THE big climate change conference in Poznan, Poland, ended yesterday with a recognition that the United Nations was “softening its tone” and acknowledging that the meeting would not come to final decisions on any major issues on “fighting climate change”.
Perhaps now is the time to move away from the idea that the solution to “fighting climate change” lies with a cap on emissions – an idea that has been pushed so hard by the United Nations.
Perhaps now is the time to consider alternatives?
On Thursday the ‘Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change’ launched a report* by London-based economist Julian Morris imploring governments to recognise that instead of capping emissions they should be looking to adapt to climate change and also provide incentives to develop lower-carbon technologies.
At the launch of the report, Professor Morris said, “A cap on emissions of carbon would do little to protect humanity against the threat of climate change but would drastically increase the threat of global economic catastrophe… to agree to cap carbon emissions in the near term would be economic lunacy… slowing economic growth and harming the ability of the poor to address the real problems they face every day, such as diseases, water scarcity and inadequate nutrition.”
Prof. Morris pointed out that only a few European governments are now pushing strongly for a new global cap and they are doing so because their own policies are causing economic pain.
Economist Nonoy Oplas, echoing Professor Morris’ plea, wrote yesterday: “It is true that there is climate change. The same way that people change, cars and mobile phones change, sports and culture change, cities and communities change, the world and its geography change. Sunspots and solar rays change, expansion or contraction of the universe change, and earthquake belts change. So do climate change. And there are dozens of different factors that contribute to climate change, not just humanity’s economic activities. Instead of planning how to “stop” climate change, humanity’s energy and efforts would be better diverted to discussing how to adapt to climate change.”
************
*‘Which Policy to Address Climate Change?’ by Julian Morris, was published on Thursday, 11 December 2009, by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change ( www.csccc.info )
The report is available at http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_38.pdf
Julian Morris is a Visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham (www.buckingham.ac.uk) and Director of International Policy Network, a think tank in London (www.policynetwork.net)
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Perhaps now is the time to consider alternatives?”
that’s what Bjorn Lomborg was infering in his recent address.
http://reason.tv/video/show/621.html
“It is as if a conference were being held in 1908 on global transport for the 20th century without taking into account the work of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Nobody imagined that their rickety plane would transform the world. But it did.It is as if a conference were being held in 1908 on global transport for the 20th century without taking into account the work of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Nobody imagined that their rickety plane would transform the world. But it did.”
I enjoyed that description of Poznan in the Australian on 9/12/08. Sounds like a possible solution. Well worth a read.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24770495-7583,00.html
Sorry about repeating myself.
spangled drongo surely you have given the wrong link? That’s about using algae to produce biofuel.
Heard a report on ABC radio citing Poznan as a success!
Jennifer,
“……, was published on Thursday, 11 December 2009, by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change”
Typo. Probably should read December 2008.
Please feel free to delete comment afterwards.
Janama references Bjorn Lomborg.
This is a very interesting talk. But Lomborg certainly is much more convinced than I am that “global warming is real”. I would love to know what he bases that on, and how he answers the questions about current temperatures and projected future temperatures.
Lomborg is a “lefty” and hence is constrained by the litany for what he an state, or not, publicly.
While having read his first book from cover to cover, (and lefty acquaintances reckoned it was neocon propaganda) I don’t agree that humans can affect the thermal state of the earth.
If we could I would have to rethink my impressions of Darth Vader and the Sith.
Sigh, another error – “for what he can state….”
DHMO,
The bit about Poznan is right at the end. And wadda ya know? Apparrently the 20/20/20 is sort of agreed to.
But would that scum of the earth work?
Could we be fuel independent with a 500,000 ha algae lake?
Previous efforts at controlling CO2 did nothing to the trendline – it continues to march on at a slightly exponential rate just like it has for decades now.
Steve Schapel – yes I agree. His point seems to be that regardless of whether AGW is true or not, he accepts we’ve warmed, what they are suggesting as the solution is flawed anyway and the whole problem (if there is a problem) could be approached differently.
Janama: Yes, to accept that we’ve warmed is one thing. To state confidently and repeatedly that we will continue to warm, and that Earth will be problematically warmer in 2050 than it is now, is unwarranted as far as I know.
Louis: He is very clear in this talk that reducing CO2 emissions will have a negligible effect on climate. So, even though he doesn’t explicitly state it, the implication is that he is not an AGW true believer. And yet he beleives we will continue to see warming… based on what?
I really like a lot of what Lomborg says, and he is clearly correct on many aspects of his analysis. But there seems to be a bit of a logical disconnect in there somewhere.
Steve I think that Lomborg’s point about believing AGW just strengthens the sceptics case when properly understood.
We can then say that Lomborg ( a prominent articulate believer) puts a very good case for adaptation compared to a cure that won’t work costing many trillions of wasted dollars.
His examples are very humurous and clever, the polar bear example is a beauty.
Btw Lomborg’s point about easily making cities cooler by up to 14 degrees F (?) takes a bit of believing. He states that using lighter colours, more trees and more water features is the answer, so is there anyone out there who has experience in the town planning field?
Neville, I confess that I am not all that familiar with Lomborg in other contexts. I was not sure whether he “believes in AGW”. He believes GW is real, but the ‘A’ bit isn’t clear. He says that Kyoto scale GHG reductions would make a miniscule difference to climate. Well doesn’t that imply that GHG increases have a miniscule affect on climate? That’s my understanding. So therefore, if Lomborg is stating that GHG emissions are not significant to climate change, then I understand that he does not support the AGW idea. So therefore, if he still thinks the globe will continue to warm, and it’s not GHGs, then what will cause it? I don’t think I am just being pedantic here… to me it’s a significant point in interpreting what he is on about, and what else in what he says we have to be suspicious of.
Steve,
I think Lomborg might be thinking of the increased urbanisation that will occur once India and China reach our levels of industrialisation. Most of the observed rise in surface temperature can be atrtributed to UHI effects.
I’ll tell the frogs in the wetlands they had better plan for adaptation by building some new water features, and painting the swamp in lighter colours.
SJT now talks to frogs – weirder and weirder things become.
Do you want to tell them? If we are going to go down the adaptation route, it’s no use just as homo sapiens doing it. The rest of the biological world is going to have to adapt too. Have we let them know what deal we are cooking up?
Steve look at the video again, in the first 5 mins Lomborg says ” GW is real and it’s Man made”
“it’s wrong to say it’s natural”, ” yes temps will rise”, so he does believe in AGW, definitely.
I think he’s wrong but my point is he still believes in adaptation because he knows that reducing co2 etc is a stupid mugs game because it won’t work and is far too costly.
Tomorrow if a new battery cell is invented that allows us to easily drive around in electric cars then let’s adapt and ditto with solar cells to water to hydrogen to electricity at home, whatever who knows what the immediate future holds.
New technology could easily change the future in a generation anyway.
SJT
As life has been adapting for millennia, is adapting now, and will do so in the future, without any prior need for our advice, your suggestion is somewhat bizarre.
Whoops, but not so bizarre in the computerized virtual reality world you live in, I suppose. Is it common place in your world for Dr Doolittle to speak to the animals? Coded in R? or C++, or are you still in the Fortran era that NASA uses.
SJT,
You wouldn’t have to be too smart to design something a little cooler than what passes for the “modern, affordable home”.
Present method: select a beautiful area, bulldoze and scrape away every vestige of vegetation, keep subdivision sizes as tiny as possible, pave and roof over as much % of the site as possible so that 99% of rainfall runs rapidly out to sea via concrete creeks, air-con all premises so that the a/c exhausts make the area even hotter and so it goes.
And you blokes won’t accept UHI as a major factor.
Compared to this concept, urban sprawl from rural res makes much more sense. The frogs think so too.
Cities once had a very diverse back yard ecology, [and lower temps] before the era of granny flats, duplexes and the “backyard make-over” etc.
Check this out for stupidity and/or duplicity.
Anna and Kev are opening the new solar thermal in Windorah today.
“Ms Bligh says it is a huge milestone.
She says it marks the end of the town’s reliance on diesel.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/14/2445945.htm
Trying to make out that a $4 million solar thermal plant is going to do the job of providing power to a mere 25 households in Windorah.
What they both do not say is that the old rattler of a diesel is still going to consume 100,000 litres a year to provide baseload power during the mornings, evenings and nights.
This $4 mil is just a bit of window dressing that might keep the beer cold when no one is home through the day.
Is that alternative energy or what? At $160,000 per house?
The true cost of power now to these houses is around $30,000 per year.
Someone’s got to pay for it.
G’delp us!
That would imply we have to increase the cost of energy by a factor of 10 to go down the non-CO2 energy path (allowing some to provide for storage to cope with night-time). This would be a shock to the average voter!
BTW, I don’t think we can expect to be able to cope if we ‘adapt’ to 5 or 6 degrees of temp rise. My guess would be population would plumet in the process — lots of misery and suffering.
So what’s the alternative then Ricki, or explain exactly how you can change the climate to reduce the temp and keep every country on every continent happy.
Btw our continent- come- country Australia has had some strange results over the past 100 years, e.g Adelaide and Brisbane temperatures have actually fallen over that period.
So how do you make sure that some really strange results don’t befall the climate adjusters (tweakers) as they carry out the fine tuning?
That’s if you believe this fantastic nonsense in the first place.
Thanks a lot, Neville. You are of course right, and I obviously missed Lomborg’s clear statement of the AGW position on my first viewing of the video. Ok. So let’s come from the angle of him being a warmist. That doesn’t alter my main point – though it does cause me to re-phrase it. On the one hand, he says global warming is happening, and will continue to happen, because of CO2 emissions. On the other hand, he says that *if* all countries had successfully reduced CO2 emissions according to Kyoto prescriptions, it would reduce temperatures by 0.007F by 2100. He can’t have it both ways, can he? Leaving aside for a moment the main thrust of his arguments about the idiocy of the costs. If he says that CO2 emissions are leading to global warming, then he has to say that significantly reducing CO2 emissions will significantly reduce global warming. Doesn’t he? If he says that significantly reducing CO2 emissions will only affect global warming to a degree too small to be noticed, then he has to say that CO2 is an insignificant factor in climate change. Doesn’t he?
Yes Steve but I think Lomborg is sure that a proper fair dinkum reduction in co2 just won’t happen.
It can’t arithmetically if China and India don’t play ball so why bother? I know you’re presenting a straight up logical argument but Lomborg by implication just doesn’t buy the logic or the argument.
As I’ve said I don’t believe AGW at all so to me it’s a complete waste of time and a mountain of money, what a disgusting waste.
in other words he as a bet on both sides of the table, can’t loose can he.
But he also doesn’t get shut out by the pro warmers so they are happy to invite him to talk to their own. They treat him with respect yet in reality he is quietly undermining their position.
Adaptation can be a slow and difficult process. In evolutionary terms, the current climate change will be far to quick.
Wind power is not a solution. The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
Please think!
And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/
SJT,
“In evolutionary terms, the current climate change will be far to quick.”
If you used an IBM XT processor your modeling results will show a far slower climate change and hence life will easily adapt.
There was a story in a UK magazine recently about these domestic wind turbines. You know the type. Generate your own power, & make a proffit by feeding the excess into the mains.
I think it was Which Magazine. They installed one on a house, in a reasonable position for wind, & monitered the results, for 12 months.
These things draw a small amount of power, from the mains, to power the inverter. The only problem is that they also only generate a small amount of power.
Thr result was that over the 12 months, the inverter drew more power than the thing generated, giving the home owners a net LOSS for the year. They had a totally useless noise, & vibration generator on their roof, & had to pay for the privilege.
Aint green wonderful.
lottsa gnashing of teeth in the green community today. 🙂