Skeptical Science Search Results (2024)

	Climate's changed before
	It's the sun
	It's not bad
	There is no consensus
	It's cooling
	Models are unreliable
	Temp record is unreliable
	Animals and plants can adapt
	It hasn't warmed since 1998
	Antarctica is gaining ice
	View All Arguments...

Latest Posts

• Mastering FLICC - A Cranky Uncle themed quiz
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #21 2021
• Climate Adam: Can we really suck up Carbon Dioxide?
• At a glance - How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
• Climate change is affecting mental health literally everywhere
• Fact Brief - Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #20 2024
• Drought fuels wildfire concerns as Canada braces for another intense summer
• At a glance - What ended the Little ice Age?
• Climate change is making hurricanes more destructive
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #19 2024
• Climate Adam: How to visualise Climate Change (ft. Katharine Hayhoe)
• At a glance - Tree ring proxies and the divergence problem
• Why India is key to heading off climate catastrophe
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2024
• At a glance - Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
• Pinning down climate change's role in extreme weather
• Fact Brief - Is Antarctica gaining land ice?
• Simon Clark: The climate lies you'll hear this year
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17 2024
• Water is at the heart of farmers’ struggle to survive in Benin
• At a glance - The difference between weather and climate
• India makes a big bet on electric buses
• EGU2024 - An intense week of joining sessions virtually

Archives

Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for bus environmental benefits

Comments matching the search bus environmental benefits:

• The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

  Nick Palmer at 02:41 AM on 22 June, 2021

  Yet again there are too many, in my view flawed, responses to give answers to all. I still think none of you are fully getting what I am saying. Nigel J is closest to 'getting it', MAR is (waaay) furthest away (his comment #72 in particular is a mirror inage of the sort of toxic denialist misrepresentation of someone's position that we see too often when fighting said denialists).

  I'll try and restate things later, if I get time, and will try to clarify the bits where peoples' defences are causing then to bounce off. In the meantime, remember that all this sponsoring of think tanks, who used denialist rhetoric as part of their lobbying for corporate clients, took place quite a long time ago when carbon capture and sequestration seemed a lot more promising than it has proved to be (until recently) a couple of decades later. Back then it was an entirely reasonable position for a corporation to take to assume technological progress would be delivering the CCS magic machines in time to do the job of nullifying emissions to atmosphere. The coal industry, for obvious reasons, were most hoping for this get-out-of-jail-free card. I think it was BP or Shell Oil that first had their accountants put a notional 'carbon price' into their financial reports, thus hedging their bets. Should CCS prove economic, any carbon sequestered would not be taxed; should it not, then their financial planning would already be taking a carbon price into account.

  As it happens, just about the only thing preventing the uptake of existing CCS tech is money - the lack of a suitable global carbon price. The actual technology/chemistry, which is pretty simple, works just fine, and has done for some considerable time, it's only the economics of running it which have been dodgy. However, that's likely to change rapidly as Carbon Engineering's system of direct air capture https://carbonengineering.com/ is expected to come in at around $100 a tonne, which is waay better than other systems. This is tech is also about direct capture of CO2 from the ambient atmosphere. Obviously, point of generation 'smoke stack' capture would be even easier. Even doubling that figure means that just a moderate carbon price would be sufficient to justify sequestering carbon just on financial grounds.

  Excerpt from their latest news:

  "Project Dreamcatcher is a key step towards Storegga and CE’s ambitions to build a large-scale DAC plant in the UK within the next five years. The proposed large-scale DAC facility will capture between 500,000 and one million tonnes of atmospheric CO2 each year and then safely and permanently store it deep below the seabed in an offshore geological storage site. One of the locations being considered by the partnership for this facility is in North East Scotland, with access to the Acorn CCS and Hydrogen Project (Acorn).

  
  

  Acorn is one of the most mature UK CCS and hydrogen projects and is positioned to be the most cost-effective and scalable CCS project in the UK. The Acorn project is currently in the detailed engineering and design phase of development and is planned to be operational by the mid 2020’s. DAC, CCS and hydrogen technologies are complementary solutions that provide key tools for the UK to meet its net zero targets."

  However, this doesn't mean that I think that Big Fossil Fuel's original hope that CCS would enable them to indefinitely continue to run their industry at the scale it was will come to pass. I think the business risk they took twenty years ago will not pan out for them. I'm fairly sure that the fossil fuel industry will shrink in future as the price of new renewables continues to fall to below the price of new fossil fuel and the much improved 'failsafe' and modular designs of new generations of nucelar power stations are authorised. It may be that there will always be some remaining niche applications for them to fulfil in future which still need fossil fuels and so CCS can take care of that, whilst sucking out existing excess atmospheric CO2.

  I think Scott's (Red Baron) system of carbon capture by sequestration of carbon into managed agricultural field systems has far more (read 'huge'...) potential than most realise. The arguments against it sound very close to the type of rhetoric that extreme environmentalists and left'ish anti-Big Industry types use to argue (fallaciously, in my opinion) against technological CCS inasmuch as I think it clear that they're antithetical to any solutions which promise to let our current technological civilisation continue as it is and so they jump through mental hoops to undermine them leaving, they hope, their favoured solutions as the only option.

  Whilst I'm throwing cats amongst the pigeons, how about this? Assuming widespread adoption of CCS techniques enables us to start lowering atmospheric levels in future, I don't think we should try to get back to pre-industrial levels of 280ppm. I think 350 ppm would be a great place to stop as it keeps us just about in the 'goldilocks zone' where the long term benefits of moderate global warming are, on balance, neutral or positive and would have the very long term benefit of heading off the next glaciation...

• Greens: Divided on ‘clean’ energy? Or closer than they appear?

  One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 23 May, 2021

  Nick Palmer @3,

  
  

  I agree that Political Games should not decide what social or economic options Win. And the issue is far more extensive than the Climate Change aspects that sites like SkS focus on addressing.

  
  

  This comment goes beyond the scope of SkS and Climate Science. But it is important for more people to be aware that there is more going on that also needs to be addressed.

  
  

  Leadership providing a “... free'ish but lightly as possible regulated markets with social and environmental safety nets ...” would have been great if it had continued to be globally pursued and improved since the 1970s when the harmful reality of economic pursuit of More was becoming more clearly understood. The lack of helpful effective global leadership, especially the tragic Reagan-Thatcher “less Government assistance and less restriction so there is more opportunity for the Rich to get Richer because that helps everyone”, has produced the current developed reality where continuing to compromise what is understood to be required to limit harm done, the centrist compromised view, will significantly harm the future of humanity.

  
  

  What is needed, and has always been needed, is for All Leadership (social, political and business), and an increasing portion of the population, to uncompromisingly pursue increased awareness and improved understanding of what is really going on and the diversity of ways (conservative and liberal, right and left, socialist and capitalist) to limit harm done, ideally excluding all harmful activity from competitions for popularity and profit. And it would be nice if unsustainable activity like burning up non-renewable resources, was also kept from competing for popularity and profit even if the harm done is not yet understood in detail (that would have meant restrictions on fossil fuel use even before climate science developed better understanding), because everything humans do needs to be Sustainable if perceptions of improvement of civilization are to be sustainable.

  
  

  Recommended reading:

  
  
  
  
  • Human Development Report 2020 which is the latest annual report regarding Human Sustainable Development.
  
  
  • Jeffrey D. Sach's "The Age of Sustainable Development" or take the MOOC of the same name. The book (and MOOC) present the evidence-based understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals and are updated by the HDR 2020.
  
  
  • Review the Sustainable Development Goals to see that the Green New Deal is aligned with what all Leadership should be pursuing (in spite of the developed popularity and profitability of not limiting the harm done by human competition).
  
  
  • Also, look at the 1972 Stockholm Conference that was a clear start to global leadership collectively raising awareness of the harm done by insufficiently restricted competition for superiority.
  
  
  • Finally, check out “The Planetary Boundaries” evaluation by the Stockholm University - Stockholm Resilience Centre that is a key part of all of the above.
  
  
  
  

  The awareness and understanding from that reading and learning makes it undeniable that a lot of what humans have developed is harmful and unsustainable. In particular, systemic pressure for "more to exploit to obtain more benefit – always needing More" is expanding impacts beyond the real limits for humanity on this planet. And expanding beyond this planet’s limits, expanding to the Moon or Mars or mining asteroids, before figuring out how to sustainably live on this planet is not a sustainable solution.

  
  

  Based on the planetary boundaries evaluation the expansion pressures have already clearly exceeded the planetary boundaries for Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Genetic Diversity. And pressures for maintaining undeserved unsustainable perceptions of status (expectations based on the developed high consumption, wasteful, harmful impact ways of living) will undeniably result in impacts clearly exceeding the Climate Change boundary of human civilization sustainability. A Moderate centrist compromising response is no longer an option, but will be pushed for by those who have only cared to benefit as much as possible by delaying the reduction of harm done as much as they can get away with for as long as possible – Now they claim to like the Moderates but they still hope to win more extreme delays – more harm done.

  
  

  Reducing harm done includes reducing the diversity of injustice and inequity that develops when people compete for popularity and profit in games where results are based on impressions. People freer to believe what they want and do as they please produce more harmful results because getting away with behaving and excusing being more harmful is a competitive advantage.

  
  

  Any perceived advancement or improvement that is the result of activity that is unsustainable is understandably unsustainable and a little unfair to have a limited portion of humanity benefit (only the least fortunate should benefit that way, but even that needs to be understood to be unsustainable), and is also understandably undeserved if the activity is harmful (harmful activity is undeniably unsustainable). That applies equally to perceptions of status for those who are more fortunate and perceptions that the less fortunate have been helped develop an improved life.

  
  

  The failure of the systems that produced the problems to effectively correct things, and the ways the systems develop resistance to correction, requires corrective systemic change, including Government intervention and action, to limit the harm done. Thirty years ago the climate change impact corrections would have been modest and the total harm done would have been serious and unfair but not tragic. Today the harm done and required corrections are tragic and dramatic. Without significant government intervention to limit the harm done, the required corrective actions in 10 more years is almost certain to be catastrophic corrections to the incorrectly over-developed human activity and perceptions of advancement. And the accumulated harm done by then is very likely to be also be catastrophic. And the current system will make the less fortunate suffer the most. And that is not Hyperbole.

  
  

  But I agree that Government action should be limited to blocking the pursuit of unsustainable harmful activity, not choosing winners, just identifying harmful pursuers of benefit, blocking their harmful tactics, and penalizing them to make amends for harm done. Ultimately, to be sustainable, energy systems will have to be 100% renewable. And reducing energy consumption is undeniably a significant part of the solution. Reducing energy demand will reduce the amount of harm done by energy generation while the harmful unsustainable energy generation is sustainably replaced. That means that any new new energy system that gets built, like nuclear or “fossil fuel with CCS”, would be shut down as early as possible by rapidly developing the sustainable renewable systems built to replace them even if the renewable options are more expensive. And reduced per-person energy demand, particularly by the wealthiest, will more rapidly end the need for harmful unsustainable energy generation. Of course, the Be Harmless limit also applies to renewable energy systems – no Green Washing.

  
  

  Lack of interest in investigating to discover and stop harmful unsustainable activity is a serious problem. Grandfathering (systemic gender bias is also a problem) harmful activity and protecting any wealth that was obtained from harmful activity is also a problem. Those aspects of the developed systems need to be diligently ended and kept from re-emerging in the competition for superiority which will always be part of human interaction. It would be great for that competition to be striving to be superior by being Less Harmful and More Helpful to Others and the Environment everyone shares.

  
  

  A lot of changes of the Global Status Quo are required to develop a robust diversity of humanity in a diversity of sustainable socioeconomic political systems that are constantly adapting to be improved sustainable parts of the robust diverse environmental reality that humanity requires for sustainable survival on this one amazing planet. That required result will not be developed without thoughtful, unselfish, Government Interventions in the “games of competition for superiority”.

  
  

  Wealth should be deserved by not being Harmful, and by being Helpful to Others without expecting a return benefit. That is part of the understanding behind the Sustainable Development Goals. Claims that some Help is delivered by the Harmful acquisition of wealth need to be challenged. Harm done is not justified by benefits obtained. A harmful version of Utilitarian beliefs excuses harmful actions because “someone benefits”. It is one of the most harmful beliefs ever developed. It leads to misunderstandings like the claims that the harmful unsustainable economic development that has occurred has reduced poverty. Any perceptions developed by unsustainable harmful activity are not sustainable.

  
  

  People perceived as "shooting themselves in the foot" may be far more helpful and less harmful than people who do not see that the socioeconomic political system they have developed a liking for produces harmful unsustainable "impacts on the environment of the only planet that humanity is sure to be able to survive and thrive on” and ruins societies with injustice and inequity.

  
  

  Social and environmental harm that is the result of human competition makes developed perceptions unsustainable. Popularity and profitability can be lousy measures of Merit and Worth when harmful unsustainable beliefs and actions are allowed to survive and thrive.

• What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?

  Alan Russell at 07:49 AM on 15 October, 2020

  As Anne Mottet (Livestock Development Officer at the FAO) has said: "people are continually exposed to incorrect information about livestock and the environment that is repeated without being challenged", however it is disappointing to see Skeptical Science contributing to this.

  
  

  To a degree, this is fairly understandable as if you're looking at reports on the environmental impact of foods, it can be hard to find good, objective information, as even reports from professional scientists sometimes seem to verge closer to advocacy than science, but here are some things to look out for:
  - Does it use 100 year carbon dioxide equivalent emissions factors to account for short-lived atmospheric emissions? If so, this is a red flag and you should probably stop paying attention to the author(s) other than being wary of further misinformation from them, see LINK1, and LINK2. Methane has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 10 years, so if cattle herd sizes remain the same over the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere they will maintain the same amount of additional methane in the atmosphere year on year. In simplistic terms, their contribution to warming is equivalent to a closed power station. Note that the amount of cattle in Europe and North America is actually lower than it was in the 1960's whilst India has fewer cattle than it did in the 1980s, (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA/visualize), so their associated methane emissions have actually dropped. This is a classic bit of information that is often unknown/ignored by those pushing the line "the importance of keeping animal products – particularly red meat, such as beef, and dairy – to a minimum". Even professional scientists like Mike Berners-Lee do this.
  - Does it count rainfall as a water consumption i.e. does it distinguish between green water and blue water? For animals grazing on grass, the blue water consumption is pretty much zero: LINK3.
  - Are the soil benefits of grazing accounted for? "Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338) along with the provision of organic fertiliser, which reduces dependence on and impacts of fertiliser production and use.
  - Does it compare indirect emissions with direct emissions in a flawed comparison? This error was committed in the 'Livestock's Long Shadow' report and despite a lot of effort to correct it, the damage it caused still persists (LINK4).
  - Do reports which link beef to land clearing accurately represent the process that they are reporting on? Often they misrepresent a more complex process in which livestock farming plays a part by associating all of the impacts with livestock (LINK5).
  - Do the reports accurately represent what livestock eat, the vast majority of which is stuff that we can't eat? See LINK6.

  
  

  From what I have seen, if you're trying to eat to maximise the sustainability of society, you'd probably be best to try and focus on nutrient density, meaning that most people would probably eat more eggs, fibrous veg, fish, and meat, and less flours, cereals, added fats and oils (mostly the unsaturated ones), sugars, and grains, which are much lower in nutrient density and satiety than meat, and are significant contributors to the obesity and diabetes problems we face, and are also responsible for most of the agricultural monocultures and (fossil fuel dependent) fertiliser and pesticide use. Maximising nutrient density and satiety means that you need to eat less (LINK7, Marty Kendall also has a lot of good information on his Optimising Nutrition site), so reducing your impact and you'd probably waste less food (http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/). The other really good thing you could do is support regenerative systems of food production - focussing on best practice and the appropriateness of where crops are grown can make a huge difference. From the 2017 FAO study that I've linked above, it was calculated that a 21% increase in world meat production could require 95m hectares more land (an increase of 4%). This is an increase in land demand however note that it is based on the following conservative assumptions:
  - up to 15% improvement in feed conversion ratio, which compares to, for example, the halving of feed conversion ratios over the last thirty years for poultry and pigs in Brazil, Thailand, and Europe;
  - constant yields on grasslands, i.e. no improvements from regenerative agriculture (https://www.rootsofnature.co.uk/regenerative-agriculture-subsidy/).

  
  

  If you're trying to maximise your chances of food security, then reducing livestock farming, which contributes to food security by producing some of the most nutrient dense food we can eat from stuff we can't eat, on land where nothing else could be produced seems a bad idea.

  
  

  If you're trying to find the best thing to do to maximise the sustainability of society, and you're in the richest 10% in the world, you should probably try to cut back on burning stuff. There are some excellent resources on Gapminder on this. If you haven't seen it already, this is a good place to start: LINK8. Most of the environmental communications against meat seem to me to be misdirection, either consciously or subconsciously. This seems to be for one of two reasons. It seems to be used as a means to look as if effective action is taking place whilst avoiding discussion and implementation of more effective actions e.g. what's an easier sell - you don't need to change your consumptive lifestyle and can have food that looks, tastes, and feels pretty similar to what you eat now but is "plant-based" (whatever the marketers choose that to mean) and therefore doesn't have the impacts of animal products, which may be fine if you don't look too closely at the nutrient density or impacts of whatever is in what you are eating, and the benefits of animal products, or you have to consume less (don't buy/build that thing, don't go that trip, switch that off)? It can also be the case that those propagating the information are so blinded by their anti-animal agriculture ideology, and so disconnected from nature, that they are unable to objectively reason. This is bad enough in itself, but when this is present amongst scientists, it borders on an abuse of their position - people are depending on them for rigorous, objective analysis, and if they are unable to do this, then they are unable to do their job pretending that they are causes more harm than good.

  
  

  From all that I have seen and read over the last few years, a nutrient dense omnivorous diet produced using regenerative agriculture is the most sustainable for us as a species. I am just an enthusiastic amateur however, so if you have better information, I'd be interested in seeing it, though all of the publications I have seen that promoted reductions in animal product consumption have been based on the kinds of misinformation I've highlighted above.

  
  

  Apologies for the long post but I've seen this kind of misinformation a lot and I think it's important that information like this is represented as accurately as possible as I think that people generally want to aid the sustainability of society, but are too busy to spend much time researching, so misinformation is believed if it is repeated often enough or people trust the source. Decisions based on bad information are dangerous as the consequences are often worse than the problem you tried to solve.

• Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

  RedBaron at 04:47 AM on 6 December, 2019

  Since I have been accused of sloganeering and had my IPCC comment snipped...

  Here is the IPCC report:IPCC Report: Climate Change and Land

  The report states with high confidence that balanced diets featuring plant-based and sustainably produced animal-sourced food present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.

  For context the entire paragraph

  B6.2. Diversification in the food system (e.g., implementation of integrated production
  systems, broad-based genetic resources, and diets) can reduce risks from climate change (medium
  confidence). Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains,
  legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient,
  sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and
  mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health (high confidence). By
  2050, dietary changes could free several Mkm2
  (medium confidence) of land and provide a
  technical mitigation potential of 0.7 to 8.0 GtCO2e yr-1, relative to business as usual projections
  (high confidence). Transitions towards low-GHG emission diets may be influenced by local
  production practices, technical and financial barriers and associated livelihoods and cultural habits
  (high confidence).

  This is integrated production models, not vegan diets and not as you said "reduced meat". It specifically says integrated which to a farmer has a very specific meaning. That means rather than monocropping and using those commodity feedgrains to supply the CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation more commonly called factory farm) system , instead the animals are returned to the farm and the land and there they can fulfill their ecosystem functions for the farmer, usually in some sort of rotational system. Also please note these changes in production and consumption "could free several Mkm2
  (medium confidence) of land" This is because integrated farming systems yield much MOREfood per acre, compared to the factory farming system. I will repeat, they yield more in terms of yields per acre, not less. Factory farms are only more productive in terms of yields per man hour. They do not yield more food per acre.

  Every one of those points Savory has repeatedly said over and over. And yet people with no knowledge of agriculture read the exact same paragraph and conclude meat consumption must drop.

  The key here is sustainably produced balanced diets. Yes in some cases that might mean less meat, in many cases around the world it actually means we need more meat to make properly balanced sustainable diets. Overall globally there are many more people who would benefit from more meat in their diet, not less. And if we change to integrated sustainably produced plant and animal foods, it will actually reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, allowing large areas to be restored to the biomes present before human impact.

  Exactly yet again what Savory both advocates and has proven in his award winning proof of concept.

  “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

  PS There is an elephant in the room though. Right now we have all surplus commodity grains producing biofuels. Reducing land in food production by integration of sustainably produced plant and animal foods will not actually help at all if we continue to send all commodity surpluses for biofuel and other industrial uses. So even if you were right that reduce meat consumption was needed, it would notnecessarily have the impact you envision. Land would still be deforested to fill this nearly unlimited demand. Even desertified land restored by holistic management would likely soon after be put to the plow to fill the demand for biofuels and desertify all over again.

  In my opinion this sort of industrial use must be either eliminated or highly discouraged or else none of the other issues will improve at all. It will become so much "shifting deck chairs on a sinking titanic". That last part is my opinion based on the current market dynamic.

• Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist

  One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 5 April, 2019

  nigelj@12,

  One of Gardiner's expressed concerns is that moral corruption can be subtle. An example would be diverting attention from the awareness and understanding of the main moral matter, like talking about particulate reduction benefits.

  The governing moral issue is the need to rapidly curtail the use of fossil fuels. It is OK to make that point and add mention of the side-benefits like:

  • reduced particulate
  • reduced absolutely certain to occur environmental damage (the damage allowed to be done by the extraction, processing and use)
  • reduced risk of harm due to 'accidents' (most of which are no accidents, and their likelihood was increased by the permission of cost-saving or time-saving approaches)
  • reduced increased costs as the unsustainable harmful activity gets harder to do ethically (more sustainable economic activity, less future challenges for the less fortunate).

  But it is morally corrupt to focus on the side-benefits without ensuring the main point about the need to rapidly curtail fossil fuel use is made Front and Center.

  A diversion to the side-benefits can support claims about the acceptability of things like 'Clean Coal' as excuses to not more rapidly reduce the burning of coal.

  In Alberta, where one of the least ethical fossil fuels is produced for sale (very high CO2 impact per unit of end usable energy), the current sales pitch is that the activity is being done very ethically because it is done to very high 'environmental standards'.

  Even the potential to cost-effectively scrub CO2 from the air (As presented in BBC article here) could be abused for morally corrupt purposes to delay the curtailing of fossil fuel use. In addition to aggressive reduction of fossil fuel burning, the scrubbing of CO2 from the air could help limit the harm done to future generations.

  A focus on the benefits of the 'magic bullet' of scrubbing CO2 from the air could be abused to excuse a diminished effort to reduce the use of fossil fuel. That would be a morally corrupt diversion of attention and action. Only as an addition to the required action is the 'magic bullet' helpful. It needs to be sold as the way the wealthiest of the current generations can be even more helpful to future generations.

  In addition to leading by example towards the lowest impact ways of living, the wealthiest would pay to have the CO2 scrubbing done with no personal financial return benefit, done at their expense not-for-profit. All they get would be the recognition of moral character benefits. Anyone not interested in having status measured that way can be poorer and less influential, become the less fortunate and less powerful would be 'less expected' to be 'moral leaders by example'.

• New research, February 4-10, 2019

  RedBaron at 14:53 PM on 3 March, 2019

  @35nowhearthis,

  Several answered the question, you just did not like the answer. But the question is a rhetorical trick, if any reputable scientist answered directly, it would discredit themselves and thus their answer.

  People here on this website are very well aware of these sorts of tricks and the logic fallacies that are used to create them. You won't be capable of tricking any of the regular members here. The only ones you'll be able to trick are denialists.

  Now you wanted originally absolute confirmation. You got an extra two Earth's to experiment with? One as a control and one to test mitigation strategies on? Oops. No you don't.

  But you also made unsupported claims about how horrible and costly the results of new research in mitigation would be to enact. Some may have proposed certain things that could potentially be costly, but you are ignoring the metaphorical "low fruit". That is mitigation strategies 100% benefial to everyone. The so called win/win strategy.

  'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison

  That means we do have certain kinds of confirmation. Not the 100% absolute confirmation you requested, as that's just rhetorical nonsense. But there is quite a lot confirmed in trials and in the field already. For example, I posted to you results from case study trial that shows an average 10 year sequestration rate of soil carbon via the LCP of 5-10 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. I also showed 6 other studies from around the world where there are people confirmed to have reached sequestration rates in that range. (as well as studies showing when why and how other farmers failed to reach that rate)

  So since we have absolute confirmation at least some farmers from around the world can reach this high rate of sequestration, and we have at least some knowledge of when farmers have failed to reach such a high rate of sequestration, we can project what when and how changes in agriculture could be made to significantly mitigate AGW. It's a projection though. You couldn't be absolutely 100% sure until you actually did it.

  “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

  The advantage with this conservative approach though is there would be minimal risk. There are no known nor projected negative side effects to any of these proposed changes. Quite the contrary, they are universally beneficial to economies (both local and macro), environment, public health, etc... There is no down side. So we should enact this part of the mitigation strategy immediately. (And sure enough we are, but slowly. Maybe too slowly.)

  "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones

  That leaves the other side of the carbon cycle. There are also certain parts of the emissions side with "low hanging fruit" that absolutely is beneficial to everyone. Higher efficiencies and less waste benefit everyone. Passive solar and passive geothermal in designs combined with better insulation and remodels of older buildings all helps significantly with no known down sides at all. These also are being done already and building codes around the world reflect this. Some countries are further behind than others of course, but this is absolutely beneficial to everyone and is already happening now!

  That leaves the problems though, excessive use of fossil fuels for inefficient and wasteful uses. This is what really needs focused on in my opinion. We need to speed up the natural replacement of fossil fuels with renewables right now. There should not ever be a new coal plant being built any more, and they should slowly be weaned out as the old plants get decomissioned.

  That of course might hurt jobs in the antiquated and obsolete coal business, but in the new and modern solar wind and hydroelectric businesses that replace it can be found far more benefits to offset the losses. So while not absolute in benefits, the total net is a certain benefit.

  It's only when you try to take all fossil fuels to zero and too fast that you run into projected high cost negative side effects, shortages, and economic collapse. So don't do that! There are plenty of these 100% beneficial things we can do as "low fruit" that we know work without any new technologies needed.

  And even better, most likely if we take on all of the "low fruit" there is a pretty good chance we won't need to make any "draconian" cuts. (to use your weighted term) That's not 100% absolute. WE need to try it and see. But it's pretty likely and MUCH better than the status quo. And since we must try to salvage as much of the environment as we can to avoid it causing our own collapse, this is something we must try, unequivocally.

  "Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services." -John D. Liu

• Book Review: Saudi America

  One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 18 January, 2019

  nigelj @5,

  Your point about potential government subsidies is as good one. And it relates to the Gambling Addict version of what motivates the Fracking.

  Business interests can try to "Protect their interests and reduce their perceptions of risk of loss" by becoming popular and profitable enough to make elected representatives reluctant to correct the unsustainable and harmful activities. Those elected officials may even be motivated to incorrectly compensate the Biggest Gamblers for their loses. And they can be motivated to incorrectly promote the harmful unsustainable activity, including allowing more freedom for environmental impacts or increased risk of 'accidental' harm (less of an accident when less is done to prevent an accident, because doing less about an accident is cheaper - making the investment more appealing to the Gambling Addicts).

  Potentially popular and profitable, but understandably unsustainable and harmful, activity can even encourage people who are trying to win or maintain power to deliberately mislead the regional or national population in support of regional or national actions that are undeniably harmful to the future of humanity (actions that are contrary to achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals). And people who have incorrectly developed small self-interested worldviews can be expected to like to be misled that way.

  The responses to climate science dramatically expose how damaging the developed socioeconomic-political systems are. The systems encourage people to become smaller-minded self-interested gambling addicts.

  A Gambling Addict loses the ability to think about others or the future. They get stuck in a smaller world-view because of their desperation to Win Big playing in a game where they could Lose it all and can do massive damage to others as they are losing it. And they can be expected to angrily fight against being corrected. They have no interest in minimizing the harm they do to others, particularly to the future of humanity.

  The fracking addicts, and other fossil fuel addicts, will fight for the Right to do environmental harm. They will claim that the regional monetary benefits justify doing environmental harm. And they expect that once they get away with doing something they will not get corrected. Even in environmentally leading California, older oil operations continue operating very incorrectly, not required to meet new requirements imposed on new operations, as long as very few influential people are concerned about how the employment or government revenue from such operations is obtained.

  And it is real easy to get regional popular support for incorrect unsustainable harmful activity like fracking when most of the harm is done to Others (the entire global population, especially those irrelevant future generations). It can be even easier if people can incorrectly develop a perception that the supposed harm they are doing will be personally beneficial. People in a place like Alberta may easily believe that warming the planet will reduce how harsh their winter is and improve the growing season in their region during their lifetime. And personal benefit in their lifetime is all that the small worldview they have been encouraged to develop leads them to care about.

  Those poorly governed, harmfully Freer, socioeconomic-political games can be seen to develop powerful resistance to helpful correction of incorrect perceptions of popularity and profitability. The result is undeserved wealth and power being obtained by getting away with unsustainable and harmful activity that is defended by claiming to care about local employment or local government revenue.

  The populist propagandist know what they promote will not continue to be a benefit in the future. But the few hoping to benefit most will fight relentlessly for more freedom to do unsustainable harmful things. And they will fight to keep as much of the undeserved benefit they can get away with (not paying to fully properly clean up the mess they make - leaving as much harmful mess for others have to deal with as they can get away with).

  And those people with incorrectly developed small worldviews will definitely try to claim that climate science is incorrect. And they will be easily impressed by any of the many incorrectly made-up criticisms of climate science and the required corrections of what has developed that climate science has so clearly exposed. They will willingly support fracking if they sense a potential personal benefit.

• Explainer: Why some US Democrats want a ‘Green New Deal’ to tackle climate change

  alonerock at 05:19 AM on 18 December, 2018

  A few non-scholarly comments regarding possible misunderstandings and potential solutions :

  Climate Change Denial
  Many people exhibit a complacent, if not an outright attitude of denial toward human-induced climate change. The following list contains many of the fundamental reasons behind this irrational behavior:
  -Ignorance of the complex science required to understand this serious, complicated issue.
  -Contradictory information disseminated by the media.
  -Misinformation distributed by politicians and scientific imposters with deep fossil fuel interests.
  -The threat is not immediate. It has been accumulating over a long period of time.
  -There exists no historical precedent with which to compare.
  -The cause is not derived from a specific, tangible enemy. Nearly all humans are collectively responsible for the problem.
  -There is a tremendous misunderstanding regarding temporal and spatial scales.
  -There is a failure of the experts to properly educate the public regarding the urgency of the problem.
  -There is little direct, noticeable impact.
  -Environmental problems are typically too disturbing and unpopular for the general public to address.
  -Why should one entity spend resources to reduce pollution when others that are contributing a far greater problem do nothing.
  -Many people have a passive attitude- expecting others to fix the problem.
  -Unclear links exist between costs to solve problems and the benefits.
  -Many elderly people do not care since they will not be around to experience the consequences.
  -There is a strong unwillingness of people in general to change their lifestyles or specifically, to sacrifice their perceived luxuries.
  -Lack of desire to participate and get involved at Local, Regional, State, National and Global levels which would provide or lead to exposure to other ideas and ways of looking at problems.

  Some potential Climate Change Solutions:
  The present state of climate conditions presents out society with complex, serious moral, social, environmental, economic and political issues unparalleled in history.
  The anthropogenically-induced climate problems are reversable if approached with wisdom in a timely fashion.
  This crisis will not be solved by 195 countries arguing over multiple issues. It can be best solved by the United States implementing important environmentally related regulations, which will ultimately force other countries to participate.
  This horrific problem has become so large, it has evolved into a tragedy of the commons in which others share or will share (future generations) in the cost, in addition to those who actually created the problem. Make no mistake, this climate change is not a liberal left or conservative right issue. It is a species survival issue. It is a species survival issue, including humans.
  If the grave finality of this crisis is to be solved, the following measures could be implemented in a timely fashion by the United States, in an effort to reduce energy consumption, improve energy efficiency, improve/expand existing clean energy sources and search for new clean energy sources, otherwise the problem will soon be irreversible and out of control for the next generation:
  -No couples should produce more than two children. Tax incentives/penalties can be used to encourage this concept. The penalties can be earmarked for R&D of clean energy.
  - The U.S. should implement a C-tax program. The solution is not simply for bigger government and increased taxes. Governmental officials, influenced by special interest groups and lobbyists, lack the knowledge or integrity for successfully managing such C-tax programs. This can be consumer driven. A large fee on fossil fuel businesses implemented at port of entry as well as domestic mines and wells would ensure that the fossil fuel businesses are paying their fair share for their cost to society. The taxes due to the increase at the pumps could then be distributed equally among all legal US residents annually. The wealthier people have a greater C-footprint and can afford the tax. The middle- and lower-class people will receive money back (which would likely exceed the taxes they paid in) which they can then spend and stimulate the economy. Likely, due to the rising cost of fuel, they would spend a substantial portion of the dividends on vehicles of increased efficiency, better insulation in homes, improved heating systems, more efficient appliances, etc. This would further drive R&D of businesses regarding improved energy as well as giving entrepreneurs incentive to invest is such endeavors while unleashing a huge faction of innovations in technology. Industries will compete far more aggressively with far improved results without “help” from the government. The differing prices of food, goods and services based on their C-footprint will cause a shift in what consumers purchase, so the market will drive a healthier and swifter result.
  Cap and trade, as some have suggested as a wise choice, would likely fail in its objective because it will enable rich businesses/nations to not reduce their emissions because they can afford otherwise. Furthermore, the cap and trade scheme cannot be implemented for all types of pollution (personal vehicles, home heating oil, etc.).
  -Huge tariffs must be placed on foreign imports for countries that do not engage in similar environmental policies as that of the United States. This will make competition fair and more importantly, create tremendous incentive for foreign countries (China, India, etc.) to reduce their C footprint as well. This will stimulate all markets/innovations, foreign and domestic.
  -Improved forestry and agricultural practices (i.e. no-till) must be encouraged.
  -Increase individual contributions; car-pooling, improved recycling/re-using, food waste reduction.
  -Support local framer’s markets and other businesses. Educate people from early age on.
  -Reduce travel, particularly air travel and reduce vehicle travel speed
  -Reduce meat consumption overall and eating larger percentage of wild game (deer, fish, turkey, etc.)
  -Sustain vehicles in good condition (tire pressure, tune-ups, filters, exhaust, etc.) and require vastly improved fuel mileage.
  -Reduce thermostat in cold months and limit air conditioning in warm months.
  -Insurance companies can influence climate-based decisions due to their cost from associated health problems (cardiac/respiratory etc.).
  -Law enforcement can influence climate-based decisions due to direct correlations between hotter temperatures and violence.
  -Implement zoning/planning regulations at local levels to encourage a smaller C-footprint; lights off at night in residences, encourage smaller houses, narrower driveways and roads, smaller lawns, reduce street lighting, lights off after business hours, etc.
  -Vote for politicians who have no fossil fuel interests and who care about issues rather than simply devoting their efforts into getting elected and then getting re-elected.
  -Get involved personally and participate at all levels. VOTE! Write senators, representatives, governors and presidents. Write articles in newspapers. Exercise consumer pressure. As Winston Churchill once suggested, if people do not have courage and participate, all of their other virtues are wasted.
  Surely many other wonderful ideas can be considered. We enjoy what we have today because of people who came before us who were wise stewards of the land. Likewise, we have an obligation to future generations. It is all about quality of life and leaving the place better than how we found it.

• Wind Energy: What About Those Subsidies?

  John S at 03:41 AM on 26 July, 2018

  Nigelj@4

  “they were priced too high when first introduced. Just what specific finance options would have overcome that?”

  I agree they probably tried and there weren’t any, or else they wouldn’t have needed the subsidies. With hindsight we can be thankful for these particular subsidies (for wind power).

  Notwithstanding, I’d still say the principle of subsidies in general is bad because it involves politicians giving away other people’s money for projects that have not been able to convince lenders they are worth the risk. Since some of the tax-payers would be on low income (we still pay a fair chunk of tax) and the benefits would go to entrepreneurs who are likely wealthier than low income people, it could also be a reverse Robin Hood.

  Then, how else can we get projects and technologies off the ground that appear to have future promise and, in any case, climate benefits?

  One alternative is regulation. I don’t like that either in general because again it gives too much power to government. However, for particularly difficult problems like how to get the transportation sector off fossil fuels I’d support it. For example, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable imposition on auto makers to require a greatly increased average fleet efficiency – they are still left a lot of flexibility on how to do it. Ditto for all kinds of other mobile equipment (trucks, busses, trains, planes, ships, mining, agriculture, construction and forestry.)

  I’d go with regulation of efficiency in the transportation sector partly because my favourite policy - carbon pricing - is challenged to make a big difference quickly simply because gasoline and diesel are such great fuels (except for their environmental impacts) and so cheap. For example, the scheduled 2022 carbon price in Canada of $50/tonne will increase the price of gasoline by less than 12 cents/litre, which is less than what we’ve seen from the natural volatility of world crude. Not only does it make little marginal impact, I.e. how much people drive (because they just have to get to work and back somehow) but also it has little impact on the capital decisions if low and zero emission vehicles cost a lot more than gas guzzlers.

  But then even here a constantly rising carbon price locked in so that over 20 years it would be over $200/tonne and still rising will surely have an impact even today on decision makers who have a longer planning horizon, like those who decide what type of cars to make in future. Sweden is at about 200 Canadian $/tonne and Volvo has announced it will make no more gasoline cars.

  I know of a certain district heating project that would have a present value several tens of millions of dollars more if the Canada’s carbon price kept rising 10$/tonne per year.

  In the video, the Wind Developer pointed to the advantage that wind could offer a fixed price for 20 years because the cost is mostly capital. He contrasted that with gas where no-one can know its future cost exactly.

  In like manner, a carbon price rising predictably even at only 10$/tonne/year should make investors think twice even about gas power generation because the carbon price alone would be going up every 5 years by more than the current rate for gas quoted by one of the major distributors in Ontario (9.7 cents/litre versus 9.2 cents) – this carbon price would be on top of whatever the delivered gas costs.

  The prices paid to all other forms of generation and hence their finance-ability would be enhanced by the higher cost of what is today, perhaps their next best alternative – natural gas.

  OK, that was not the situation when wind was in its early years, but by lobbying for carbon fee and dividend we can create this situation for the future.

  And the same principle applies across all sectors, not just power generation. And this is a better way to give new technologies a leg up than either subsidies or regulation.

• One Planet Only Forever at 02:36 AM on 8 July, 2018

  This updated application of game theory is not a new understanding for policy makers regarding climate science and the required corrections of what has developed.

  The fundamental understanding of the problem was clearly presented in the 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future”:
  “25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
  26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management.”

  And that understanding can be understood to be explaining the developed result of the failure of the winners of the competitions among humans for wealth and power to ensure that all members of humanity are well educated about what really matters, about how to help develop sustainable improvements for all of humanity far into the future.

  John Stuart Mill included a warning in “On Liberty”.
  “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

  So the problem is not that policy-makers are not well aware of what is going on. The problem is that the socioeconomic-political system has encouraged people to be more egoist than altruist. Competition to appear to be better off measured by materialist consumption, with popularity and profitability being deemed to be proof of acceptability, can completely ignore the ethical need to responsibly act to be helpful to the future generations understanding the limitations of the system (the system undeniably being this, or any other, amazing planet that humanity should be striving to sustainably enjoy thriving on for hundreds of millions of years).

  A related developed problem is the incorrect thinking of economists. They are incorrect in their evaluation of the acceptability of a portion of the current generation of humanity continuing to try to benefit from activities that are undeniably creating negative consequences for others, particularly the harm done to future generations by:

  • reducing the ability of future generations to benefit from non-renewable ancient buried hydrocarbons (developing sustainable ways to use them, or having them available for an emergency)
  • the environmental degradation caused by current day actions in pursuit of benefit from burning up that resource
  • the challenges and costs of the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels

  Economists evaluating the acceptability of the burning of fossil fuels pretend that Others negatively impacted by the activity are not actually Others. They pretend that all of the impacts are experienced by the same person or group. They need to do that to justify an evaluation that balances the negative impacts with the positive impacts.

  And most economists perform even less correct evaluations by 'discounting' the future negative impacts. Even Stern did that in his evaluation which used a lower discount rate than Nordhaus, but still balanced the future negatives with the current day positives.

  That type of evaluation is only valid if the same person or group of people will experience all of the positives and negatives. When a business or individual wants to compare optional actions it is appropriate for them to use discounting of future costs or benefits to determine the best option, for them. However, corporations and individual investors should only compare options ethically/altruistically. They should only be considering the options that do not create negative consequences for Others.

  Governments need to do a different evaluation (governments should not simply be run like businesses). And detailed comparisons of the climate change economic evaluations like “The Choice of Discount Rate for Climate Change Policy Evaluation” by Lawrence H. Goulder and Roberton C. Williams III perpetuate the misunderstanding by only comparing the business magnitude discount used by the likes of Nordhaus to the lower rate used by Stern.

  The power of the Stern evaluation was not that it used a discount rate 'more appropriate for government evaluation' than the higher business-style discount rate used by Nordhuas. The Stern evaluation showed that even though it is simply unacceptable for the current generation to be negatively impacting the future generations, even an evaluation that balanced discounted future negatives with current day positives proved the unacceptability of what was going on.

  Governments, and everyone in the chain of support for policy making, must ethically strive to guide the development of a sustainable better future for their regions in ways that do not negatively affect any other region. That cannot be done if future negatives can be discounted or be excused because of the 'amount of benefit (perception of prosperity) obtained today that would have to be given up to not be creating those negative future consequences'. Without clear proof, not some made-up model analysis results, that what is beneficial today will continue to be a benefit into the distant future, there is no justification for leadership failing to aggressively acting to end the damaging ultimately unsustainable activity.

  See Also

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaThe Baconator Comes To NASCARADP Pay Stubs Generator & Editor

  Many economists fail to incorporate the reality that unsustainable pursuits of benefit will not last as future benefits in their evaluations. Unsustainable activity may be regionally temporarily popular and profitable. But that is only a temporary perception of prosperity. As long as new unsustainable developments can develop 'All is Good', until it inevitably isn't. Tragically, the ones who enjoy 'The Good Time' the most are seldom the ones to suffer severely in the inevitable damaging future reality. And when the reality that too much unsustainable damaging activity is occurring, it is already 'Too Late'. The popularity and profitability of the damaging undeniably unsustainable activity resists being corrected. And it can result in understandably undeserving winners getting significant power to do even more damage to the future of humanity, regressing progress that humanity had been making, before the unacceptability of their unjustifiable but popular false advertising loses its ability to significantly influence/impress people.

  Policy makers have little excuse to be unaware of all of this. Their only excuse is to claim that leading more responsibly would be less popular and less profitable. And that is a poor excuse, not a rational justification. The fact that so many of them continue to pretend that they can excuse 'what they understand is harmful to the future generations of humanity' is proof of the damaging power of the developed socioeconomic-political systems to harm the future of humanity (and the debilitating ability of false advertising appeals to basic emotional instinctive desires to over-power human thoughtful consideration).

  The 'legality' of false advertising in politics, the lack of consequences for failing to most fully inform everyone and failing to help everyone better understand what is really going on and what corrections are required to develop a sustainable better future for humanity (including developing truly sustainable perceptions of prosperity) is the real problem. It is the reason so many policy makers choose to be unreasonable. It is the reason so many people 'grow up mere children' to the detriment of the future of humanity.

  All of this has been unwittingly exposed by climate science. Many other unsustainable harmful developments have occurred. But climate science has undeniably exposed the way that the developed socioeconomic-political systems have tragically encouraged more people to choose to become competitive egoist rather than collaborative altruists, to the undeniable detriment of the future of humanity, all for the benefit of a portion of the current population.

  The socioeconomic-political systems that like balancing the benefits that a portion of current day humanity gets from burning fossil fuels with the negative consequences that Others have to try to live/deal with need to be corrected. The unacceptability does not need modifications of complex game-theory modelling in order to be understood. It is common sense that no one can justify doing something that harms another person by balancing 'the benefit they think they get' with 'the harm they think they are doing'. And it is even less acceptable to 'discount' the harm being done to the other person when evaluating the acceptability of a choice of action.

• 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

  One Planet Only Forever at 14:42 PM on 26 June, 2018

  I do not think the concluding statements are the most accurate presentation of what is going on, but they may be the more politically correct thing to say (quoted below).

  "Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

  We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet."

  It is more likely that Michaels and Maue expect a lot of people to be easily tempted to like their claim because it excuses their pursuit of a better present for themselves at the expense of others, especially at the expense of future generations (including the future challenges like extinctions and other environmental impacts, such as water contamination, due to the impacts of fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation and burning).

  It is very likely that deliberate misleading marketing is developed and presented by the likes of Micheals and Maue because they understand that competitions for popularity and profitability have been repeatedly proven to be won, at least temporarily (all that matters to a selfish person), by abusing the temptation to like misleading marketing.

  And being tempted to like getting away with more personal benefit at the expense of others is not being a sucker - it is far worse that that and should be called what it is (remember that future generations are Others - they do not benefit just because the current generation benefits. Yet may economic evaluations pretend that the people benefiting today are the ones suffering challenges and consequences in the future). Something like the following is more accurate:
  "What Michaels and Maue have done is the expected result of Despicably Deliberately Unethical Bad Thinking by the likes of the Koch Brothers - which is mostly, if not totally, legal because Bad Laws have been created by undeserving Winners and Bad Law Enforcement has happened for the benefit of those Winners - with popular support obtained from lazy/bad thinking people (easily tempted to be greedy - without caring about potential negative consequences to others) by Opinion Pieces that are allowed to be presented without the correction/clarification of the misstatements made presented to everyone who reads the Opinion piece 'Before they read the Opinion Piece'".

  What Michaels and Maue have presented is not 'An Opinion', it is a piece of false advertising paid for by the Koch Brothers.

  However, the lazy/bad thinkers will not be tempted to change their mind by having the unacceptability of their beliefs exposed too clearly. They would likely react by entering the flight or fight mode - most likely the fight mode - rather than start to seriously properly think about understanding things. Mind you, getting them thinking may not change their mind because when a person senses that better understanding an issue will not be to their personal advantage they will also often enter fight mode to protect their developed desired interests.

  That is why I suggest that the solution requires the wealthiest and most powerful to be held to standards of ethics and 'helpfulness to the future of humanity' (achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals) that are 'Above the Law - to a higher standard of ethical helpful behaviour than is required by law'.

  The games of popularity and profitability that developed the damaging unsustainable activity have also developed a powerful resistance to being corrected (Bad Selfish Thinking Winning resulting in Bad Laws and Bad Law Enforcement).

  It comes back to one of my favourite quotes of John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" - "“If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

  And that quote ties into a quote from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" with distant motives being understood to be consideration of others especially of future generations (altruistic).

  "25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
  26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

  Unless global humanity can effectively hold the winners (anywhere and everywhere) to the highest standard of ethics and helpfulness, the future of humanity suffers the consequences.

  I appreciate that brevity is more powerful. At the moment the closest I can get to a concise statement of what is required is "Think about the Global Future - Be as aware and understanding as possible - Act Locally Now to help develop a sustainable better future". That statement applies to all of the Sustainable Development Goals, with action on climate change being one of the most significant goals. But that statement is too wordy to be a winner, and even that over-long statement does not expose the requirement to correct what has already developed popularity and profitability, and the need to change the system so that it produces sustainable good results rather than a string of results of 'Bad Thinking temporarily winning regional popularity for unjustified actions through misleading marketing appeals to greed and intolerance'.

• The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground

  One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 17 June, 2018

  The development and defence of increased rates of Oil Sands extraction in Alberta are the result of bad excuses developed by bad thinking, thinking that is worse than the kind of thinking that Guy P. Harrison eloquently argues needs to be overcome by increased “Good Thinking” (title of one of his books) increased reality-based, rational, scientific, skeptical, critical thinking. It is more like the thinking of mere children warned about by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” when he states that “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

  I say it is worse than thinking that Guy's Good Thinking is intended to overcome which is because of a lack of awareness by the thinker leading them to make poorer choices. It is worse because the motivation for the bad thinking is socioeconomic winners/leaders trying to create popular bad excuses and form carefully crafted misleading messaging to attempt to increase or prolong their ability to unjustifiably and ultimately unsustainably Win.

  That ability of misleading messages to be appealing is similarly not the result of totally unaware recipients of the messages. People liking those messages are also likely allowing their thinking to be motivated by selfish personal interest (the wealthier or more influential the person is in the socioeconomic system, the less likely it is that they are unaware of the unacceptability of what they are choosing to believe, but selfishness can also be a powerful motivator of Bad Thinking among the less aware).

  The bad thinking by winners/leaders, and many others in the population (portion of humanity) they appeal to, can be understood to be an expected result of people growing up (developing their thinking) in a competitive consumer marketing focused socioeconomic system where popularity and profitability are deemed to be the best measures of value or merit, and where appearing to be the winner is all that matters (consideration for others, especially future generations, are excused away). The system naturally develops encouragement for people to try to get away with behaving less responsibly, less ethically, less helpfully, more harmfully.

  The people willing to try to be less ethical will have a competitive advantage as long as they can get away with it. And misleading messages appealing to selfishness motivated bad thinkers increases the chances of winning that way.

  And there are many things that develop to further encourage understandably bad behaviour: Bad Laws, Bad Legal Decisions, Bad Government policy, Bad Business leadership, Bad Consumer behaviour, Bad Thinking being governed by short-term tribal interests in pursuit of obtaining maximum personal benefit any way that can be gotten away with (almost always at the expense of others, and usually with an awareness that their Winning is to the detriment of others).

  In this pipeline case the legal system was developed with rules that legally defend (justify) understandably harmful behaviour (because all interests should be balanced - in favour of current day benefit for the more influential), and can result in legal decisions in defence of understandably bad thinking. Note that the pipeline promoters have had the ability to keep pursuing an understandably Bad Thought as many times as needed to eventually Win, and then likely have that win be defended forevermore, including the related bad thinking that if at any future time the general public becomes more aware of the unacceptability of the win, that future general public will have to be pay the people who pursued personal benefit from that Bad Thinking what those Bad Thinking people claim to have lost (and that future generation will also have almost no ability to extract wealth in the future from the people who may be discovered to have actually illegally obtained their winning in the past).

  Government leaders also exhibit Bad Thinking because of the temporary regional benefits that understandably bad unsustainable economic development will generate, at the expense of other life, especially at the expense of future generations who cannot continue to benefit that way and get nothing but the future trouble that is created. Leaders exhibit bad thinking when they strive to encourage popular support for such activities.

  The currently developed Oil Sands of Alberta are the result of lots of Bad Thinking. And the current day defence/promotion by the current Federal Leaders and many of the Provincial Leaders is near the pinnacle of Bad Thinking. In March of 2017, PM Trudeau stated “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground. The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably.” That is populist misleading claim-making, done for very Bad Reasons.

  To begin, there is absolutely nothing sustainable about benefiting from burning fossil fuel. The PM cannot rationally claim to misunderstand this point, so, by default, he knows that oil sands extraction is fundamentally unsustainable. Only bad excuses can be made to claim there is anything sustainable about it. And the claim attempts to side-step consideration of the responsibility to safely protect the future generations from the impacts of burning up all that fossil fuel (those responsibility and safety considerations actually being contrary to the stated objective of the current generation benefiting from all of the oil sands being burned up). And that undeniably unacceptable Bad Thinking is made more appealing by explaining that money from the burning up of the oil sands will pay for things like education, health care and assistance to the poor.

  Those claims of the benefits obtained from promoting and defending this activity never explain what happens in the future when no one can practically benefit from fossil fuel burning. And they completely ignore the future challenges and costs that will have been developed, often poorly excused by claiming that growing the GDP today by pursuing unsustainable harmful activity will result in sustained growth of GDP into the future (perhaps by counting the future human efforts to deal with the results of rapid climate change to be 'counted as beneficial economic activity', just as nation rebuilding after wars is a great economic boost, on top of the war-time boost of weapons and war machine production).

  In their defence, many elected leaders are powerfully motivated to get revenue from things like the oil sands because 'lower taxes' is the law (or at least it is so popular it might as well be a law). Their focus on current day revenue can ignore what will happen in the future, because a powerful Bad Thinking portion of the population 'likes that type of leadership - leadership incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives (as JS Mill would refer to it)'.

  And there is more of that type of popular profitable Bad Thinking by Leaders regarding the Oil Sands of Alberta. It is estimated that the current developed Oil Sands have a clean-up obligation that is greater than $20 billion dollars. And bad laws created by bad thinking leaders wanting to encourage the development of the oil sands do not require oil sands operations to fully fund their clean up until decades into the future (coal operators have to provide funds for the full clean-up from the day they start a mine).

  As things like Better Helpful Thinking are developing globally, there may not be decades of revenue from the oil sands, in spite of the glowing evaluations of the future for the oil sands by groups that have a vested interest in prolonging the unjustified popular support for the oil sands. If more oil sands is not sold soon, the near future general population of Alberta and Canada will have nobody who benefited most being obliged to properly clean it up, all that wealth created in the past being worthless/useless in the future.

  And all of this started in the 1990s when Bad Selfish Motives ruled and fuelled the development of more Bad Thinking among leaders/winners in business and politics and in the general regional/tribal population. At that time the unacceptability of the global burning of fossil fuels was well understood by all leaders in business and politics. Yet badly motivated bad thinking prevailed.

  And here we are today, having to try to limit/correct the mess developed by Bad Motives being allowed to develop Bad Thinking and the related Bad Excuse Making that is popular among the Badly Motivated self-interested Bad Thinkers.

  'People having more freedom to believe what they want in pursuit of their personal interest to appear to be the winners in competitions for popularity and profitability' will undeniably develop more Bad Thinking, likely worse than the Bad Thinking that developed and still attempts to defend the Alberta Oil Sands problem.

  I will close with a quote from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" that accurately captured the bad thinking that has developed the oil sands problem. Note that 1987 predates the bad thinking of the 1990s that pushed for expanding oil sands extraction.

  "25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
  26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

• Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

  James Wight at 19:49 PM on 7 March, 2018

  nigelj @9

  I'm also on the outside looking in, so we are equal in that regard!

  #1 I don't dispute Obama's climate policies were less bad than Bush and Trump, but that's not saying much. They still fell far short of the phaseout of fossil fuels which is necessary to actually stop the rise of CO2, indeed Obama was still subsidizing fossil fuels. Despite his policies being less bad in a technical sense, I think there's a case to be made that Obama's net effect was worse than Bush and Trump, because Obama placated environmental concerns a bit. At least under the Republicans, everyone knows the government does not have climate change under control.

  #2 Yes, Trump's dismantling of climate and environmental policies is a total disaster and insane at a time when humanity's impact on the planet is far outstripping anything sustainable. But the fact remains that those policies were already woefully inadequate and served primarily to reassure the public that something was being done. It's come out that some American towns have lead poisoning in their water supply, so clearly Obama-era environmental regulations weren't doing a great job.

  #3 The fossil fuel industry has benefited from all kinds of government subsidies as well as other favorable rules. US fossil fuel subsidies increased by over a third under Obama: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918 Also under Obama, the government worked with mining corporations to run psyops against anti-fracking movements.

  #4 You shouldn't assume the TPP is dead, because other countries are still developing it and Trump is now making noises that he might be open to getting back into it. Anyway, the TPP does not benefit the people of any country because it is inherently anti-democratic. Investor-state tribunals only benefit corporations and their shareholders, by allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits, hamstringing governments' ability to regulate corporate activities - such as pollution. So when you say it benefits "America" I think you mean it benefits American corporations. The TPP was negotiated under Obama's watch.

  #5 Well I've just explained how the TPP is bad for anyone who's not rich. The Obama administration also infiltrated and shut down the Occupy Wall Street protests among other things. But yes, I agree the Republicans are making it even worse. That doesn't mean the Democrats were making it better. And the excuse of "We can't do anything because of the Republicans" wears pretty thin after eight years, especially since the Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years.

  #6 I stand corrected on Obama's military spending. However, the Democrats voted in favor of Trump's massive increase in military spending, so my point still stands that the two parties are similar if not the same.

  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is at best quantitative, and at worst good-cop-bad-cop. I don't particularly blame Obama as an individual any more than I blame Trump for the policies being implemented now. I'm saying that voting for the other party won't solve the climate problem, because both parties are controlled by the same corporate interests including the fossil fuel lobby.

• Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

  nigelj at 16:23 PM on 7 March, 2018

  James Wight @8

  I don't live in America, so here is a view from the outside loooking in. It does look like both Republicans and Democrats serve corporate interests, however theres clearly a difference in quite a few respects:

  1) The Democrats have provably had more powerful climate mitigation policies than Bush and the current Trump / Republican administration. This has been openly documented and is not seriously disputed.

  2) It appears Obama at least tried to regulate other environmental and business issues, (The Dodd Franks Act comes to mind). Trump and the Republican Congress has done his best to dismantle all this. Notice how this study below just released shows the benefits of these regulations outweighed the costs.

  "Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations. It was easy to miss, but OMB demolishes the GOP’s deregulatory claims."

  www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb

  3) I dont know how you say Obama drove a boom in fracking. Didn't the free market drive that?

  4) Regarding the TPPA (trans pacific partnership agreement), this involved America and various pacific nations such as NZ, latin american countries, Japan etc. I like free trade agreements, but I agree the investor state dispute resolution process involves closed door hearings by lawyers, with arguably conflicts of interest that have been well discussed. It needs to be more open and transparent.

  However it's a simple fact (because I followed the negotiation process closely) that America was getting by far the best deal out of this TPPA agreement, so the fact Trump has pulled out makes me laugh at how little he comprehends these things. America is also one of the most litigious countries in trade disputes, and generally does ok in these disputes. So I'm not entirely sure why you are so upset and blaming Obama. America has also benefited a lot from free trade, according to economists.

  5) Saying Obama "oversaw a rise in wealth inequality" is rather general and meaningless. I dont think he personally caused it, unless you can show me some evidence. He certainly at least tried to help poor people with various programmes, but was defeated by a republican dominated congress.

  Perhaps you can explain to me how Trump and the Republicans attempts to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut death duty taxes, and cut food stamps and welfare entitlements help reduce wealth or income inequality? Because it sure doesn't look like it will help.

  6) Obama increased the military spending. Can't disagree, however Trumps spending increases appear considerably more ambitious. I'm not a pacifist, but I would have thought America has enough nukes to last a million years.

  So there's actually a very significant quantitative and qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is in favour of the Democrats.

  And remember, the point of the article was related to differences in respect of climate mitigation and science between the parties.

• Pittsburgh and Paris join over 200 cities and states rejecting Trump on climate

  nigelj at 07:45 AM on 9 June, 2017

  "Government regulations shouldn’t be used to pick winners and losers"

  Well agreed, but subsidising or otherwise supporting renewable energy isn't really picking a winner. It is just helping the industry get started when it faces a lot of difficulties beyond what would be normal. For example, this is why Americas government funded and created NASA because it was beyond the private sector but provides benefits to America as a whole.

  It also needs to be said The Republicans subsidise oil and agriculture. However it is very difficult to understand any logical reason to support established oil magnates and millionaire farmers, and there seems to me more logic in supporting renewable energy, at least for a limited time period until it becomes established.

  There is also nothing wrong with government regulations that control use of fossil fuels or tax their use etc. Markets have never self regulated to prevent or rectify environmental problems, as its easy to pass these problems onto future generations, or some other persons known as the tragedy of the commons problem. Therefore governments have traditionally regulated environmental activity. I dont see why Trump and his team don't understand this.

  It should also be noted Trump is treating the Paris agreement like a hardball businesss negotiation, and this might be ok up to a certain point given nation states have to somehow cooperate and reach agreements. But international environmental agreements are more political agreements, and need a strong spirit of goodwill. Without that they all fail to even get off the ground and playing hardball becomes destructive and will hurt America ultimately if the whole thing breaks down. You have to take a broad and long view of international agreements.

  America under Trump has now become the global renogade, taking a very hostile approach to agreements and indeed everything, and opposing international consensus on all sorts of issues for irrational reasons that beggar belief.

• March against madness - denial has pushed scientists out to the streets

  RedBaron at 12:05 PM on 29 April, 2017

  @9 nigelj,

  AHA. You mean like this?Teddy Roosevelt

  Free markets for Main Street USA, Small family run business, and even mid level business, but strict regulation against mega-corporation, trusts, and Plutocrats. As well as strong environmental and public safety regulation. Instead of a wall, we build a canal which is profitable and benefits all the Nations in the hemisphere.

  That's a whole different kind of populism, and not even slightly socialist/communist either.

  Yes I would say we know what to do, and even how to do it, seeing as how it was done once already.

  The question is how do we make it stick? Doesn't take long for gains like that to reverse themselves.

• March against madness - denial has pushed scientists out to the streets

  nigelj at 11:36 AM on 29 April, 2017

  OPOF @8, I found the article in your link interesting and worthwhile, and it's conclusion about a possible descent into nihilism rings true, but the material in the middle is a bit confused.

  I think this issue is more about cycles. America, and various other countries went through a period of "laissez faire" (extreme capitalism) in the 1800s and up until the 1930s when it all collapsed due to inherent problems with the economic model. Thats definitely not to say capitalism is bad, simply that some issues became exposed.

  Then America and most western countries went through a "mixed economy" phase combining capitalism and some socialist ideas from the 1930s up until the 1980s. This period had some merit, but in turn collapsed, or stagnated for certain reasons. It was also the end of a long wave economic and investment cycle, (a type of Kondratief wave) cycle, but thats another matter that would complicate the discussion.

  Then in the 1980's we had the counter reaction, and entered the era of neoliberalism and "greed is good" which was an attempt to revert to laissez faire capitalism. This ideology promotes extreme individualism, free markets, open immigration, globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, etc. This ideology has some merit in parts, but become too extreme and is the source of numerous recent problems, and it sacrifices the environment. It has generated poverty issues for some groups of people. But elements of neoliberalism like free trade and globalisation have had positive effects for many people, so its not a simple issue

  The counter reaction to some elements of this globalist, neoliberal ideology has been exemplified with Donald Trump, except that he has kept some elements of the ideology such as deregulation, and ther worst forms of deregulation, for example regarding the weakining of environmental standards. But essentially Trump is trying to revert to a nationalist, more isolationist agenda, and almost a version of crony capitalism. I'm not enthused.

  We need to get back to a simpler, more commonsense philosophy as Scandinavia has, of a robust capitalism and moderately free markets, but with a human touch, including appropriate restraints and controls where appropriate, (especially over environmental impacts) in other words a refined, improved version of the mixed economy ideas of the 1950s. This will enable humanity to tap the benefits of free markets and private ownership, without killing the environment or causing instability or poverty. (Imho).

  Putting it another way, entrepreneurship and private enterprise is good, but "greed is not good", and a completely uncontrolled business sector is destructive to the public good.

• Chatham House: Brexit could harm UK climate and energy policy

  Paraquat at 11:41 AM on 26 June, 2016

  Supporters of Brexit have been called many things, among them "racists, xenophobes, rednecks, rightwingers, morons" and other terms which I needn't repeat. And now Skeptical "Science" is weighing in too, implying that Brexiters are also global warming deniers. Lovely.

  Reality is that many people - including those who identify themselves as environmentalists - see a lot of economic problems thanks to globalisation, outsourcing, austerity, and other "harmonization" policies which the EU promotes. The devastated middle class has almost no tools to fight back with, especially when both of the UK's major political parties offer little to differentiate themselves. The Brexit referendum was one of the few - perhaps the only - time that voters were given a chance to express their displeasure with the status quo, and many took advantage of it. Whether or not it will make a big difference in the long run remains to be seen.

  Getting back to climate - since one of the major "benefits" of globalization is to export industries to countries like China with very low environmental standards, one could easily argue that Brexit might offer some hope - however small - to return some industries to Britain, where environmental standards are higher. A big bad joke of the EU (and other western economies) is that they claim their CO2 emissions are going down, but in reality this is because the dirty coal-burning factories moved to Asia, along with the jobs. It should be obvious enough that exporting CO2 emissions to other countries (all of which share the same earth's atmosphere) doesn't help to solve real climate change problems.

  I personally am a believer that AGW is real, caused mainly by CO2 and methane emissions. I also support nuclear power as one of several solutions for reducing emissions, and have had to take a lot of abuse from so-called "greens" for that. And since in the end I decided to support Brexit, I can now become a target for charges that I'm a "racist" and "AGW denier." You guys really know how to trash your potential allies and destroy your own credibility.

  Finally, I have to say that I've found it almost amusingly ironic to see supposedly "progressive" or "liberal" political activists stand firm with hedge fund bankers and the world's worst polluters to fight for free-trade blocks like the EU. Are you on board for the TPP and TTIP too? Well, their is an old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows.

  You shouldn't be surprised to see that your readership is dropping, and that few bother commenting now. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering, but hey, it's Sunday and I've got a bit of free time. Hope this comment at least gives you food for thought.

• Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study

  One Planet Only Forever at 13:51 PM on 28 March, 2016

  Tom,

  Faith in a system governed by 'temporary regional or tribal popularity and profitability among a current generation of humanity' effectively limiting the challenges it creates is not justified. The popularity of 'a better personal life in a person's lifetime' is a very powerful tool for people who would choose to abuse misleading marketing to prolong their ability to get away with actions they can understand are unacceptable.

  Your final point “International policy settings are not at a stage where that is yet likely, but they are not far off.” is unjustified wishful thinking. In the late 1980s the global community was also very close to acting responsibly to limit the challenges created for less fortunate people and for future generations ... but we all know how the last 30 years have gone ... bigger problems created with more wealthy and powerful troublemakers developed (not all wealthy powerful people are undeserving trouble makers, but many of them clearly are).

  The challenge today did not need to be as big as it is. All that was required was for the undeserving more fortunate, wealthier and more powerful people on the planet, people who gambled on getting away with less acceptable ways of living and profiting, to admit they deserved to lose their bets, to admit they did not deserve their perceptions of prosperity.

  The 'system of competition for maximum reward in an individual's lifetime is the real problem, creating mainly problems and few real sustainable solutions (if it creates any that can win in the popularity and profitability game made up by those who gamble on getting away with less acceptable ways of doing things it is almost completely by accident)'. The system has a clear track record of developing and prolonging activity that is understood to cause troubles that are faced by 'others', particularly those in future generations.

  I have previously shared this quote from “Our Common Future”, a UN Commission Report published in 1987, but it can never be repeated often enough.
  “25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
  26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management.”

  The only way the required International Policy Settings will happen is the demise of the system that is driven madly by temporary regional and tribal popularity and competition to maximize personal reward. Unlike action for Ozone reduction (something that was actually less effective than it needed to be), there is a massive amount of personal desire in powerful pockets around the planet that can be mobilized to prolong the ability for undeserving people to 'enjoy creating a bigger problem by getting away with things they do not deserve to be able to get away with'.

  The belief that individuals being free to do as they please in pursuit of a better present for themselves will advance humanity to a better future, or even allow humanity to have a future, deserves to be shattered. And it will be shattered if the required effectively enforced International Policies can be imposed on all nations, including the nations that elect leaders who would be regionally popular because they refuse to behave responsibly.

  Essentially, the International Community would have to be able to 'remove from power' any elected representatives in a nation like the USA (or leaders of businesses) who would claim that already fortunate people should still be allowed to benefit as much as they can from actvity that produces CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (or be able to convince a bunch of voters who are easily tempted to be greedy or intolerant to change their minds and choose not to try to get away with getting what they want even though they probably could collectively get away with it, for a little while, perhaps long enough that they enjoy the undeserved benefits in 'their lifetime'.).

• Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars

  mancan18 at 09:27 AM on 10 September, 2015

  I have been following this thread for a few days now. I am surprised that there has been no mention of "negative externalities" in the debate. As I understand it "negative externalities" are coststhat aren't paid for by the company or consumers but are paid for by others, like taxpayers and insurance companies when alleviating the health, social and environmental costs associated with the consumption of a product. In other words "negative externalities" are costs of production/use where the cost burden has been been transferred from the company to others outside the company.If fossil fuel companies had to account for all their "negative externalities" then the economic viability of fossil fuels would make their consumption questionable. The trouble is no-one at the corporate level or in Government seems to be interested in determining the real and expected "negative externality" costs associated with the production of fossil fuels. Now I would have thought that this should be possible if there was a will to do so. Insurance companies do it all the time when assessing future risk. Companies make expected cost projections all the time when they are tendering for contracts. Governments do it all the time when determining future infrastructure needs. There should be enough historical cost data held by Governments and insurance companies to determine expected future "negative externalities" associated with the production of fossil fuels. Introducing levies and tax surcharges by Governments related to "negative externalites" would go a long way towards addressing the detrimental imacts of using fossil fuels. To determine what to charge could be done using the same methods that insurance companies use to determine premiums. Future expected external costs (negative externalities) associated with using fossil fuels could be determined using historical data and growth projections; and the exact tax for each company could be based on their turnover. The main problem is finding politicians who have the political wherewithall to introduce such a controversial scheme. If developed it could also be used in the tobacco industry and other socially and environmentally detrimental industries. I guess it is much simpler to gain the necessary political bipartisanship to introduce carbon taxes or ETS's rather than schemes to account for negative externalities.

  Just an observation related to transferring from fossil fuels to renewables. It would seem that the costs of using fossil fuels is initially cheaper with the long term costs being more expensive but hidden and paid for by others (us all) at a later date. Whereas, the initial costs of using renewables is expensive but the long term costs/benefits are cheaper but are paid for by and benefit the consumer. Now since operation of modern corporations revolve around short term profits and current rates of return it does mean that long term investments are not considered with the same importance as the short term bottom line. Governments, if they are doing there job properly, should always be concerned with the long term, with the world a generation from now. Unfortunately, many in Government have their thinking based around the short term business model.

  Also, another observation, just transferring from the use of oil to renewables for transport is not quite so simple as introducing carbon taxes and ETS's. At the moment there are petrol/gas stations everywhere and people can just fill their car or truck up whenever and whereever they want. To have electrical charging stations and hydrogen fuel stations everywhere requires a certain market saturation to make it viable. That is not going to be a simple process. It will require the intervention of Governments for a while, and they seem to be reticent to intervene in the market when it doesn't suit them.

• US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL

  Andy Skuce at 09:57 AM on 31 August, 2014

  Moving on to the question of the materiality of the oilsands on emissions. Proponents of new fossil-fuel infrastructure often like to emphasize to very small effect that any single project will have on global emissions and temperatures. Meanwhile, when looking at the benefits, these are looked at in local terms. We might hear that project X will provide (say) 20,000 new jobs in Alberta, Texas or Queensland. Never do we see that expressed as employing 0.0003% of the world's population. However, nobody sees anything wrong with saying that the emissions of (say) 100 million tons of CO2 per year are a mere 0.3% of the world's emissions, deeming it a drop in the bucket.

  Now, 20,000 jobs would be a significant boost to the Canadian economy and not something anyone would sniff at. If we look at the emissions in a Canadian context, however, they start to look significant, too. (These figures are taken from an article on my blogand are slightly modified from Environment Canada originals.)

  Note that these are just the upstream emissions from producing the oil sands oil, not from the combustion of the exported product. The projected increases from the oil and gas sector swamp any progress to be made in electricity generation.

  Here is what it looks like relative to Canada's own emissions targets.

  The black line shows the expected emissions. The dashed green line (added by me) shows where we would be going without further oil sands expansion. The brown line shows the government's own target. The red line shows what might have happened if we imagine that Canada had a government that was even more environmentally reckless than Stephen Harper's.

• Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English

  Trakar at 07:16 AM on 26 August, 2014

  One Planet Only Forever -

  The primary problem I encounter occurs when climate science advocates begin blending their scientific explanations and understandings intothe larger umbrella of public policy measures and larger philosophy/ideology positions. The most successful contrarian move I've witnessed is to shift the discussion away from the scienceof climate change and into the broader ideological/politicaldiscussions of environmental regulation, sustainability production, population growth, corporate agriculture, etc.,.Once it becomes an issue of what makes the most short-term economic sense, the denial arguments (regulation stunts economic growth which cost jobs, requires personal sacrifice/inconvenience, etc.), become more attractive to many than typical climate change action advocacies which seem to offer very few short-term incentives to individuals, business or national interests.

  Typically, I keep science discussions focussed on the science, this usually eliminates most denial and generally, in fairly short-orderexposes the conspiratorial thinking required to dismiss all the mainstream science support. If, and when, I do engage in public policy discussions it is important to focus as much or more on the potential short-term economic and societal benefits of taking action (growth, jobs, efficiency, infrastructure, etc.).

• Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

  greenhousegaseous at 03:19 AM on 22 July, 2014

  wili, Rob and others commenting on this thread - - sorry I’m a few days late to your party. My excuse is I’m totally buried in a new book on, umm, *honest* global carbon profiling, and decarbonization :-))

  My background is economic modeling and forecasting and operations research, with a deep interest in environmentalism and over-population since Earth Day One - - that’s right, I was one of the naively optimistic activists standing with a million others in Manhattan in 1970; talk about an old fool...

  To business: wili, speaking from an environmentalist and climate analyst point of view, I am in 95% agreement with you on the *causality* of our dilemma, namely an economy founded on unceasing growth based upon a set of essentially rapacious business models.

  Speaking from an economic analysis point of view, I have to add that I *also* agree with you 95%. Economics is not some religious dogma or immutable political truth: it is simply the quantitative description of the survival mechanisms we as humans choose to employ, and the accounting of those decisions in terms of resource and labor and operational and opportunity costs.

  Not to say or suggest that Rob is wrong, mind. The implementation of an effective global carbon tax regimen is, really, our highest single priority.

  And that regime must include a truly punishing tax on air travel, enough to force all business (and international government and UN and academic conference and faux-symposia and Heartland attendees) to think short and hard about video and web-based meetings.

  The only really worthy exceptions to this regime would be my wife and I, who “need” to travel to her home in Japan and our numerous favorite spots in Europe. :-)

  The global tax regime needs to be an *environmental* scheme, not simply an energy industry transformational mechanism. If we fail to address waste, industrial pollution and water usage, whether related to energy use or not, we can never expect to earn the support of voters.

  It must also include severe taxes on individual usage of fossil fuels for transportation in general. Along with steep public license fees for extractors for taking finite resources and polluting and emitting and all the rest. Along with rich tax credits for developing and deploying CCS technology. Along with, well, the list goes on and on....

  Now, as to your main issue, at least as defined by wili:

  “We can have a robust modern industrial global capitalist constantly-growing economy, or we can have a viable earth. Not both...”

  I have to take issue with this (commonly held, I think) either-or notion. *If and when* we can build a decisive political consensus among the dominating industrialized countries, we can then, through tax and regulatory policy, institute a massive, aggressive shift to a non-carbon economy. For every job “lost” in the fossil fuel industries, we would see probably 1.5 to 2 jobs created in the alternative energy and related industries. These jobs would result in solid, steady growth in the present carbon-addicted countries, as well as in China and India and the other aggressively growing industries.

  Just think of the jobs we in the US will create by re-fitting our buildings and infrastructure for clean energy. For building the Grid. For developing and manufacturing the CCS technologies. For the new global de-salinization industry. For the massive necessary investment in thorium-based nuclear power. For the conversion of coal and petro power stations to bio-mass burning + CCS. For the new rail public transport systems.

  This scenario will create hundreds of millions or more jobs over time in the developing world, too, as they switch from carbon to alternate sources of power to fuel their economic growth. Not to mention the additional benefits for these countries, such as skipping the individual vehicle stage and going straight to public transportation.

  In the longer term, the level of economic growth will be sustained by productivity improvements largely driven by the gradual decrease in the worker population, as we belatedly turn from the (probable) peak of 12-13 billion humans and begin the long descent toward a sustainable level of 4-5 billion.

  I won’t belabor the point further. My point is that we need not and should not concede to the Carbon Lobby and their allies that aggressive decarbonization means the end of economic growth. Their position is not founded on any concern for their workers and dependents, but on the defense of the largely un-taxed, absurdly gross profits of an indefensible business model, sorry Rob, but wili and others are correct, a model that is in the process of driving CO2 levels probably above 600-700 PPM, and murdering hundreds of thousands of species, including the energy-addicted Ape.

  You, wili, and others are right: the *goal* of freedom from the yoke and pain and damage of carbon addiction *has* to be the objective.

  But, wili, Rob and others are correct that a ten or even twenty year decarbothon is a non-starter. Destroying the livelihood and hopes of three billion or more people while offering nothing substantive in return is simply not going to happen.

  Nor need it.

  An aggressive global energy and infrastructure refit along the lines outlined above can secure the active support of the voters in the world’s developed democracies, and open the path to green economic growth for all.

  As for the folks in the oil-producing and coal-extracting regions, let’s help them wean themselves from their dependency. As for the owners of the energy industries, well, let me tell you a story about the buggy-whip makers of 1895...

• CO2 limits will harm the economy

  Rob Honeycutt at 10:46 AM on 3 March, 2014

  PanicBusiness (from this previous thread)...

  First, you're repeating a citation of the exact same article you posted before and adding no new content. That is considered sloganeering here at SkS. The fact of the matter is that regulations positive net impact on the economy. Larry Bell is presenting only the cost side of the equation while ignoring the net benefits. You can go to google scholar and read dozens of papers on the economic impacts of environmental regulations and see that there is actually a net positive result.

  You still, also, seem completely oblivious as to what Figueres is saying relative to China. She's merely pointing out that it is far easier for China to take action on climate change. Figueres states,
  “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” [From your own link here.]

  That's not a value judgement on which system she prefers. It's just a point of fact. Because of their political system the can move far faster than we can in the west. I often point out that China is run like the world's largest private corporation, and the Chinese people are their customers.

  If you want to have an open and honest conversation about this, I'm all for it. But you're definitely going to have to drop the dismissive attitude. The second thing you can do is support your claims with actual research rather than links to politically modivated people and groups like Larry Bell and the CEI.

• A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents

  Mal Adapted at 07:41 AM on 13 January, 2013

  CBDunderkson:

  I expect it to be business as usual... except that you'd park your car over an induction charger in the driveway each night rather than periodically going to something called a 'gas station'. Long term there'd also be vast health and economic benefits, but there are too many variables in how those would play out to predict changes on everyday life.

  That's certainly an appealing vision. But as educated people (I mean the participants in this ongoing discussion), surely we all understand that the environmental disasters we confront -- AGW, biodiversity loss, overuse of fresh water, depauperation of the oceans,and on and on -- are costs of the production of economic goods and services, hitherto held external to the prices we pay for them? If the destruction is to be halted, and human society is to become sustainable, the externalities must be internalized. When that's accomplished, prices for all goods and services will rise, for the luxury and leisure we all (on average, at least) enjoy if not for basic necessities. We've been drawing down the world's natural capital on credit, but now we've got to start paying as we go.

  I swear I'm not going Lomborg on you all, but I don't believe the world's poor will allow the price of food, clothing and shelter to soar ever farther out of reach. Either we will pay our share and theirs too (willingly or otherwise), or the liquidation of natural capital will continue. In the long term, we can hope that keeping all production costs internal will drive producers to use resources and energy more efficiently; but eventually a limit will be reached, and efficiency imposes costs of its own in any case. Into the foreseeable future, we will consume less, or pay more. I'm sorry, but anyone thinks business as usual can go on is in denial.

• It's not bad

  anon1234 at 08:56 AM on 20 September, 2012

  Philipe Chantreau, talking past me and scoffing at my claims, without refuting them (or even addressing the evidence I present), does not prove anything. What specific assertion have I made that is “confused” or “conflates different reactions as well as apparent assumptions”. If you don’t tell me what you are referring to, I will not know what it is (nor will any other reader).

  Of course adaptations to higher altitudes are responses to hypoxia of varying degrees (adapting to mild hypoxia provides the benefits that athletes who train at high altitudes exploit). Mild hypoxia would be the result of increased internal Co2 to O2 concentrations (but the Co2 would protect from severe hypoxia to an extent). I have read the Everest study on mitochondrial density, how do you square that with studies like this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0034568770900113

  To quote, “Hearts of domestic cattle from two groups, one born and raised at sea level and the other born and raised at an altitude of 4250 m, were studied to determine whether any mitochondrial adaptations to high altitude could be demonstrated. Direct counts of mitochondrial number revealed a 40 % increase in the high altitude hearts [..]”

  Here is some information on altitude training published by San Diego State University. http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol24/table.htm

  To list some information presented in the link:

  “ALTITUDE USES MORE GLUCOSE THAN SEA-LEVEL
  Brooks, B. A., Roberts, A. C., Butterfield, G. E., Wolfel, E. E., & Reeves, J. T. (1994). Altitude exposure increases reliance on glucose. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(5), Supplement abstract 120.” This implies increased Kreb’s Cycle activity at high altitudes.

  “ALTITUDE DECREASES RELIANCE ON FREE FATTY ACIDS AND INCREASES DEPENDENCY ON BLOOD GLUCOSE
  Brooks, B. A., Roberts, A. C., Butterfield, G. E., Wolfel, E. E., & Reeves, J. T. (1994). Acclimatization to 4,300 m altitude decreases reliance on fat as a substrate and increases dependency on blood glucose. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(5), S21, Supplement abstract 121.” This implies increased Kreb’s Cycle activity at high altitudes.

  The lactate paradox not showing up in every instance does not disprove my claim that adaptation to high altitudes (therefore exposure to lower internal O2 to Co2 ratios, capable of inducing mild hypoxia) increases krebs cycle activity.

  You said, “This treats of O2 mediated vasoregulation: [..]” -I don’t quite see what your point is here, would you mind elaborating a bit?

  You also said, “It also appears that ventilatory response to CO2 is not significantly different among altitude acclimated subjects, although it is slower.” -Well, yea (and what do you mean by “it is slower”?). Why would the ventilatory response differ among people already acclimated to high altitudes? The study you posted did find a difference between high altitude natives and people living at sea level. To quote your study, “The major findings of this study were as follows. First, under conditions of euoxia (PETO2 _ 100 Torr), total ventilatory sensitivity to CO2 in HA natives is around double that of SL natives at SL.”

  So, would you mind elaborating a bit more on your point here?

  You need to be more specific in your criticism for me to be able to address your concerns.

  Dikran Marsupial, I have provided evidence for Co2’s antioxidant effects (in vivo) and Co2’s ability to increase oxygenation of tissues in vivo via the Bohr effect.

  Here are in vivo studies supporting Co2’s role as a fat soluble antioxidant.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7770796
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7581542

  And here are some in vitro studies.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9190222
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139450

  Also consider therapeutic hypercapnia- boosting internal CO2 levels- to avoid lung injury. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/168/11/1383.full

  Interestingly (to quote the above link), “Acidosis, notably hypercapnic acidosis, is protective against organ injury in multiple experimental models”. This might explain the lower mortality rates in people at high altitudes.

  On question (i), adaptation to hypoxia does affect metabolism (see above links), and increasing internal CO2 to O2 ratios will induce this adaptation (via mild hypoxia). High altitudes are one perfect example of this.

  That leaves (ii); I cited the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes, and the fact that they experience lower mortality rates.

  (see the wiki link I posted earlier and http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/6/495.full )

  These at least correlate increased metabolism with lower mortality rates. Do you have any evidence suggesting higher metabolic rates to be harmful? Or which suggest less ATP produced per glucose being beneficial in comparison to more?

  JasonB, you said, “I was under the impression that higher metabolic rates led to more oxidative stress and shorter lifespans” -Oxidative stress is dependent on many environmental factors, luckily Co2 is an antioxidant; supporting oxidative metabolism on the one hand and reducing oxidative damage on the other. Even if that theory is correct, Co2 would be protective.

  Look at the Wikipedia link I posted earlier, and the above link for evidence of reduced mortality rates among those at high altitudes. I will re-post the link I cited earlier regarding the higher metabolic rates of people at high altitudes here: http://jap.physiology.org/content/16/3/431

  You said, “Note that Spaerica was making the very valid point that all else is not equal,” -It is actually a completely invalid and irrelevant strawman that Spaerica built up against me, which you have now started attacking.

  To repeat myself (again), I am not making a judgment on the overall cost-benefit analysis, I am making a specific biological argument, in a specific context. I am only asking for this point to be included in the analysis (just like other ceterus paribus arguments which have already been included).

  The amount of resistance I am encountering when making this point is quite odd for the comments section of a website called skepticalscience.com; the inability to recognize my argument, as I have laid it out, characterizes dogmatism.

  CBDunkerson, See above strawman.

  Spaerica, See above strawman. Also, I am getting tired of reading attacks against my writing style, and accusations of “gish gallop” and various logical fallacies without making any attempt to specify what part of my argument you are actually attacking. My writing style is practically meaningless compared with the content of my argument (which you have consistently ignored) and attacking it borderlines on ad hominem. I will not reply to any more or your posts, unless you actually specify what you are talking about- unless you have something to say about the information I present.

  ..Geez, sorry for the long post. thx

• It's too hard

  Eric (skeptic) at 23:24 PM on 20 March, 2012

  michael sweet, I appreciate your feedback in the other threads on ocean warning and developing economies. The developing economies do not need to build cars nor completely convert their economies from agriculture, but they can move a step up from subsistence agriculture and add considerable robustness to environmental catastrophe. Thailand is a good example of bouncing back after their floods. Industry can also include business process outsourcing that is non-energy-intensive.

  CATO published a well-balanced article http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa659.pdf pointing out some of the drawbacks and benefits to globalization. One drawback is rising wage inequality (that may be a persistent feature of capitalism). The main benefit is economic robustness which helps to tackle present and future problems including problems resulting from warming, especially in developing countries.

• A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate

  guinganbresil at 04:06 AM on 30 December, 2011

  I think there is a fundamental difference in how the left and right look at the relationship between mankind and the Earth.

  Some see the Earth essentially as a gift to mankind - one that deserves stewardship and respect, but is essentially for our benefit. On the other hand, some see humans as interlopers mooching off the Earth - so the Earth should be protected from bad human activity.

  Both viewpoints have their irrational extremes - blatant environmental abuse for petty profit on the one hand, and wholesale abuse of human rights on the other...

  If you must make a judgement call, just compare a two of examples: Exxon Valdez spill (~250,000 sea birds, ~3,000 sea mammals) to the banning of DDT in 1972 (~90,000,000 premature deaths, billions suffering from malaria)...

  I believe this dichotomy in viewpoint underpins the difference in the conservative vs. liberal response to AGW.

  Some see fossil fuels (and nuclear...) as a opportunity to benefit mankind - quite a bit of evidence would be needed to convince them to abandon the use without an attractive alternative. The other viewpoint would easily accept that something that benefits humans must be adverse to the environment... and must be stopped.

• Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy

  skywatcher at 18:49 PM on 5 July, 2011

  #46: "... we know that we are in a wet cycle ..." Any peer-reviewed evidence for that? I would equally say that the risk of large floods has increased due to a warmer atmosphere (as predicted), and so the risk will last as long as the atmosphere is warmer, ie much more than 60 years.

  Frankly in this whole thread you've posted opinions without any supporting evidence, leaning heavily on your own 'experience' to dismiss the benefits of a carbon tax for encouraging a switch to cleaner energy sources. So I'll dismiss your claims with my 'experience'... if a product is cheaper than a competitor's as a result of one being carbon-taxed and the other not, I'll buy that product and the competitor will eventually go out of business. Meanwhile the manufacturer using clean energy will grow at the expense of the dirty manufacturer. Cleaner energy use preference will increase significantly, regardless of overall energy efficiency, for which there is always a uniform motivation. This will also bring clean energy costs down, benefitting everyone, quite apart from the natural process of lowering costs that happens as a technology reaches maturity. Definitely seems a positive process to me, both economically and environmentally.

• CO2 limits will harm the economy

  Eric (skeptic) at 11:34 AM on 15 June, 2011

  DSL, thanks for your thoughtful response (#57). I must point out in response that capital is most useful and grows when it is invested, accumulation of capital for only consumption purposes is not unusual but is useless and counterproductive for that individual. BIll Gates, as one example, is not a mere accumulator of capital, but a shrewd businessman who reinvested nearly all the capital that he had and then ended up with a lot more falling into his lap. But his investment could have gone the other way. I realize that has nothing to do with CC mitigation, but need to point out my alternative view of what capitalism is. Its history has some activities not considered moral today as you point out.

  I probably should not have used the ill-defined term wealth, but pointed out that particular amount of savings beyond immediate needs and long term savings can be spent on environment improvements and CC mitigation if one chooses to. If those savings aren't available they cannot be spent. It may well be that CC mitigation is an urgent need for Haitian farmers, but their worst problems often come from the weaker type of tropical storm that just sits and dumps rain as opposed to the hypothesized stronger (but perhaps fewer) storms. The question of costs is important for them as the rest of us. Better erosion control is vital with or without CC. Their extra money whether from reduced demands for physical labor (thanks to capitalism) or from capitalism itself, helps.

  It is a very valid point that I manage my land according to my best interests. Some of mine are stabilizing the slope (being on an outside curve on the river means constant natural erosion), promoting native plants and wildlife (mild competition with friends who do the same), but also putting in a supply of wood for the winter, converting an area from almost useless fire hazard cedar to hardwood and native understory, and a little bit of gardening/farming. Some of the latter could conflict with the broader environmental good at least in the short run. I could also sell and let the next guy clear cut But I recognize the need for local environmental protection that dovetails with CC mitigation.

  I could probably afford the luxury of an electric car (with my present commute) if it were reasonable and had other benefits (not having to fill it up with gas). I already bought 4 decent sized solar panels in 2004 and have about 300 pounds of lead batteries in the crawl space and that was simply as a hobby. I did a lot of work with south facing windows and black paint including a solar-driven solar heat collector mounted on the foundation. There are probably a few other things I don't remember at the moment. But the point is that all this was possible because I had the extra money to spend on it and would not have been without it.

• Renewable Baseload Energy

  adelady at 17:48 PM on 30 November, 2010

  One cost that gets overlooked is the cost of water. All of the coal powered station that I know of get a very sweet deal on water.

  If all "burn-stuff" power generators had to pay the real cost for the water they use, the relative costs would be a lot more realistic. (And perhaps the miners should pay, and pay fully, for the water they divert, appropriate or pollute.)

  For power stations, some kind of weighted average of industrial, agricultural and domestic prices should be used in combination with a valuation of environmental and fisheries benefits foregone. This of course applies equally to nuclear as it does to coal and other more obvious burning.

  My belief, without having any reports or other backup, is that manufacturers of renewable power equipment pay standard industrial prices for any water they use in their processes. This is yet another invisible subsidy in the comparative costs exercise. Seeing as both the mining and generation processes for fuel based power either exclude water costs entirely or benefit from no, or insufficient, accountability for the water abused, misused or wasted in acquiring and burning the raw materials.

• Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future

  Ned at 21:56 PM on 1 October, 2010

  Way back yesterday, chriscanaris wrote:

  1) CO2 has been rising
  2) Temperatures have been rising
  3) (1) very likely has made a substantial but not exclusive contribution to (2)

  As you know, I'm always grateful to see sceptics agreeing with these points. It's nice to know there is some common ground here. I will try to reciprocate (at least a little!) below.

  continuing...

  4) We're not as confident that temperature rise is unprecedented - ie, we have some doubts about the palaeoclimate proxy record when it is 'spliced' onto the modern record

  I'm pretty confident that this is the warmest it's been in the past few millennia (and that unless we act soon we will exceed the peak warmth of the previous interglacial). But, from your perspective, can you explain why this question of "precedents" is important?

  I can see two possibilities. Some people seem to believe that if one or more previous intervals were as warm as today (for presumably "natural" reasons, ignoring Bill Ruddiman), then that would cast doubt on the anthropogenic origins of modern warming. An alternative reason for focusing on "precedence" is the idea that if societies and ecosystems survived an equally warm period in the past, the impacts of modern warming can't be too serious.

  IMHO there are obvious, serious flaws with the first alternative and more subtle issues with the second. (It's also possible you have some other reason for placing importance on the question of "precedents" that isn't obvious to me...)

  OK, back to chriscanaris:

  5) We don't want to overlook the role of other feedbacks which may be important whether as exacerbating or mitigating factors

  I appreciate the way you worded this. It's important to keep in mind that the range of values for climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C per doubling) is intended to cover the uncertainty on both the high side and the low side, around a best estimate of 3 C. It is frustrating to me that so many sceptics focus exclusively on one half of this range of uncertainty while ignoring the other half. That seems like a dangerous (if all too human) irrational mindset.

  It is very easy to justify a low value for climate sensitivity if one hunts for all possible lines of reasoning that would support a low value while (not necessarily deliberately) avoiding thinking about those that would support a high value. This, to my mind, is a rather common theme in the writings of a great many "sceptics" on this site.

  chriscanaris continues his list:

  6)We're not as confident of catastrophic outcomes even if temperatures and CO2 rises more or less as projected

  This, I think, is your strongest point, at least if you can guarantee that we don't switch over heavily towards burning coal or tar sands when the conventional oil starts to run out. The uncertainty on the question of impacts (economic and environmental) is real. To be perfectly honest, the tendency of many (most?) sceptical commenters to reiterate easily rebutted claims (yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; no, the CO2 rise is not coming from the ocean; no, there is no way that solar irradiance can explain modern warming) lets us supporters of the "mainstream climate science" position off the hook -- we get to provide easy answers, rather than discussing the more murky questions of impacts & consequences.

  I don't think the outcomes of a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario will be uniformly "positive" or "negative", but rather a mix of both depending on your location and your viewpoint. And although I use it myself from time to time, I'm not convinced that the "precautionary principle" argument is a really solid one. In balance, I think the costs of 21st century climate change will be greater than the benefits, but I recognize this is a purely qualitative interpretation on my part.

  Of course, there has to be a limit somewhere. We've burned around 300 GT of carbon since 1750. I agree that the impacts of this are likely mixed. The business-as-usual scenario would see us burning around 2000 GT carbon. If we burned all the reasonable coal reserves available, this would be 5000 GT carbon. I cannot imagine the impacts of the latter scenario being anything short of disastrous.

  Returning to chriscanaris's comments:

  7)Even if our reservations in (4),(5), and (6) prove to be correct, becoming much less dependent on fossil fuel and decarbonising our economies and our emissions is a very good idea anyway for lots of other reasons.

  Thank you for including that. I think it would be really helpful if our society could focus on identifying common grounds for at least some action, and go ahead with those actions while we debate whether concerns about climate change justify further action.

  8)However, we're much more likely succeed at (7) if we avoid a panicky response and scare the proverbial horses whilst triggering the laws of unintended consequences.

  I'll have to remain agnostic on this, I guess. We don't have parallel Earths to experiment on, so I guess we'll never know whether some hypothetical (different) approach to dealing with the energy/environment/climate nexus would have worked better. There is certainly a part of me that would like to believe that we've just handled this all badly and that our failure to take any significant steps on this issue is not a sign of inherent failings in human nature. Who knows?

  Anyway, thank you for your comments, chriscanaris -- as always they are a bit of a breath of fresh air after reading too many frankly silly dispatches from strangely unsceptical "sceptics" here and elsewhere.

• IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests

  Willis Eschenbach at 19:30 PM on 3 July, 2010

  Since you objected to my list of non-peer-reviewed Masters and PhD theses, here's a list of working papers cited by the IPCC. Not peer-reviewed studies, not non peer-reviewed Masters theses, not even finished documents, just working papers:

  Working Group 2, Chapter 1
  Hamilton, J.M., 2003a: Climate and the destination choice of German tourists, Working Paper FNU-15 (revised), Centre for Marine and Climate Research, University of Hamburg, 36 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-9-2.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 2
  Heslop-Thomas, C.,W. Bailey, D. Amarakoon, A. Chen, S. Rawlins, D. Chadee, R. Crosbourne, A. Owino, K. Polson, C. Rhoden, R. Stennett and M. Taylor, 2006: Vulnerability to dengue fever in Jamaica. AIACC Working Paper No. 27, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 40 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

  Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-4.html and
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html

  Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2005: Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
  Pulhin, J., R.J.J. Peras, R.V.O. Cruz, R.D. Lasco, F. Pulhin and M.A. Tapia, 2006: Vulnerability of communities to climate variability and extremes: the Pantabangan-Carranglan watershed in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 44, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 56 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

  Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html and
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 5
  Toulmin, C., 1986: Livestock losses and post-drought rehabilitation in sub-Saharan Africa: policy options and issues. Livestock Policy Unit Working Paper No. 9, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html#5-2-1
  (in table 5.1)
  Working Group 2, Chapter 6
  Barros, V., A. Menéndez, C. Natenzon, R.R. Kokot, J.O. Codignotto, M. Re, P. Bronstein, I. Camilloni and Co-authors, 2006: Vulnerability to floods in the metropolitan region of Buenos Aires under future climate change. Working Paper 26. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC), 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-2.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 7
  Black, R., 2001: Environmental refugees: myth or reality? New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper 34, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 20 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-4-1.html (in box 7.1)

  Working Group 2, Chapter 9
  Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried,W. Dougherty,A. Hanafi, S. Zakieldeen, A. Sanjak, H. Abdel Atti and H.M. Elhassan, 2006: Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. Working Paper 42, AIACC, 44 pp.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html (in the first paragraph, as well as in Table 9.2)

  Ziervogel, G.,A.O. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortés and T. Downing, 2006: Climate variability and change: implications for household food security. AIACC Working Paper No. 20, 25 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/Working Papers/AIACC_WP_20_Ziervogel.pdf.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-6.html#9-6-1
  Working Group 2, Chapter 10
  Batima, P., L. Natsagdorj, P. Gombluudev and B. Erdenetsetseg, 2005a: Observed climate change in Mongolia. AIACC Working Paper, 13, 25 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-references.html

  Relevant paragraphs at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-3.html (in table 10.3) and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-2.html (in table 10.2)
  Working Group 2, Chapter 11
  Packman, D., D. Ponter and T. Tutua-Nathan, 2001: Maori issues. Climate Change Working Paper, New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 18 pp. http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 13
  Nagy, G.J.,M. Bidegain, R.M. Caffera, J.J. Lagomarsino,W. Norbis,A. Ponce and G. Sención, 2006b: Adaptive capacity for responding to climate variability and change in estuarine fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 36, 16 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-3.html

  Nagy, G.J., M. Bidegain, F. Blixen, R.M. Caffera, G. Ferrari, J.J. Lagomarsino, C.H. López,W. Norbis and co-authors, 2006c: Assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change for estuarine waters and coastal fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 22, 44 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-4.html

  Orlove, B.S., S. Joshua and L. Tosteson, 1999: The application of seasonal to interannual climate forecasts based on El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events: lessons from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Peru and Zimbabwe. Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Working Paper 99-3, Institute of International Studies, University of Califórnia, Berkeley, 67 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5.html

  Travasso, M.I., G.O. Magrin, W.E. Baethgen, J.P. Castaño, G.R. Rodriguez, J.L. Pires,A. Gimenez, G. Cunha and M. Fernandes, 2006: Adaptation measures for maize and soybean in south eastern South America. AIACC Working Paper No. 28, 38 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-5-1-2.html

  Wehbe,M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler,M.Vinocur, C. Ávila and C.Marutto, 2006: Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 39, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html
  Working Group 2, Chapter 17
  Lasco, R., R. Cruz, J. Pulhin and F. Pulhin, 2006: Tradeoff analysis of adaptation strategies for natural resources, water resources and local institutions in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 32, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html
  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html (in table 17.1)

  Leary, N., J. and Co-authors, 2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. AIACC Working Paper No. 30, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

  Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-1.html and
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-1.html

  Taylor, M., A. Chen, S. Rawlins, C. Heslop-Thomas, A. Amarakoon,W. Bailey, D. Chadee, S. Huntley, C. Rhoden and R. Stennett, 2006: Adapting to dengue risk – what to do? AIACC Working Paper No. 33, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-3.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 18
  Downing, T.E. and G. Ziervogel, 2005: Food system scenarios: exploring global/local linkages. Working Paper, SEI Poverty and Vulnerability Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 35 pp http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-8.html

  Goklany, I.M., 2000b: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming. Weidenbaum Center Working Paper, PS 158.Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-4-1.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 5
  Riedy, C., 2003: Subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use in Australia. Working paper CR2003/01, Institute for sustainable futures, Sydney,Australia, 39 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-5-3.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 7
  Delmas, M. and A. Terlaak, 2000: Voluntary agreements for the environment: Innovation and transaction costs. CAVA Working Paper 00/02/13 February.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2.html
  Gupta, K., 2002: The urban informal sector and environmental pollution: A theoretical analysis. Working Paper No. 02-006. Center for Environment and Development Economics, University of York, York, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-1-1.html

  Next, a list of newspaper and magazine articles cited by the IPCC:

  Dey, P., 2006: Climate change devastating Latin America frogs. University of Alberta. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7247.

  Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.

  Kesmodel, D., 2002: Low and dry: Drought chokes off Durango rafting business. Rocky Mountain News, 25 June 2002.

  Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999.

  Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2002714404_arctic01main.html]

  Marris, E., 2005: First tests show flood waters high in bacteria and lead. News@Nature, 437, 301-301.

  Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost
  thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm]

  Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina's Cost. Business Week.
  September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050913_8975_db082.htm]

  Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.

  Colombia Trade News, 2006: Illegal crops damage Colombia’s environmental resources. Colombian Government Trade Bureau. http://www.coltrade.org/ about/envt_index.asp#top.

  FAO, 2004b: La participación de las comunidades en la gestión forestal es decisiva para reducir los incendios (Involving local communities to prevent and control forest fires). FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004 /48709/index.html.

  FAO, 2005: Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html

  Environment News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the mercy of climate change. Phnom Penh, 26 November 2002. Accessed 16.05.07: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-02.asp.

  Balint-Kurti, D., 2005: Tin trade fuels Congo War. News24, 07/03/2005. http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Features/0,,2-11-37_1672558,00.html.

  FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/.

  Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139.

  Sparks, T.H., H. Heyen, O. Braslavska and E. Lehikoinen, 1999: Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News, 223, 8.

  Benedick, R., 2001: Striking a new deal on climate change. Science and Technology Online, Fall 2001. http://www.issues.org/18.1/benedick.html

  Schelling, T.C., 2002: What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, May/June COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)6 32. http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-ghsense.pdf

  Schelling, T.C., 1997: The cost of combating global warming, facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, November/December http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-cost.pdf

  Cowan, J., E. Eidinow, Laura Likely, 2000: A scenario-planning process for the new millennium. Deeper News, 9(1).

  The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000.

  Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/07/01/recycling_environmentalism

  Shashank, J., 2004: Energy conservation in the industrial sector: A special report on energy conservation day. New Delhi, Economic Times.

  Nippon Steel, 2002: Advanced technology of Nippon Steel contributes to ULSAB-AVC Program. Nippon Steel News, 295, September 2002.

  Shorrock, T., 2002: Enron’s Asia misadventure. Asia Times 29 January, accessed 02/07/07.

  ISNA, 2004: From wood to coal in an effort to stop deforestation. Inter Services news agency (IPS), Rome, accessed 02/07/07.

  IRIN, 2004: Angola: frustration as oil windfall spending neglects the poor. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, accessed 02/07/07.

  Nuclear News, 2005: WNA report forecasts three scenarios for nuclear’s growth. Nuclear News, November 2005: pp. 60-62, 69.

  Next, a list of press releases cited by the IPCC:

  Working Group 2, Chapter 5
  COPA COGECA, 2003a: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 9
  FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/

  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Working Group2, Chapter 11
  Premier of Victoria, 2006: Ballarat’s future water supplies secured by major Bracks government action plan. Media release, 17 October 2006. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/news_item.asp?id=978. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-2-5.html

  Working Group 2 - Cross Chapter Studies
  COPA COGECA, 2003b: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Reference at p. 848.

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Note: paragraph at p. 846

  Working Group 2, Chapter 13
  World Bank, 2002a: Desarrollo en riesgo debido a la degradación ambiental: Comunicado de prensa (Development at risk from environmental degradation: News release), No. 2002/112/S. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-2.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 4
  Snow, T., White House Press Briefing, 2006: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html# accessed 31 October 2006. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-2-2.html

  World Bank, 2005: An open letter to the Catholic Relief Services and bank information centre in response to the report ‘Chad’s Oil: Miracle or Mirage for the poor?’. News release no: 2005/366/AFR, Washington D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-5-4-2.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 5
  Power System, 2005: Press release 2005.6.27. Development of High Power and High Energy Density Capacitor (in Japanese).

  accessed 30/05/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-3.html

  Here's a list of discussion papers cited by the IPCC. Remember that Pachauri said:

  "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009.

  So here are the non-peer reviewed, not finished documents, not even working papers, but discussion papers cited by the IPCC.

  Working Group 2 Chapter 4
  Banzhaf, S. and J. Boyd, 2005: The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Discussion paper RFF DP 05-22, Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia, 57 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-5.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 5
  Sedjo, R.A. and K.S. Lyon, 1996: Timber supply model 96: a global timber supply model with a pulpwood component. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 96-15. [Accessed 21.03.07: http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-96-15.pdf] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-3-2-2.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 9
  Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change on African cropland. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 8. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 58 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html

  Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006b: Crop selection: adapting to climate change in Africa. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy inAfrica (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 26. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 28 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html

  Seo, S.N. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: Climate change impacts on animal husbandry inAfrica: a Ricardian analysis. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 9, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 42 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 11
  Altman, J., 2000: The economic status of Indigenous Australians. Discussion Paper #193, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, 18 pp. http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00001001/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

  Mulrennan, M., 1992: Coastal management: challenges and changes in the Torres Strait islands. Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, Discussion Paper 5, 40 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

  Working Group 2 Chapter 17
  Christoplos, I, 2006: The Elusive Window of Opportunity for Risk Reduction in Post-Disaster Recovery. Discussion Paper ProVention Consortium Forum 2006 - Strengthening global collaboration in disaster risk reduction, Bangkok, February 2-3, 4 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf
  (in box 17.7 on page 733)

  FAO, 2004: Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin, A situation analysis. Land and Water Discussion Paper 4, FAO, Rome, 160 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf
  (in table 17.1 on page 722)

  Sperling, F. and F. Szekely, 2005: Disaster Risk Management in a Changing Climate. Informal Discussion Paper prepared for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG). Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html

  Working Group 2, Chapter 18
  Newell, R.G. and W.A. Pizer, 2000: Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 99-10-REV. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-3-2.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 7
  PCA, 2002: Common elements among advanced greenhouse gas management programs: A discussion paper. New York, Partnership for Climate Action,

  , accessed 31/05/07.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2-2.html

  Working Group 3, Chapter 9
  Palmer, K. and R. Newell, K. Gillingham, 2004: Retrospective Examination of Demand-side Energy-efficiency Policies, Discussion Papers dp-04-19, Resources for the Future.

  accessed 06/07/07.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-4-1.html

  Wagner, M. and G. Müller-Fürstenberg, 2004: The Carbon Kuznets Curve: A cloudy picture emitted by lousy econometrics? Discussion Paper 04-18. University of Bern, 36 pp.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-2.html

  Working Group 3 Chapter 13
  Assunção, L., and Z.X. Zhang, 2002: Domestic climate policies and the WTO. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Discussion Paper No. 164.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (box 13.7 on page 782)

  Baer, P., J. Harte, B. Haya, A.V. Herzog, J. Holdren, N.E. Hultman, D.M. Kammen, R.B. Norgaard, and L. Raymond, 2000: Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science, 289 (2287.12 Discussion paper 2003-2).http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (in table 13.2, on page 770)

  Beierle, T.C., 2004: The benefits and costs of environmental information disclosure: What do we know about right-to-know? RFF Discussion Paper 03-05, March
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-7.html

  Betz, R. and I. MacGill, 2005: Emissions trading for Australia: Design, transition and linking options. CEEM Discussion Paper, DP_050815. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4-4.html

  Blok, K., G.J.M. Phylipsen, and J.W. Bode, 1997: The Triptych Approach, burden sharing differentiation of CO2 emissions reduction among EU Member States. Discussion paper for the informal workshop for the European Union Ad Hoc Group on Climate, Zeist, the Netherlands, January 16-17, 1997, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 1997 (9740).
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (table 13.2 on page 770)

  Burtraw, D., K. Palmer, A. Paul, R. Bharvirkar, 2001b: The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emissions trading. RFF Discussion Paper 01-30.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

  Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C. Bloyd, 2001a: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the United States from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. RFF Discussion Paper 01-61.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-1.html

  Fischer, C., 2001: Rebating environmental policy revenues: Output-based allocations and tradable performance standards. RFF Discussion Paper, 01-22.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

  Fischer, C., S. Hoffman, and Y. Yoshino, 2002: Multilateral trade agreements and market-based environmental policies. RFF Discussion Paper, May. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (box 13.7 on page 782)

  Fisher, C. and R. Newell, 2004: Environmental and technology policies for climate change and renewable energy, resources for the future. Discussion paper 04-05, April 2004.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-6.html
  and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-2.html

  Newell, R. and N. Wilson, 2005: Technology prizes for Climate Change Mitigation, Resources for the future. Discussion paper 05-33, June, 2005, Washington, D.C.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (table 13.2 on page 772)

  Oates, W.E., 2001: A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism, Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 01-54, November, 2001.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1

  OECD, 1999: Conference on foreign direct investment & environment, The Hague, 28-29 January 1999, BIAC Discussion Paper. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-5.html
  (figure 13.5)

  Pezzey, J.C.V. and M.A. Toman, 2002: The economics of sustainability: A review of journal articles. Discussion Paper 02-03, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-3.html
  (footnote number 3)

  Pizer, W.A. and K. Tamura, 2004: Climate Policy in the U.S. and Japan: A Workshop Summary, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. 04- 22, March, 2004.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1

  Pizer, W.A., 2005a: Climate policy design under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 05-44, Resources for the Future. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

  Stavins, R.N., 2001: Economic analysis of global climate change policy: A primer. Climate Change: Science, Strategies, and Solutions. E. Claussen, V.A. Cochran, and D.P. Davis. Boston. Brill 18 Discussion paper 2003-2: draft ver. 1 August 2003 Publishing.
  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

  Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
  (table 13.2 on page 770)

  The point that you seem to be missing in all of this is that people feel, and with good reason, that they've been sold a bill of goods. For years we've been told that the IPCC only considered peer-reviewed science, that they didn't just, in Pachauri's words, "pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings."

  Now we find out that they are doing exactly that. They are using newspapers, and working papers, and magazine articles, and discussion papers, and press releases, and other non peer-reviewed literature, to try to sell their point of view.

  As a result, people feel betrayed, and they are angry. But when someone points this out, you're all on about how Masters theses are just fine, and the number of claims from WWF isn't all that great, and other fine excuses. If you were savvy, you'd say, "Hey, we oversold it, our bad, won't happen again". But instead you've circled the wagons, and are trying to defend the indefensible.

  This was very apparent in Pachauri's response to the Himalaya glacier fiasco. Rather than say "Yes, it was an error", he immediately denounce it as "voodoo science". Indian scientists, whose work he was dissing, were incensed, and rightly so. The Indian Government was so upset by his comments that they set up their own government body, with the Indian Environment Minister saying:

  “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science."

  But heck, keep up the good work, follow Pachauri's lead. All you are doing is further tarnishing the reputation of the IPCC, and you won't hear me complain about that. It has served and over-served its purpose. It has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. People can look at the length of the lists of working papers and newspaper articles that the IPCC claims are "science" and make up their own minds ...
  

• Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science

  Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:19 PM on 10 May, 2010

  "Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from BUSINESS-as-usual practices."

  "Integrity of Science" - of course, the economics ?

  I'm curious, how many economists are signed in this?

  UNEP:
  "Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) should be used as decision criterion only if there is nothing of moral importance at stake (Randall 2002). Therefore CBA should not be decisive in climate change issues. It should be used as a piece of information among many.
  The idea of calculating an economically optimal (‘efficient’) climate path is misleading. There is no single utility function for mankind over centuries. Moreover, many value-laden problems are implicitly entailed in economic modelling (value of a statistical life, damage function, rate of discount, distribution of benefits and disadvantages, etc.). These variables must rest on ethical judgments and cannot be derived from empirical facts alone.
  Cost-benefit analyses and other economic evaluations often rely upon discounting. Discounting implies the possibility of severe accounting errors in long-term environmental problems (see contributions in Hampicke & Ott 2003). For ethical reasons, it remains highly doubtful whether global climate change falls within the scope in which ‘normal’ discounting should be applied. The debate about the so-called Stern-Report has been a debate about the very low discount rate (0.1%) being used in the report. Such discount rates can only be defended on ETHICAL GROUNDS."

  Mine, and V. Klaus for example, quoted by him, Schmidt’s (unless a Nobel laureate?), in the above text, and: "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science"; raises concerns: perspective - range = up to 100 years - !!! - "Future generations "?!; and over of ideology - "ethical grounds" - used to identify the "business-as-usual practices. "

• Are we too stupid?

  Marcus at 16:38 PM on 7 April, 2010

  GC. if we go nuclear you will *still* raise CO2 emissions. After all, its not like you can just pull uranium out of the ground & chuck it in a reactor-it requires significant amounts of downstream & upstream processing-which in turn requires energy investment (usually from fossil fuel sources). Also, as we have only 100 years worth of economically viable uranium at current levels of use, a major expansion of nuclear power use could see all the readily available uranium consumed before the middle of this century-& the rest depleted by the end of the century. We'll also have mountains of nuclear waste which most countries *still* don't know what to do with.
  On the other hand, most households & businesses waste as much as 30%-50% of their energy through inefficiency. Removing these inefficiencies is the low-hanging fruit in both reducing CO2 emissions & postponing the need for expensive new power stations. Industry, too, often wastes energy in the form of thermal pollution. If they captured it & fed the resulting electricity into the grid, then it would displace electricity generated directly from non-renewable sources.
  Decentralization of our electricity grids could also reduce electricity waste by 10%-15% through the removal of transmission & distribution losses. Also, given that many of the smaller power stations are usually run on "renewable" sources (micro-hydro, co-generation, landfill gas, Solar & Wind), they also will be a good way of directly reducing both CO2 emissions & the generation of other dangerous waste by-products. Of course, its to be hoped that smaller power stations can be better tailored to local demand, instead of running at nearly full capacity 24/7, as most coal & nuclear power stations have to.
  On our roads, we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions by mandating higher fuel efficiency standards, passing laws to increase car-pooling & public transport use during peak times & by shifting long-distance freight onto rail instead of road. Improving traffic management could also significantly reduce CO2 emissions from unnecessary idling of vehicles-as could a switch to a greater number of hybrid & full electric vehicles.
  So you see, GC, that many opportunities exist for significant reductions in CO2-opportunities which will provide numerous economic, social & environmental side-benefits & which do not require a switch to nuclear power. "Unfortunately" taking these measures will hurt the profit margins of Big Coal & Big Oil, which is why they're so desperate to cast doubt on climate change-by any means necessary. Whether you accept it or not, all you're doing here is parroting their claims.

The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)