"How many degrees will your proposal cool the planet"
The policy proposing people will do anything to avoid answering that question for any number of reasons (I think I've counted 13)
But if we are talking science, it must be answered.
If on the other hand we aren't talking science but rather we are talking faith-based systems, well, I can roll with that too.
Have you met my esteemed spiritual counsel, Mr. St. Hubbins?
"I believe virtually everything I read,
and I think that is what makes me
more of a selective human than
someone who doesn't believe anything...."
-David St. Hubbins, This is Spinal Tap
-David St. Hubbins, This is Spinal Tap
Here's an example of the reticence of the policy peeps.
In the last years of the last century there was an international agreement on global warming policy called the Kyoto Protocol. It was a pretty big deal.
It was going to be expensive for the developed economies but worth it.
You heard of it right? It was in all the papers.
And do you recall how much the Kyoto Protocol would cool the planet?
Of course not.
The U.N. and the NGO's and Enron* and the consultants and everybody involved elided right past that number.
The answer was (no, not 42), the answer to the question of how much would the Kyoto Protocol cool the earth was 0.07 degrees. But that's 0.07°C, which is more cooling than if it had been 0.07°F.
The answer was not from me, it's the analysis of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.
And the headliner, from FT Alphaville, September 10:
Dr. Ashley Nunes is an academic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, previously he led research projects sponsored by the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation. In this article he argues that to deal with climate change, consumers must accept that there will be some form of financial cost.
Climate change took centre stage in New York last week. Over seven hours (yes seven), Democratic presidential hopefuls touted their vision for how best to address rising temperatures. Former vice-president Joe Biden proposed banning new oil and gas exploration on public land, and also promised an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Bernie Sanders went further saying his administration would pursue criminal prosecution of energy companies for “any wrongdoing”. And Elizabeth Warren committed to entirely decarbonising the energy, transportation and construction industry. She subsequently challenged her counterparts to follow suit.....MUCH MORE
The political impetus for tackling climate change reflects electoral reality. Two-thirds of Americans think too little is being done to address the issue. Though policy disagreements persist along party lines (some 60 per cent of Republicans think offshore drilling and coal mining should continue compared to 20 per cent of Democrats), there is broad consensus on the need for action. White House hopefuls aim to curry votes by doing just that. So does the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: President Trump recently proclaimed his love for the environment, declaring he knows, “more about (it) than most people.”
Concerns about climate change are justified. Experts warn that more extreme rainfall, longer droughts and rising temperatures — all linked to the burning of fossil fuels — will soon affect everything from migratory patterns to investor returns to armed conflict to physical and mental health. Georges Benjamin — who heads the American Public Health Association — put it aptly when he said, “if anyone doesn't think this is a severe problem, they are fooling themselves.” In stronger terms, the United Nations has called climate change, “the defining issue of our time.”
But words must be backed up by deeds. Public outrage must be turned into legislative action. When it comes to tackling climate change, don’t expect either anytime soon. That’s because a climate-conscious public — though admittedly growing — is also its own worst enemy.
Take aviation. While offering comfort and convenience, air travel exacts a heavy environmental toll. Carbon dioxide, water vapour and soot particles are just some of compounds aeroplanes emit, all of which contribute to climate change. The solution? Carbon offsetting. For a fee, jet-setters can “offset” their carbon footprint (as Alphaville wrote about here and here). The price of doing so isn’t steep. Flying in coach from New York to Frankfurt will cost you around $10. The cash raised goes towards supporting sustainable development projects like preserving wildlife, planting trees and installing solar panels.
Carbon offsetting sounds good in practice except for one problem: few people use it.....
*The first step is to get honest.
Like this guy, Enron's top lobbyist, John Palmisano, senior director for environmental policy and compliance who emailed from Kyoto:
If implemented [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the [electricity] and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States…. The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us…. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!It was time to turn deeds into dollars, he added:
Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], GermanWatch, The US Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute], and Worldwatch [Institute],” reported Palmisano. “This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized).As gentle reader has surmised, we've been following this stuff for a long, long time.
