Quote of the Day
What science and engineering do is give you a picture of what is happening, and give you an estimate of what will happen if you do something to a physical system. What you choose to do is politics or policy, but if you jump off a 100 meter high cliff you will not survive.
-Eli Rabbet
Quote of the day
In my experience, with regard to AGW the policy consequences of our current state of scientific knowledge and data, the risk spectrum, are unusually clear. The debates y’all are engaged in are particularly heated because the outputs of contemporary climate and geosciences are extraordinarily consequential for human civilization, not because the science itself is imbued with unusually significant uncertainties (and certainly not fraud). –Anonymous U.S. state government on water-related issues (likely in the West)
US National Academy of Sciences re-confirms that humans are responsible for climate change
There really isn’t anything new here. Just the fact that, despite what deniers and the media have been saying, the consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to warm is getting stronger all the time.
However there is a great summary of why we know that it is our GHG emissions, and not something else that is warming the climate.
US emissions drop, old relationship between GDP and emissions has been broken for past decade
The US Department of Energy has released the estimate of US carbon emissions for 2009. And it is good news. Emissions are down, and not only because of the recession (and before anyone comments, I don’t think the recession is good news, I was speaking ONLY of the emission drop).
For 2009, the [DOE] report ascribes the large decline in emissions to three factors that had roughly equivalent impacts: the decline in the GDP, a less energy-intensive economy, and a less carbon-intensive energy supply.
But the real news is that for roughly the past decade the the relationship between GDP and emission levels seems to have broken down:
Bashing economists is not helping
Bashing economists is commonplace within the environmental movement, and while some of the criticisms are justified, they need to to put into proper context. The fact is that a large majority of economists agree that we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and that placing a price on carbon (be it via a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system) is the best way to do it. Economists and environmentalists are on the same page, and bashing economists without explicitly sating this context only serves to further the denier talking point that any mitigation action will kill the economy, and that environmentalists are out of touch with reality.
I hear its warm in Copenhagen this time of year
The UN conference at Copenhagen was a failure. Despite the fact that the Copenhagen Accord agreed last December has a stated aim of keeping global warming to below 2°C, and reviewing a 1.5°C goal by 2015 the emission targets set by the accord almost guarantee that that wont happen.
The tradition of inaction continues
The Canadian Conservatives, much like the Liberals before them, have a long tradition of inaction on the climate change front. And that inaction shows no sign of stopping:
Environment Minister Jim Prentice is signalling further delays in imposing greenhouse gas emission standards on the oil sector and other industries, saying Ottawa does not want to lose jobs and investment by driving activity out of the country.
The Conservative government is waiting for the United States to decide how it will impose climate-change regulations before acting here. And the U.S. Congress could take up to two years to pass legislation that sets caps on greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Prentice told a Senate committee Thursday.
This isn’t surprising, and despite the recent support of Bill C-311 (the Climate Change Accountability Act) by the Liberals I am not under the impression that they would have acted different.
I guess asking for leadership, is asking too much.
Krugman on global warming policy
Paul Krugman has written a great article on the policy options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is well worth a read as it provides a great overview of the emerging economic consensus, and demonstrates why cutting greenhouse gasses wont destroy the economy as some have claimed.
Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost.
Canada’s Bush style climate policy
Remember back during the Bush years when climate scientists were being muzzled? Well it is still happening. Not in the US, but rather here in Canada by the Harper Conservatives:
Since 2007 Environment Canada, has required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews, often requiring them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview.
“Many [federal climate change] scientists are recognized experts in their field, have received media training, and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years,” said the document, leaked by an Environment Canada employee who asked not to be named.
“Our scientists are very frustrated with the new process. They feel the intent of the policy is to prevent them from speaking to media…. There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been ‘muzzled’ by the media relations policy,”
The leaked document came to light through research done by the Climate Action Network for a scathing report on the laundry list of restrictions on climate researchers since the Harper regime came to power.
This policy is absurd. Government scientists should be free to speak to the media, especially in areas where they are experts. As David Schindler from the University of Alberta makes clear:
US Public still favours limiting CO2 emissions
The US Public still favours limiting CO2 emissions even if it means higher energy prices, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center:
In fact despite all the denialist noise of late, more people now support limiting CO2, and less people are opposed to it, than in October 2009 before the denialist noise machine was cranked up to 11.
(h/t Climate Progress)
