Climate change has dominated discussions at the three day summit of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial economies which began on Wednesday in Heiligendamm, Germany.
Those section of the G8 Summit Declaration of the 7th June 2007 which relate to flighting climate change include:
40. Humanity today faces the key interlinked challenges of avoiding dangerous climate change and ensuring secure and stable supplies of energy. Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global
economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialised
economies, while avoiding economic distortions.
41. We recognise the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction. Strong economies together with a wide range of policy instruments such as market-based mechanisms, including emissions-trading, tax incentives, and regulatory measures as well as technology cooperation and a shared long-term vision, are key to guide investment decisions, to generate technology commercialisation, to enhance energy security, to promote sustainable development and to slow, stabilize and then significantly cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.
42. We are committed to take strong leadership in combating climate change. We confirm our determination to work among ourselves and with the global community on global solutions that address climate change while supporting growth and economic development. We commit ourselves to implement approaches which optimally combine
effective climate protection with energy security. To this end, we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year. Addressing climate change is a long term issue that will require global participation and a diversity of approaches to take into account differing circumstances.
43. Energy is a fundamental driver of growth and development around the world, and the use of energy has been steadily expanding along with the world’s populations and economies. Our ability to provide secure access to clean, affordable and safe sources of energy to maintain global economic growth complements our desire to protect our environment. Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented
international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies.
48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition, that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major
changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.
49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting
a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us
in this endeavour.
50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global
policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.
51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their
particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development.
52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major
emitters.
53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009.
We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy
consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology.
The full G8 Summit declaration can be found at:
http://www.g-8.de/Content/DE/Artikel/G8Gipfel/Anlage/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng,property=publicationFile.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
We can’t wait any longer to halt global warming. Look at the latest crisis it has caused.
“Droves of cats and kittens are swarming into animal shelters nationwide, and global warming is to blame, according to one pet adoption group.”
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070606_gw_pets.html
My son forgot to call us when he arrived safely at his destination the other day. Why did he forget? Global Warming.
Watch it, Woody. Agent Luke of the Climate Change Thought Police has probably opened a dossier on you.
Editorial: Beware deep-green luddites on climate
June 08, 2007
Technology is the answer to carbon emission reductions
WHEN the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) was announced by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at Vientiane in July 2005, The Australian gave it the front-page coverage it deserved, recognising in our editorial that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, would spawn regional agreements, clearing the ground for one that at last engaged China, India and the US. It would adopt the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly – through the transfer of clean energy technology. Meanwhile, the doom-mongers at The Sydney Morning Herald, who wrote the initiative off as window-dressing, buried the story on page five and did not bother to editorialise on the subject until the following year, when the grouping was archly dismissed as “partners in pollution”.
Almost two years later, the wisdom of our judgement is in even greater evidence. Kyoto has been shown to be bankrupt as a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Numerous countries that ratified the protocol are expected to overshoot their targeted reductions – Canada by 33 per cent, Spain by 41 per cent, Portugal by 37 per cent, Greece by 26 per cent – and the total impact of the Kyoto emission reductions is estimated to be a mere 0.6 per cent lower than they would have been if Kyoto had never been signed at all.
Yet there are still those who cling stubbornly to the Kyoto Protocol as if it were the Holy Grail of the new climate change religion that will deliver us from the evil of carbon emissions. The reality of Kyoto is that it is not about reducing carbon emissions, at which it has been an abysmal failure. It has been a naked attempt by Europeans, who, having chopped down their forests and burned all their fossil fuels, are trying to get the rest of the world to shift to the high cost energy they have been forced to adopt.
The irony is that Australian devotees of Kyoto reject the very technology that has been at the heart of delivering European carbon emissions reductions – nuclear power. The Labor Party has had trouble agreeing even to export uranium, let alone build nuclear reactors in Australia, which is the logical extension both of signing Kyoto and imposing draconian early reduction targets. The Luddite, clean-energy deniers would have us believe that the only way to avert the coming apocalypse is to close down all the power plants, take all the cars off the road, and return to a pre-industrial Arcadia. But we don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment. Although it will cost to develop and implement clean energy technology, it can be absorbed by growing economies such as Australia, China, India and the US. Australia on its own can make no meaningful contribution simply by cutting carbon emissions, since we produce only 1 per cent of them. Where we can punch above our weight is in devising a workable carbon emissions trading scheme that will drive investment into clean energy technology, and in persuading the major emitters to commit to it through groupings such as AP6 and APEC.
Australia has played a key role in developing both groupings because it has been aware for almost two decades that the geostrategic fulcrum of the world was shifting away from Europe towards the Asia-Pacific, yet there was no regional architecture within which Australia could engage the major powers of the region. Prime ministers Hawke, Keating and Howard can all take credit for the part they have played in developing these two groups, which are now poised to play a key role in responding to the greatest challenge facing the planet today. Interestingly, both organisations have a role, because neither includes all the players. AP6 has the big guns – the US, Japan, China, Korea, India and Australia – but partners who may play a critical role for Australia, such as fellow energy superpower Canada, are not involved. Similarly, APEC includes players such as Canada, but not India. By actively pursuing agreements in both forums, Australia can facilitate linking up the two groups for even greater coverage. And by working with like-minded partners such as Canada, Australia is much more likely to engage the US. An APEC framework that engaged members and others to develop their own greenhouse reduction plans with one long-term goal after the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 would be a real achievement. The top-down, legalistic, prescriptive, eurocentric Kyoto model does not address the development aspirations of countries such as China and India or the emissions of highly efficient but massive energy exporters such as Australia and Canada. Only a framework that respects national sovereignty, but recognises diversity and sets a broad objective without being too prescriptive, will succeed.
The Australian editorial.
Whats your point Nevket or are you not trying to make one?
Well Davey, Woody usually makes incisive contributions such as you do. His skanky web site if the usual sepo right-wing bile that relies heavily on sarcasm and smear for the benefit of his cheer squad. But inherently doesn’t solve anything except keeping rednecks red-faced and angry.
NevKet – you should not think that all AGW types are rabidly pro-Kyoto, anti-nuclear, anti-AP6 clean energy.
I don’t have a problem with modern nuclear reactors. But I suspect most Australians do and you won’t convince them.
Kyoto hasn’t worked. Australia and USA not signed. Targets breached. BUT – what it has shown how incredibly difficult it is to get any agreement and stick to it. How vested interests rule in the end. Also shows what happens when you don’t have most people in the tent. But why get too excited – we haven’t signed – so what’s change?
Why do anti-AGW types get so hysterical for something we haven’t signed up to??
And the world is moving to a post-Kyoto “new deal”, whatever that may be.
But “The Australian” newspaper speaks with a forked tongue. It’s Australia’s new “War on Science” daily. So it’s funny why they would even give a fig about AP6 clean energy technology given they run “AGW is all bulldust” columns continually. I mean why bother with any of it ??
The simple reason people are suspicious about AP6 is that it’s totally open ended with no specific promises. Promises to do what?? And many of us simply feel it’s about liquefying coal into oil given the looming spectre of Peak Oil. Which is fine for transport continuity – pity about the CO2 though.
So why would you be even interested in carbon neutral energy technology if CO2 and AGW are not problems. Seems illogical.
So who exactly is clinging to Kyoto as a Holy Grail. Who exactly is suggesting we close down all power plants and take all cars off the road. Wouldn’t be simply an indirect astroturf job would it? Otherwise known as utter bullshit.
In the end probably little will be done about CO2 and so we move on to adaptation concerns. Do your best folks !
Given that China has decided to take the growth route, and not worry about c02, it is now pointless for anybody to consider doing anything at all about co2, unless its via a new technology that businesses choose to invest in for profit reasons that are not associated with a distorted market, created by carbon trading/ taxes. All we will be doing is stuffing ourselves while co2 continues to grow irrespective of what the west does.
Seems to me the debate is now irrelevant.
No China and India, no point in doing anything at all except let the market decide where to invest its money for teh greatest returns.
If you were a legislator Luke, what law or regulation would you create to resolve the situation?
Bear in mind you will have to look out for the voters, or if you have better control the masses.
Rog – we need a serious technological and economic evaluation of near-future clean coal, solar and nuclear. Also how much can we reengineer the domestic grid off base load to distributed systems. Are we locked in stereotyped thinking about energy provision.
Work out how we can make these issues export opportunities, and implement them in Asia.
Give the nation a formal proposal in terms of costs, lifestyle impacts versus risks. Stop compartmentalising the issue. Fess up.
A formal head-on debate with contrarians to shoot out as best we can all the issues. Probably 2 years work.
Given the inertia in the system – issue of storm surge inundation, drought proofing and water supply are also paramount. These are things we can plan for now and not regret. Farmers are already asking for specific planning information. Further develop weather, intra-seasonal, seasonal and inter-annual climate forecasting to make agriculture most risk capable.
New optimised farming systems with a view to the tropics. See GM cotton in the Ord as an example of new farming.
Significant incentives in terms of “how-to kits” and legislation to sink carbon in forestry and also new woodlands which combine a win-win in terms of production, carbon sink and biodiversity.
Get a truly national high speed broadband system to minimise unnecessary travel and ubiquitous use of videotelephony.
So a platform of ideas. Not just one specific rule on CO2 targets. And position ourselves to be able to market intellectual capital in these ideas. As opposed to being importers of carbon neutralising technology.
Luke,
You consistently use ‘right wing’ as a term of abuse. This makes me think you are ‘left wing’. Correct me if you will. Is AGW mainly a political issue for you? Move over, Al Gore.
In your calmer interludes you actually make sense. I agree we need to cut down on profligate travel, and profligate transport of goods – for example plum jam from Czechoslovakia to Australia, where plums happen to grow rather well. Swallow your (left wing?) bile, and we can agree on a few things.
Don’t mistake my attempts at courtesy for ‘smarminess’. Those who know me will confirm that I can be very direct. Yet I believe that gentry try never to be unintentionally rude.
Don’t assume things about me – i.e. don’t try to fit reality to the model (caricature?) you have in your head. One of my grandfathers was an early Trade Unionist, but with surprising descent, back to Rolf the Ganger, Halfdan Bluetooth and Ragnar Hairy Breeks, if you know of them. They were early right wing head kickers and denialists, with a flair for independent thought and direct action. Why, together they chopped down all the forests of Scandinavia, and burnt the wood, so starting the Medieval Warm Period. You might check on Google Scholar, to see if the IPCC know about this.
These are all ideas, concepts, rhetoric – I asked how would you achieve a result?
Well Davey given you do ask – I actually just want to see how Ian, Schiller etc feel to get it both barrels back for “goods received”. Some may disagree but I only respond to the abusive stimuli – I don’t (usually) initiate. But it’s an ethical slippery slope isn’t it. I’m not really that political – sorry.
But how many object to Ian’s insults ? I do find it curious that I get the biffo simply for levelling up the rhetoric.
Alternatives:
Ignore all debate and “position post”. Where you don’t engage. Drop your bombs and away.
Just suffer the ongoing derision for all eternity.
Make terse one-liners and not quote any literature, nor expand a position. Expanding a position is a risk as Ian loves to ridicule. He’s decided a priori that he’s not going to engage any moderate green or government forces. So it’s safer not to say anything under the circumstances isn’t it. You see impressionable green persons get nuked here before they get 100 yards. They just get insulted and don’t come back. Information exchanged = nil. They think we’re pricks. And we think the same.
Allow rampantly false astroturfing to go unchallenged.
or one can ping off. (which I usually think after each thread).
Rog – I don’t have an answer. (1) we don’t have the non b/s technological and economic evaluations on alternatives
(2) the public have not been fullsomely engaged on costs versus risks (IMO)
Obviously others have proposed carbon taxes, mandatory efficiencies in things like buildings and vehicles, and mandatory targets. And carbon trading to develop a market mechanism.
So we need legislation imposed to do these. People won’t like it you know if their energy cost doubles.
I’m not in full possession of the short and longer term implications of these measures. Neither are the public. But I suspect only government and science can make the big calculations required.
But I do know the science tells me that we are already maladapted to climate varaibility. We don’t want to engage an increase in that variability if we can avoid it.
Can we do all this without a big stick or does business only move when prodded? See the automobile industry on safety and pollution issues.
So sorry Rog – Luke doesn’t have a good answer.
“But how many object to Ian’s insults?”
Um….
“If you were a legislator Luke, what law or regulation would you create to resolve the situation?”
Hey Rog, what are your thoughts, what would you do? An innocent question trust me. Ping!
Nevket; the Australian is the last place to find a decent editorial on G8 climate change Declarations. First thing we have to do is recognise the general push to fix something. Unfortunately governments are reluctant to barge in on a new trading system such as we had with Kyoto.
Rog in the previous thread raised the issue of obsolete cars, something that’s been on my mind for ages as most of us would rather pedal our private transports than give them up.
LNG is but one option, hybrids are another however the ACT fleet is now all running on four cylinders. Aus manufacturers don’t make any hey that’s more imports!
This week I asked the question on radio talkback about our latest Government budget intentions regarding public housing electrical devices like hot water cylinders, stoves and space heaters. Yesterday a chap turned up at the door and hastily replaced all my old light globes (18), mostly those in side lamps as I have circular ceiling fluros everywhere else.
Somebody thinks we need to change soon and there is a contract out offering a free lights change over for starters.
Toby: The question is, do we as a society believe in AGW.
For some weeks I have assisted in closing up two local households, one elderly lady the other a young family. Both were full of throwaways like packaging and hardware, everything from the garden hose to kitchen appliances, it seems all were recently made in China. One exception was the vintage dinner ware and cutlery from Europe. Guess what I salvaged.
Note too; I found almost nothing from the USA and hardly an item “Made in Australia”
Luke: Consumerism is the enemy at this point, not CO2. A lot more ships will blow up on our beaches before it is over.
Cheers.
Gavin
Actually Gavin, i think since we will not find a definitive answer either way for a while yet the question is not do we believe in AGW, courtesy of China the answer is irrelevant.
“Consumerism is the enemy at this point, not CO2.” Most of the world still desires growth…..so consumerism is not going away…hence China and its decisions and the third world will continue to make that choice….making anything we do completely irrelevant.
However your question actually answers what I believe underlies the push to convince us all we are destroying the planet with our AGW. I dont believe it, but I do believe we should use our resources more efficiently and sustainably. And I am also in favour of clean energy….but not until it is cost competitive….and it will be, without the need for our current fossil fuel use to be reduced by forcing the price of energy up. Technology will do it with the right incentives from government, and with the lure of big profits which will be inevitable once somebody creates alternatives that are viable.
Hi lads, I just dropped in to check if there cd possibly be ANY delusionists left. Been readin’ thim reports? I told youse all yonks ago – it’s a done deal, so just figure out how to make money from it. Grow yr sandlenuts & whatnots. It’s not a matter of ‘if’, it’s a question of who’ll be the winners & losers. Problem with the company on this blog? too many losers
(directed only at the boys)
Consumerism stems from, and feeds, a culture of strong individualism (insecurity, hence marketing appeals to fears – usually inadequacy)
toby you ASSUME that growth = linear throughput of resources and that the current model of production and distrubition won’t change. Economic signals (carbon economy) can bring about such structural change very easily and quite quickly. We need development, not growth. ‘Growth’ is yet another a fear-based metaphor from the boys club hahaha. Afraid you’ll be emasculated by development, or by lack of consumption. These attitudes are exactly why Aust is always a laggard. Will we still be saying ‘waht climate change?” after other economies are powering ahead with their social changes & techno fixes? (I won’t mention 3rd world poverty suffering under AGW cos I know how it angers yo all battlers)
Toby – you like to use the words “destroy the planet”.
The above declaration (did anyone force Bush to sign?) restates the UN as the appropriate instrument.
Now after all the ranting and raving done by the contrarian and denialists we’re back at the UN. Galling for you dudes hey?
You should formally read the IPCC material and decide what’s likely. Or at least what’s likely on a risk management basis.
A “destroyed” planet is overly emotive.
For Australia you would put more money into planning for storm surge on the developed Queensland coast. Why – greater inundation from possibly more intense cyclones when they cross the coast. Cost of implementing this now as a town planning measure ain’t that high. Increase the design strength of new buildings – a few thousand per building.
Given the prospect of a warmer and drier Australia anything that improves water efficiency and water security is surely a good thing. After SE Qlders if they wish a few more dams had been built 10 years ago?
If I were a grazing business I’d be looking to diversify my holdings much more spatially; how to get much more land area; and work out how to get more off-farm income; and/or get into global agricultural interests.
Many Australian cities don’t have heatwave response plans that coordinate services in the event.
So there are some sensible adaptation things we can start to work towards.
Toby: I should have responded before Pinxi but important chores had to be completed such as sourcing alternative w/e breads and other luxuries like carrot cake had to be completed.
IMHO you missed my main point entirely, consumerism drives our present dilemma and that includes recovering today from a high energy Pacific storm in the Tasman. I expect people in the sceptic’s camp don’t understand fluid dynamics, laminar flows, rough surfaces, interrupts etc well enough though to see the connections.
The smaller of the two house lots mentioned above had three large oil column heaters each with 2400 watts capacity. I now have five of the damn things. All plugged in at once would trip my circuit breakers. Vulcan and Dimplex are familiar names downunder. At altitudes around 600m I’m sure someone else can find a use for them again. Do I pass them on to the next unsuspecting customer given they will probably be running on coal power?
In today’s Times is a pathetic photo of Chinese workers released from months of slavery at a brick works. A market chap up the street sends his son to that place to source cheap shoes for his new shop. When Vulcan and Dimplex go there too how can I avoid their shoddy imported stuff? I can spot a tool made in prison from yards away. Only by recycling do I have a chance.
There is another argument that no one is tackling. In the rush to consume all resources at once we miss the point of asset hoarding. From experience, shareholders can resist immediate resource exploitation if it suits them. Stuff left in the ground can grow in value.
There was a time when I was caught up in negotiations to save a workforce and several townships. Idle works were a likely excuse to close mines till the troublemakers disappeared. A tip off developed into a new strategy for all folks concerned. Even the manager’s head was on the block. Who do these Johnny come lately traders think they are?
Fossicking for riches remains in my blood Toby and there are many avenues to personal security.
Luke: Sensible adaptation requires we move away from pure policy development, such as we get within political parties and governments, that which merely copes with election strategies. Then we can see what a D9 can really do for a wider population.
Engineers must be in charge. Civilisation requires dams and roads weather we like it or not. Although I think high rise is for the birds it seems a majority want to keep all development going that way. That means more collective schemes for energy generation, water storage, waste recycling etc. Modifying demand within this framework is another project for engineers rather than politicians or their aids. Changing a few light bulbs is hardly the answer. Fifty percent greenhouse reductions won’t come from lighting.
In one sense I’m with Paul Keating, Labor has no chance without a lot of practical people on side.
As economists gape at the prospect of an even harsher set of targets than Kyoto, I say it’s essential to keep workers and small business on side. Howard knows that and he’s been pinching resource based votes around the countryside in places like Tasmania and WA it seems for ages. Swanning round the edges won’t do either.
Luke,
That was a well reasoned answer. I think this blog has developed, on the climate debate, into something like the Gaza strip. I know that Rog and Ian play rough sometimes. Give it back by all means. But don’t attack anyone who happens to agree with them on any point. They have never attacked me, so I see no reason to attack them. On some points I agree with them, others not. I try to remain courteous, not because I am a ‘good’ person, but because it is more fruitful.
Perhaps one of the reasons (among many) that Gaza, and the Middle East in general, are in a pickle, is an old Arab saying.
The friend of my friend is my friend.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
While this may point out a home truth about the baser aspects of human nature, it promotes paranoia, and ignores the higher feelings, such as warmth and co-operation. If we follow suit on this blog, we will be in a similar pickle.
Instead of splashing vitriol indiscriminately on those you suspect (perhaps falsely) of being friends of your enemy, stick to sweet reason. Here endeth the lesson. Any vitriol in return, and I shall dub you ibn kelb. Tiyib?
P.S. Arabs can be very warm and hospitable, despite aridity and high temperatures. Within certain limits, climate is not human destiny. There are merits in the simplicity of the desert. I am preparing my tent and camels. Fe-hem-ti-nee?
Davey – a simple misunderstanding. We shall never speak of it again.
Pinxi refers to “other economies (that) are powering ahead with their social changes “& techno fixes?” but fails to mention any – is that the more true definition of denial?
Luke actually had some good ideas. Hooray!
Thing is, managing CO2 is not their best justification. Unless, of course, you want a neo-Marxist “planned environment,” in which case it’s all the justification they need.
Luke,this made me laugh-
“I actually just want to see how Ian, Schiller etc feel to get it both barrels back for “goods received”. Some may disagree but I only respond to the abusive stimuli ”
As someone who has received enough smears and insults from you to make several Phil Done length posts, simply for being on the opposite side of the argument, put me down as disagreeing with your statement.
The blog just wouldn’t be the same without you.
“Pinxi refers to “other economies (that) are powering ahead with their social changes “& techno fixes?” but fails to mention any – is that the more true definition of denial?”
I’m still waiting for your opinions Rog. You seem to have your own ideas and have asked Luke’s for his.
“Pinxi refers to “other economies (that) are powering ahead with their social changes “& techno fixes?” but fails to mention any – is that the more true definition of denial?”
I’m still waiting for your opinions Rog. You seem to have your own ideas and have asked Luke for his.
CONcensus. yeah right. Even Economists are starting to see the Scam. has its funny side.
If only people would forget the bullsh.t sideshow of voodoo science and realise that politics is the main driver of the scam read this first http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf
check out the language, the ideas, then transpose them over the AGW campiagn.
GETTING GREENER AND GREENER
by Bill Bonner
“The sun became as dark as black cloth, and the moon became as red as blood. Then the stars of the sky fell to the earth like green figs falling from trees shaken by mighty winds
“The first angel blew his trumpet. Hail and fire, mixed with blood, came pouring down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees, and every blade of green grass.
“Then the second angel blew his trumpet. Something that looked like a huge mountain on fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea was turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
“Then the third angel blew his trumpet. A large star, burning like a torch, dropped from the sky and fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water…A third of the water turned bitter, and many people died from drinking the water, because it had turned bitter.”
– The Book of Revelations
A man who doubts the global warming hypothesis is asking for trouble. He might just as well question the virgin birth in St. Peter’s or praise a sirloin steak in Benares. He is sure to be damned by everyone.
The whole earth is going green. Every newspaper tells us so. And anyone who stands in the way of this great trend will be treated like a holocaust denier – that is, like a wicked kook.
Communism, famine, plague, the Huns – all the old enemies are in retreat. Now, climate change and terrorism are the threats du jour. All a good citizen has to do is pick one…or both. Then, he can be properly lined up and enrolled in the crusade – cajoled, connived and conscripted into fighting a battle in which he is almost sure to be the loser.
Climate change got off on the wrong foot in 1974, when TIME magazine’s cover pronounced the coming of “Another Ice Age,” somewhat prematurely, it turned out. Now, the same TIME magazine is warning us that the old globe is on the verge of burning up, but no one giggles.
Instead, the media and the activists march along with the serene confidence of a religious cult, convinced that the world is in imminent danger and only they can save it. Politicians, corporate do-gooders, and investors are not far behind…each hoping to get something out of the whole things. And bringing up the rear guard are the yeomen soldiers…the poor grunts who will go along with anything, so long as it’s sufficiently idiotic.
Our beat here at The Daily Reckoning is, of course, money…not politics. But there are billions of dollars at stake in global warming…in subsidies, tax incentives, contracts, taxes, carbon credits, the whole shebang. Besides, like any great public spectacle, global warming has its comedic dividends as well as its financial returns.
Why are rising temperatures a threat, anyway? Practically everyone we know welcomes warm weather…and looks forward to the mosquito months more than a white Christmas. You’d think a few more days of sunny skies and outdoor barbecues would be to their liking.
Today, in Paris, we saw several groups of American tourists – dressed for summer, with their shorts and flip-flops. How they must wish Europe were more like Florida and not gray and chilly.
Rising temperatures would be good for tourism, and for more practical reasons too. Growing seasons would be longer. The well-fed complainers have fingered carbon dioxide as the culprit, but we know that plants are fond of CO2. Longer growing seasons plus higher levels of CO2 boost crop yields, say the experts. And that helps keep people from starving.
Nonetheless, for reasons never fully explained to us, global warming is viewed not as a boon to humanity but as the dawn of its doomsday.
Mr. Ban Ki Moon, as we mentioned earlier this week, is both the current Secretary General of the United Nations and a man whose feet seem to have left Mother Earth. Writing in the IHT, the U.N. man asserts, “the science is clear. The earth’s warming is unequivocal; we humans are its principle cause.” We are always impressed with people like Mr. Moon. As a scholar of climate change, we suspect his credentials are as good as ours, which is to say – he has no idea what he is talking about. Most people would hedge their bets…roll meal around in their mouths…mutter under their breath…on one hand this, on the other that. But Mr. Moon comes down, unequivocally, like a hammer on an egg, with a bold, powerful lie.
The science is anything but clear. Even some of the world’s greatest scientists are scratching their heads. The idea of global warming rests on three major things: A series of observations – melting ice, rising temperatures in certain places; a guess about how the earth’s climate works – the so-called greenhouse hypothesis; and a proof, of sorts, based on some further observations that suggest that as CO2 levels have risen over the last century or so, temperatures have, as well. The hypothesis further supposes that higher CO2 levels are caused by humans.
But a quick reading of the literature yields more questions than proof. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have apparently risen 21% in the last century. But, during the Depression of the 1930s, when human CO2 emissions dropped 30%, CO2 in the atmosphere continued to rise. Maybe human activity really doesn’t contribute that much to global CO2 levels. Even during the Eocene era, there was three to four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere, and that was 20 million years before the first SUV was built.
One of the great scientists of our time, Freeman Dyson, concludes:
“Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors.”
Yet, those very same climate models are now read by many as passing Biblical judgment on the entire planet. “The Big Thaw,” proclaims the cover of this month’s National Geographic. The cover shows a photo of a polar bear on a melting iceberg. The reader thinks the poor animal is doomed…and guesses that he must be doomed too.
But no problem is so pressing and so monumental that heads of state can’t get together and turn it into a carnival sideshow. Today’s International Herald Tribune carries a photo of George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel sitting together, apparently enjoying a lighthearted moment. The headline tells us that they are getting close to solving the problem; the American president has signed on to “consider” cutting carbon-dioxide emissions.
This is surely a historic moment. Future historians will look back and label it a turning point. For now, the chief of the world’s chief carbon dioxide-emitting tribe, has taken the first step towards saving the planet from the evil of warmer weather. The world still has a chance, dear reader.
Meanwhile, at the grass-roots level, the fight against carbon dioxide takes on an absurdity of its own. A group was formed recently to campaign against airline traffic, especially on short-hauls, on the theory that airplanes use too much fossil fuel and thus leave big “carbon footprints” all over the skies. The activists made one good decision, deciding to call themselves “Plane Stupid.” From there on, things went into a tailspin.
To draw attention to their cause, the group decided to occupy the London headquarters of EasyJet. They invaded the building, hung out a banner, and locked arms around it so that neither customers nor employees could enter. At that point, someone should have pointed out to the saps that EasyJet’s headquarters were in Luton, not London. The world-improvers had targeted the headquarters of EasyGroup, which has nothing to do with air travel.
Is global warming worth worrying about? What do we know? But, we wouldn’t be so suspicious if there weren’t so many billions of dollars at stake. Not that we doubt the sincerity of Al Gore or the other earth savers; in fact, we don’t know how the old planet survived so long without them. But pile up so much bread in one place and it is bound to attract rats.
The most likely remedy is a new tax on carbon-based fuels, designed to raise prices and discourage users. Who will collect the money? Politicians. Who will they redistribute it to? The needy and sick? No, they will tell you that the money will go into wind, sun and sea energy…into hydrogen and hydroelectric. But neither wind nor water makes campaign contributions.
No, dear reader, the high-minded money will pass through the usual low, greasy palms – cronies and contractors, oil companies, honey-tongued lobbyists, fleet-footed hustlers, and private equity investors. Gradually and inevitably, the Holy Cause for which the tax was imposed will be as forgotten as the Bill of Rights and the loot will make its way into the customary lost causes and holes in the ground, most prominently at the Pentagon – the biggest gas guzzler this side of Hell.
Regards,
Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
Luke,
Yer a reel gent. Are you descended from Ragnar Hairybreeks too?
Interesting isn’t it. AGW perceived to get in the way of big investment, big business. So pour on the ridicule, bit o’ UN bashing, say voodoo, scam and con a few times, run the Time magazine stuff and Club or Rome, mention more tax, talk up a scandal.
Phew that will keep the wolves from the door.
That should convince them all.
Yep we all believed that.
Pity the global atmosphere doesn’t recognise the global economic system. Sorry it ain’t in the physics.
Wonder how Bill is changing his personal investment portfolio?
Nevket: have a good look at what Bill spews before bothering us cause it sure isn’t science.
Take that bit about EasyJet and EasyGroup and see what the mainstream media says for starters hey.
for the keen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyGroup
So now it becomes obvious why modern motor cars now have ‘climate control’ rather than air conditioning. Much better chance to make large fleet sales to politicians and public servants whose ultimate dream is to control the world’s climate; (the one thing they have not been able to control)!
Well, now Angela’s come out and said it at the G8; hold temp increases to 2 deg.C. Wow..
Now the G8 can send off an email to “Hughie” and say ‘Listen mate, we’re holding the increase to 2 deg. C; got it’ !!
Sid
if it’s our CO2 that’s causing the increase, which the science says it is, then it’s in our power to control it. If it was Milankovich cycles or the sun, then it’s out of our hands, but it’s not them.
SJT,
Don’t forget the undersea volcanoes and lava flows. Probably some around the Antarctic Peninsular. What’s your bet on when Heard Island, or Erebus will next blow its top? Perhaps you can model the probabilities with a Poisson (Gamma, Weibull?) distribution. How about Krakatoa? How much CO2 do major volcanoes emit? How does this compare with emissions from power stations, or vehicles?
SJT, “if it’s our CO2”. It is really a big IF. The science may well say it is, but the AGW Science has a vested interest in promoting the Cause. There are a great and growing number of climate scientists and experts world wide who disagree with this AGW theory.
Davey, I agree wit you on the influence of underwater volcanos, as well as those above the sea.
When Mt.St.Helens went off 25 years ago, U S experts assessed that it put as much CO2 and other greenhouse nasties into the atmosphere in six days as would take the entire world’s industries to do in 600 years. That was just one major eruption. One wonders what Krakatoa put out !!
For heavens sake – what a load of cobblers. It would take you a few minutes of research to find out volcanic influences are small compared to human. The CO2 isotope fingerprint has fossil fuel origin all over it. If Mt St Helens put out 600 years of CO2 where’s the huge 600 year blip/dicontinuity in the CO2 growth curve. There isn’t any – all the CO2 measuring stations show a steady rise with a annual biospheric wiggle.
So all in all utter rot. It has nothing do with “a Cause” – it’s mere facts versus utter rubbish.
A growing number of serious practising climate scientists who disagree – what – one scientist has gone to two or three. ROTFL.
As for volcanoes off the Antarctic Peninsula – the signature of the vent is barely detectable on a thermal probe survey.
What a load of cobblers.
Everyone knows that global warming drives an increase in CO2 and not the other way around. That’s been known for years.
Of course, if you’re a Natural Warming denier, you gotta defend your faith. Lying in defense of your faith is an important part of the AGW doctrine.
Luke (and anyone else),
There is a paper online by Bruce Leybourne (1999), a geophysicist. He discusses a potential link between El Nino and Plate Theory. Cautious, but interesting (try surge+plate+leybourne in Google Scholar). He has another paper on El Nino and tectonics in OCEANS, 2001.MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition. My understanding (admittedly limited) of this work is that not only do plates migrate around the Earth’s surface, but there are rotations and undulations in those plates due to vortices in the magma beneath (Surge Tectonics?). These undulations may cause earthquakes, eruptions, upwellings, and associated changes in ocean, atmosphere, and climate. Your opinion?
And Davey I have no problem with speculation on El Nino and those sort of possibilities – but I still would suggest it’s speculative stuff.
And Schiller your mechanism for “natural” global warming that explains the current warming is . .. sound of white noise radio static .. .. . bzzzz shshshshsshhh
In some respects Schiller is right though – more CO2 begets more biospheric CO2 which causes more warming. One of the known unknowns in magnitude.
Luke,
Have you actually read Bruce Leybourne’s paper? And some of his references? It’s a bit more than mere speculation. I would say hypothesis based on some heavy-duty science.
I saw somewhere that there are actually two (as yet un-named) volcanoes under the Antarctic ice. Also the sea around South Georgia got surprisingly warm a few decades ago. Sewage outlet from army barracks, with Argentinian soldiers eating spicy sausage?
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5023002/ for a newly discovered (2003) undersea volcano in Antarctica. Recent lava flow and signs of geothermal heating of seawater.
Davey we discussed the newly discovered volcano in the Antarctica Sound in October 2006. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001698.html
The volcano is near the tip of the Peninsula not near the ice shelves.
If you read up they have to able to determine “slight” temperature anomalies near the dome. “Slight”.
Interestingly with no active volcano and a good proxy for the Southern Ocean temperature conditions – Macquarie Island is up up up.
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/nnn/RMSconf.ppt#338,28,Macquarie Island & surrounding SSTs
A few undersea burbles don’t give you global warming. IMO of course.
Davey – that exact paper – not sure from your search string. However why El Ninos follow a seasonal pattern. You also have the westerly wind burst and delayed oscillator theories. My further objection is the speed at which Los Ninos develop. And how do you also explain La Nina ?
Has Leybourne progressed beyond the theoretical?
Luke,
Checking back, I see you are correct. The antarctic volcano (discovered 2004) was discussed in October 2006, but I was in Japan, sweltering in Osaka humidity, and viewing the brown smog from the top of Osaka Castle. On the same thread, Rog predicted the drought would be ‘decisively broken by drenching rains before the next federal election’, and you agreed. Spot on. So do you agree that ENSO is responsible for the repeated droughts and floods of eastern Australian history? And what causes El Nino? I think the geophysicists and vulcanologists are on to something, Louis Hissink notwithstanding. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, in the belief that it is a right wing conspiracy. As a born-again greenie, I think the antarctic (and other volcanic areas such as Indonesia) may prove to be the keys to many climate puzzles.
P.S. Sid, do you have a reference to your comment on CO2 emitted by Mt. St. Helen? It sounds surprising to me, but I’m open to sound information.
P.P.S. Luke, I don’t know where Bruce Leybourne stands right now. Can we rely on your Advanced Google Scholarship to find out? No cheating now …
El Nino explains about half the rainfall variation in eastern Australia. But there are other drought causes in non-ENSO “neutral years” e.g. one example being latitude of the high pressure belts. But yep ENSO is a big deal. And so is the IPO in enhancing or decreasing ENSO effects.
Someone once said you could predict the fortunes of the Australian economy on the value of the American Dollar and the SOI (Southern Oscillation Index – a measure of ENSO).
Of course you could postulate that El Nino might have a number of mechanisms?? Certainly the climatologists do look for westerley wind bursts at the right time of year for event initiation. There’s also a fair bit of work involving volcanoes and El Nino but on atmospheric aerosol cooling.
I couldn’t find any great progress by Leybourne on Google Scholar since 2001.
IMO volcanoes are edge embroidery on the climate fabric but not the main garment.
Davey – some people say we should put much more effort into seasonal forecasting than climate change – of course learning to live with climate variation is a good adaptation to climate change.
Go on – ask the next question – will AGW affect El Nino frequency.
Luke,
I have done a swift Google. Bruce Leybourne has papers in 1996,1997,1998,1999,2000 and 2001. There is an extensive online update (30 pages) on recent advances in tectonics by N.C. Smoot. Also see http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/NCGT98_Milankovitch.pdf
We all get carried away with anomalies and statistics – don’t we…?
Consider the SST “anomaly” map:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
And compare it to the SST “temperature” map:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
Many of the “anomalies” are just not evidenced in the “temperature” graph. What really is happening is that the “anomalous” hot and cold spots are really anomalies only because sombody drew a line in the sand and defined an average teperature for that spot.
The area around the Galapagos is where the (deep sea) Humboldt Current upwells.
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/images/maps/ocean_currents.jpg
Just as the Gulf Stream is naturally warmer than the surrounding SSTs, the Humboldt Current upwelling is naturally colder than the surrounding SSTs. So one can argue that what is evidenced right now, i.e. a cold pool around the Galapagos is “normal” and there really should not be a cold “anomaly”.
The Humboldt can cause a cold upwelling, but there is however no explanation of how a warm sub-surface pool can eventuate. There is no known mechanism that will drive massive amounts of warm water down many 100’s of meters below the surface. Note: there typically are no deep benthic temperature measurements below a couple of hundred meters – so any “anomalous” warm water (see the rise of warm water in this example of the 1998 El Nino http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/en97/en97.html ) may well be much deeper. So I’m with Davey on this one… As I said in my January 29, 2007 10:21 PM post here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001856.html
the tectonic / undersea volcanic origin of El Nino is not to be discounted – it’s one of those “we just don’t know” areas.
cheers
Arnost
Thanks Arnost,
Although not an expert in the field, the recent advances in tectonics/climate seem very important to me. It’s one of those ‘big ideas’ where the penny takes a while to drop with the news media, politicians, and even some in the scientific community. Hypothesis only so far, but a viable hypothesis, backed by deep thinking. It may, of course, be resisted, and ridiculed, by those who see it as a potential cause of an RFD (Research Funding Drought) in their area. RFDs can be caused by NILF (New Idea Leap Frogging).