyed since the industrial revolution. Now it looks like the world's population will be stablelise at 9 billion, we can already be confident there will be enough food. At least as long as we don't waste farmland on biofuels.
On growth, we can expect western growth rates to drop as is already happening as the developing world catches up. That is manageable as long as governments accept that spending and debt will have to drop. This is to do with economics rather than climate, though.
And on predictions of doom, the record isn't great even when they are backed by a scientific consensus. You might enjoy this:http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/apocalypse-not.aspx
And everyone should read Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist. It is probably the most important book on current affairs since Pinker's Blank Slate. Like Pinker, this isn't original research, but it joins the dots in a way that has not been done before.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 4, 2012 0:12:56 GMT
James,
I think you've probably read far more than I have on the economics of combatting climate change, and I wouldn't contest what you say. My main points are:
1. If the best science develops understandings and makes predictions that are almost unanimously accepted, and there are reasonable indications of them beginning to be fulfilled, we are foolish to ignore them or talk them down.
2. If there is a conspiracy, it is more likely to be on the part of the wealthy (just like the smoking lobby) than by the greens. Yes, the greens are just as liable to have a conspiracy theory, but they are unlikely to be effective in promoting it to the vast majority of responsible scientists.
3. The "correct" way to respond is according to risk management, and here the consequences are so great that even if the likelihood was small, the risk would be great. And the likelihood seems quite large.
4. Action should be careful, thoughtful, not politically motivated or knee-jerk, and well worked out economically. And it needs to be adaptive management - adjusting all the time as more information is available.
5. Scientifically, there can be greater certainty about large scale (time and space) trends, and less certainty about more local effects (in time and space). Thus storms cannot be predicted well, and therefore cannot be blamed on climate change with any certainty. But an increase in the frequency and magnitude of storm and other catastrophic events is predicted, and this appears to be occurring.
6. I still think the flaw in the economic argument made in your reference is that it doesn't address the enormous variation in economic capability. Yes, the world may have enough food, but it is unequally distributed, so "incremental improvements" probably won't help North Africa. The west will surely have to give up some of its dominance and standard of living (in monetary terms, at any rate, that may not mean in wellbeing terms) to assist those on the other end of the economic bell curve.
I did enjoy the article, and I agree with much of what it says. And as he points out, the failure of some predictions doesn't mean they were totally false. Some people overstate conclusions, but others are more sober. Strong predictions get attention and more is done to address the issue. Some problems are still with us, neither resolved or catastrophic.
My own view is that the human race always manages to avoid the worst possible scenarios - but only just!
The fact that some people overstate climate change predictions shouldn't concern us too much - we should be taking notice of the sober scientific and economic predictions and ignoring the extremes.
I have little to say on the best action, only on the advisability to do a little more than the wealthy and privileged (of whom I am one, in world terms) find comfortable.
I think you and I agree on a lot of all that, but I guess not on all. Thanks for the link and the continuing thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 4, 2012 11:08:19 GMT
Thanks UnkleE.
I'd only note two things. First, I don't think there is a conspiracy and never have. There is nothing unusual about an entire profession being wrong. Back in the seventies, British universities were packed to the rafters with Marxists. And for half a century Freud provided the dominant model in psychology. Both great schemes were completely bonkers. We human beings are wrong a lot.
Second, the best way to deal with the enormous variation in economic capability is, of course, to foster free trade and free markets. We know this works and we know all the alternatives have failed. Expensive environmental legislation will keep the poor poorer. The economic effects will be indistinguishable from western protectionism. What the poor need is cheap energy and modern farming methods, including GM.
Finally, I've been reading a bit on geoengineering in the Guardian. It intrigues me. Now, as I don't think global warming will be an insurmountable problem, geoengineered solutions are really just a "nice to have" as far as I am concerned. But if I were a green, and I thought we were heading to catastrophic warming, I should be very enthusiastic, especially as we have obviously failed to cut carbon at the rates we were always told we had to. So a green should accept quite serious side effects from geoengineering. But oddly they are against even research in this area (as they are on GM crops and nuclear power). This leads me to believe they are motivated more by utopianism than humanitarianism. And provides a further reason why it is so hard to find objective advice in this area. I think scientists need to disassociate themselves quite radically from environmentalist groups if they want to be treated as objective authorities on climate change and related issues.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 4, 2012 18:14:55 GMT
Interesting analysis of the "thinking" of the religious right in the US on climate change: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/america-theologians-climate-science-denialAmerica's theologians of climate science denialThe religious right in the US backs GOP climate change denial because science also supports evolution against creationismNow that Sandy has exacted a steep toll in lives and property, the question is unavoidable: why do so many people in America refuse to take climate science seriously?What exactly is the theology of climate science denial? The Cornwall Alliance – a coalition whose list of signatories could double as a directory of major players in the religious right – has a produced a declaration asserting, as a matter of theology, that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."It also tells us – on the firm foundation of Holy Scriptures – that policies intended to slow the pace of climate change represent a "dangerous expansion of government control over private life". It also alerts us that the environmental movement is "un-Biblical" – indeed, a new and false religion. If the Cornwall Declaration seems like a tough read, you can get what you need from the organization's DVD series: "Resisting the Green Dragon: A Biblical Response to one of the Greatest Deceptions of our Day."But, perhaps, more to the point is that this kind of religion works for Chuck because it allows him to disguise the extraordinary selfishness of his position in a cloak of sanctimony. Translated into the kind of language that you can take to the shopping mall, it says that God wants you to squeeze whatever you can out of the earth – and to hell with the grandkids.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 4, 2012 20:15:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 4, 2012 21:59:08 GMT
James, we are identifying differences and agreements, which is good. Just a couple of comments. There is nothing unusual about an entire profession being wrong. Back in the seventies, British universities were packed to the rafters with Marxists. And for half a century Freud provided the dominant model in psychology. Both great schemes were completely bonkers. We human beings are wrong a lot. But neither of these ideas were established by verifiable science, whereas climate change is (though not every detail of course). It is far less likely for verifiable science to be wrong. That may well be true for countries with good potential, but: (1) The very poor (think North Africa, Nepal) are not going to make it this way - they have no means to lift themselves up. (2) It won't be nearly fast enough for others (think Bangladesh, Maldives, Tuvulu). (3) Western corporations have often been one of the causes of the problems of poorer counties, and I don't see them suddenly becoming benign. (4) Wise legislation can be a significant incentive. Ignorantianescia has indicated that with some Government incentives, legislation and taxes, Germany has developed renewable energy to such a level that it will compete with carbon-heavy energy within a couple of decades or less. I think geothermal energy is worth a look, and I have never supported the extreme greens - I think you are right that they sometimes are more utopian than humanitarian. Utopian is good, but we also need to be practical and realistic. This is a very surprising comment to me. Are you saying that scientific organisations and individual scientists are in large measure promoting a radical and impractical green agenda? I have never seen that. In Australia, I tend to find the scientists to be a little too cautious. I wonder whether we mean the same thing by "extreme"?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 5, 2012 14:50:12 GMT
Picking the proper site is important, that can reduce kills. At a windfarm in Zeebrugge, Belgium, estimated bird deaths roughly ranged from 19 to 21 per year per wind turbine on average for a two-year period, but the calculations for four turbines that were close to a breeding site ranged from about 27 to 34 dead birds per year per wind turbine, while the other turbines had a much lower calculated average ranging from 4 to 7 per wind turbine per year. The authors are careful to stress taht these results can't be generalised, though. Of course, 4 to 7 dead birds per turbine per year can still be a troubling number if the affected species are particularly rare, but staying away from important breeding sites and migration routes should help. The Nature article itself claims the industry has improved since some of the worst examples: Besides, what evidence do opponents have that the stereotype of wind turbines as bird choppers or bird blenders would be generally accurate?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 5, 2012 15:07:17 GMT
I think geothermal energy is worth a look, and I have never supported the extreme greens - I think you are right that they sometimes are more utopian than humanitarian. Utopian is good, but we also need to be practical and realistic. Geoengineering does not refer to using geothermal energy, but to a variety of methods, like carbon sequestration.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 5, 2012 15:29:54 GMT
They'll kill any bird dumb enough to fly into them, just like moving cars and the windows on your house. When wind farms are killing birds at an unsustainable rate, please do let me know.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 6, 2012 2:02:42 GMT
Geoengineering does not refer to using geothermal energy, but to a variety of methods, like carbon sequestration. Thanks. I did wonder ....
|
|