Climate Change: The Rational Argument

[waldo]

The debate continues.......

the false debate over the actual science that supports the theory of AGW climate change, the debate you pine for... that debate's time has (long) passed... the real debate, the debate you won't/can't acknowledge forges ahead - hey, Simple?

the debate ended long ago...it's no longer about, is the world warming and what is causing it...it's now about how soon, how bad will it be, and can anything be done to slow or stop it...

of course - no one with any presence actually questions the warming that has occurred... and continues. Simple ton bounces around on the subject depending on which latest denier blog catches his fancy. Depending on how you catch Simple ton, he'll either offer a Concern Troll bone to warming having occurred or he'll revert back to his long standing global cooling meme. Of late he seems preoccupied with (now) attempting to diminish the actual warming... labeling it inconsequential. But wait... what's this... Simple ton just pulled the oceans cooling card!

[Keepitsimple]

Will Alarmism simply fade away?

Catastrophism collapses

G20 leaders in Toronto tried to avoid the fate of colleagues felled by warming advocacy

Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”

These leaders’ collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.’s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year’s G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to “save the human race” from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.

Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country’s renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country’s 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.

The U.K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies — previously immune to cuts — must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs — the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, “every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review.“ Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea — the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.

..............

Link: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/lawrence-solomon-catastrophism-collapses/

[waldo]

Will Alarmism simply fade away?

Link: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/lawrence-solomon-catastrophism-collapses/

once again... Simple ton has Lawrence Solomon, the denier-fabricator extraordinaire, on speed-dial!

are these the G8/G20 statements that the useless POS Solomon decries as "neutered"... "nebulous"? ... that the willing and wanton Simple ton so egregiously parrots?

G8 Muskoka Declaration:

Environmental Sustainability and Green Recovery

21. Among environmental issues,

climate change

remains top of mind. As we agreed in L’Aquila, we recognize the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. Achieving this goal requires deep cuts in global emissions. Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, we reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter. We will cooperate to that end. As part of this effort, we also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050, compared to 1990 or more recent years. Consistent with this ambitious long-term objective, we will undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, taking into account that baselines may vary and that efforts need to be comparable. Similarly, major emerging economies need to undertake quantifiable actions to reduce emissions significantly below business-as-usual by a specified year.

22. We strongly support the negotiations underway within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We reiterate our support for the Copenhagen Accord and the important contribution it makes to the UNFCCC negotiations. We urge those countries that have not already done so to associate themselves with the Accord and list their mitigation commitments and actions. Recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, we also call for the full and effective implementation of all the provisions of the Accord, including those related to measurement, reporting and verification thereby promoting transparency and trust. In this context, we are putting in place our respective fast-start finance contributions to help address the most urgent and immediate needs of the most vulnerable developing countries and to help developing countries lay the ground work for long-term, low-emission development. We express our commitment to cooperate actively and constructively with Mexico as the President of the sixteenth meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties on November 29 – December 10, 2010. We support related initiatives, including the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on identifying long-term public and private financing, and the Paris-Oslo Process on REDD+. We want a comprehensive, ambitious, fair, effective, binding, post-2012 agreement involving all countries, and including the respective responsibilities of all major economies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

23. While remaining committed to fighting climate change, we discussed the importance of ensuring that economies are climate resilient. We agreed that more research was needed to identify impacts at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels, and the options for adaptation, including through infrastructural and technological innovation. We particularly recognize the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We will share our national experiences and plans for adaptation, including through a conference on climate change adaptation in Russia in 2011.

24. To address climate change and increase energy security, we are committed to building low carbon and climate resilient economies, characterized by green growth and improved resource efficiency. We recognize the opportunities provided by a transition to low carbon and renewable energies, in particular for job creation. We encourage the IEA to develop work on an International Platform for low-carbon technologies, in order to accelerate their development and deployment. The elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services is essential to promote the dissemination of cleaner low-carbon energy technologies and associated services worldwide. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can play an important role in transitioning to a low-carbon emitting economy. We welcome the progress already made on our Toyako commitments to launch the 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010 and to achieve the broad deployment of CCS by 2020, in cooperation with developing countries. Several of us commit to accelerate the CCS demonstration projects and set a goal to achieve their full implementation by 2015. We also recognize the role nuclear energy can play in addressing climate change and energy security concerns, acknowledging the international commitment to safety, security and safeguards for non-proliferation as prerequisites for its peaceful use. We also recognise the potential of bioenergy for sustainable development, climate change mitigation and energy security. We welcome the work of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) and commit to facilitating swift adoption of voluntary sustainability criteria and indicators, as well as on capacity building activities.

25. In 2010, the UN International Year of Biodiversity, we regret that the international community is not on track to meeting its 2010 target to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity globally. We recognize that the current rate of loss is a serious threat, since biologically diverse and resilient ecosystems are critical to human well being, sustainable development and poverty eradication. We underline our support for Japan as it prepares to host the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity this October and in particular we underline the importance of adopting an ambitious and achievable post-2010 framework. We recognize the need to strengthen the science-policy interface in this area, and in this regard we welcome the agreement to establish an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The G20 Toronto Summit Declaration:

41. We reiterate our commitment to a green recovery and to sustainable global growth. Those of us who have associated with the Copenhagen Accord reaffirm our support for it and its implementation and call on others to associate with it. We are committed to engage in negotiations under the UNFCCC on the basis of its objective provisions and principles including common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and are determined to ensure a successful outcome through an inclusive process at the Cancun Conferences. We thank Mexico for undertaking to host the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 16) in Cancun from November 29 to December 20, 2010 and express our appreciation for its efforts to facilitate negotiations. We look forward to the outcome of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing which is, inter alia, exploring innovative finance.

equally, the rest of Solomon's article is pure unadulterated bullshit! Well done Simple ton.

[waldo]

24. To address climate change and increase energy security, we are committed to building low carbon and climate resilient economies, characterized by green growth and improved resource efficiency. We recognize the opportunities provided by a transition to low carbon and renewable energies, in particular for job creation. We encourage the IEA to develop work on an International Platform for low-carbon technologies, in order to accelerate their development and deployment.......

and in, seemingly, lock-step coordinated timing with the aforementioned G8 Muskoka Declaration... the IEA releases a 40-year pathway to halve the world’s carbon emissions, titled, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.”

- executive summary,

here

:

- presentation to the press,

here

:

IEA proposes reducing fossil fuel dependency will require significant investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid, and perfecting technologies such as carbon sequestration... IEA’s ideal scenario shows energy-related carbon emissions can be halved by 2050, using 2005 baseline measured levels; a scenario that requires reducing coal, oil and natural gas dependency from 81 percent today to 46 percent during the next four decades, while transforming energy efficiency into the most important “fuel” of the future and decarbonizing the electricity sector through significant shifts toward nuclear power and renewables.

[TimG]

IEA proposes reducing fossil fuel dependency will require significant investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid, and perfecting technologies such as carbon sequestration.

If you believe them I have a bridge to sell you...

The trouble with the politics driven reports like the IEA is they depend entirely on technological innovations that may never occur. We cannot bet trillions on these kinds of the assumptions. We need to find the technologies first and then talk about deploying them.

For those Polyannas who really want to believe that governments have the power to command technologies to come into existence should look at numerous other examples of technologies which never seem arrive despite billions being poured into them. e.g. fusion power, cure for cancer, fuel cell cars.

The "SmartGrid" will likely be the fusion power of the 21th century - i.e. a technology nirvana that is always 30 years away from viable mass deployments. In the case of the SmartGrid it is the superconducting transmission lines which are the missing peice that may never exist in a form that can be deployed at the scale we require.

CCS is another pipe dream. The volume of gas that would need to be stored to make a difference is astronomical and enough to allow us to say today that it will never be a viable option and simply emitting the CO2 into the air is likely a better choice.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

and in, seemingly, lock-step coordinated timing with the aforementioned G8 Muskoka Declaration... the IEA releases a 40-year pathway to halve the world’s carbon emissions, titled, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.”

- executive summary,

here

:

- presentation to the press,

here

:

IEA proposes reducing fossil fuel dependency will require significant investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid, and perfecting technologies such as carbon sequestration... IEA’s ideal scenario shows energy-related carbon emissions can be halved by 2050, using 2005 baseline measured levels; a scenario that requires reducing coal, oil and natural gas dependency from 81 percent today to 46 percent during the next four decades, while transforming energy efficiency into the most important “fuel” of the future and decarbonizing the electricity sector through significant shifts toward nuclear power and renewables.

If you believe them I have a bridge to sell you...

The trouble with the politics driven reports like the IEA is they depend entirely on technological innovations that may never occur. We cannot bet trillions on these kinds of the assumptions. We need to find the technologies first and then talk about deploying them.

For those Polyannas who really want to believe that governments have the power to command technologies to come into existence should look at numerous other examples of technologies which never seem arrive despite billions being poured into them. e.g. fusion power, cure for cancer, fuel cell cars.

The "SmartGrid" will likely be the fusion power of the 21th century - i.e. a technology nirvana that is always 30 years away from viable mass deployments. In the case of the SmartGrid it is the superconducting transmission lines which are the missing peice that may never exist in a form that can be deployed at the scale we require.

CCS is another pipe dream. The volume of gas that would need to be stored to make a difference is astronomical and enough to allow us to say today that it will never be a viable option and simply emitting the CO2 into the air is likely a better choice.

interesting... you so decry policy driven technological advance while blindly accepting they will/must be found "first"... somehow! Yes, somehow market forces simply will the technologies forward and remain isolated and buffered from the competing and adversarial forces of the 'fossil fuel' conglomerates... notwithstanding the nefarious underhanded measures of complicit deniers-in-kind. But most certainly... your non-government (policy based) technological advance deployments will just happen - cause... they just will, don't ya know! What was that you said about selling a bridge?

in regards your nothingness statements concerning 'smart grid' & CCS, for both, an earlier IEA report (Global Gaps in Clean Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration), addresses the Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) status-quo, RD&D prioritization, gaps between current RD&D spending and 2050 climate goals and RD&D investment needs.

[TimG]

your non-government (policy based) technological advance deployments will just happen - cause... they just will, don't ya know! What was that you said about selling a bridge?

There is a huge difference between funding R&D which I do not oppose and the current policy approach which subsidizes certain sources of power. The former may lead to viable technologies. The latter simply creates a class of free loaders who can never be taken off the government teat. Look at ethanol, the wind power scam of the 1990s. We know that it does not help emissions and increases the cost of food and fuel yet it is still subsidized because of the political lobby created by the subsidies. It is much better to never set up these subsidy programs in the first place.

addresses the Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) status-quo, RD&D prioritization, gaps between current RD&D spending and 2050 climate goals and RD&D investment needs.

Right. They pluck a number out of the air and assume that if that money is spent the required technologies will appear. R&D does not work like that that. I don't find such claims remotely credible. Until those technology gaps are actually closed it is waste of time to talk about 'clean energy mandates' or 'CO2 reduction targets'. Any policy that tries to set targets that cannot be met with existing technologies will fail.

[waldo]

interesting... you so decry policy driven technological advance while blindly accepting they will/must be found "first"... somehow! Yes, somehow market forces simply will the technologies forward and remain isolated and buffered from the competing and adversarial forces of the 'fossil fuel' conglomerates... notwithstanding the nefarious underhanded measures of complicit deniers-in-kind. But most certainly... your non-government (policy based) technological advance deployments will just happen - cause... they just will, don't ya know! What was that you said about selling a bridge?

There is a huge difference between funding R&D which I do not oppose and the current policy approach which subsidizes certain sources of power. The former may lead to viable technologies. The latter simply creates a class of free loaders who can never be taken off the government teat. Look at ethanol, the wind power scam of the 1990s. We know that it does not help emissions and increases the cost of food and fuel yet it is still subsidized because of the political lobby created by the subsidies. It is much better to never set up these subsidy programs in the first place.

since you don't accept there's an actual climate change related need to reduce emissions... to significantly shift away from fossil fuel usage/dependency, what's your actual rationale for R&D investment in "new technologies"? And you can be sure of 'Big Oil's' support and active positive participation... right! Uhhh, by the way, what's stopping them now, today? Of course, how's that private sector funding of R&D working out for you - overall... so far? Anything close to viability trialing? Oh ya, when you actually get around to a viable scalable/marketable global deployment, what organizations/governments will you presume to carry the policy water for you - hey? Of course, I expect you wouldn't use the subsidy label if organizations/governments then actually got behind your hypothetical "new technology"... no, of course you wouldn't!

in regards your nothingness statements concerning 'smart grid' & CCS, for both, an earlier IEA report (Global Gaps in Clean Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration), addresses the Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) status-quo, RD&D prioritization, gaps between current RD&D spending and 2050 climate goals and RD&D investment needs.

Right. They pluck a number out of the air and assume that if that money is spent the required technologies will appear. R&D does not work like that that. I don't find such claims remotely credible. Until those technology gaps are actually closed it is waste of time to talk about 'clean energy mandates' or 'CO2 reduction targets'. Any policy that tries to set targets that cannot be met with existing technologies will fail.

numbers plucked out of the air??? Unless you're privy to the actual 700+ page report, are you basing that claim on your read of the executive summary I linked to? Interesting, you would presume to, what... blindly target technology gaps without regard to associated CO2 reduction targets? Oh my, prioritization is such a radical and illogical concept - duh! Obviously you couldn't be bothered to actually read the linked reports... certainly not if your take-away was a parcel of presumptive musings on failing existing policy versus targets versus existing technologies. Who would need a 40 year roadmap with your interpretations? Oh... right... carry on.

[TimG]

what's your actual rationale for R&D investment in "new technologies"?

How about finding better ways to produce energy? That is valid argument no matter what one thinks of CO2. The problem with current energy policy is the obsession with CO2 reductions. Any policy that mandates reduction targets that cannot be met economically with current technology will fail because the government will end up pissing away billions on useless technology (a.k.a. scams) in order save face.

Of course, I expect you wouldn't use the subsidy label if organizations/governments then actually got behind your hypothetical "new technology".

Yes I would. A technology is useless if the private sector requires subsidies to use it.

Interesting, you would presume to, what... blindly target technology gaps without regard to associated CO2 reduction targets?

The problem is the technology does not exist. That is a fact. No government bureaucrat can change that no matter how many pages they put in their reports. The only thing they can do is say we need spend money on R&D. They cannot dictate whether a technological solution will be found. That means we cannot have policies that will fail if critical technology is not found in a timely fashion.

BTW - I doubt you read the reports because if you did you would find it full of nothing but wishful thinking and hand waving when it comes to filling those gaps. That is all I found.

[Pliny]

Well, TimG.....all I can say is you are a welcome addition to the debate.

How much of the thread have you read? Waldo defends his position with religious fervor and I have argued about the political intervention in the scientific process which is quite obvious.

I enjoy your contribution.

[Bonam]

How about finding better ways to produce energy? That is valid argument no matter what one thinks of CO2.

Agreed.

The problem with current energy policy is the obsession with CO2 reductions. Any policy that mandates reduction targets that cannot be met economically with current technology will fail because the government will end up pissing away billions on useless technology (a.k.a. scams) in order save face.

Well, we do in reality have technology that could provide us all the electrical energy we need without the production of C02, that being nuclear power. Unfortunately, that has the problem of facing opposition from the uneducated and fearful public.

[TimG]

Well, we do in reality have technology that could provide us all the electrical energy we need without the production of C02, that being nuclear power. Unfortunately, that has the problem of facing opposition from the uneducated and fearful public.

Nuclear will be the long term solution once people are desperate enough they will accept it.

[Bonam]

Nuclear will be the long term solution once people are desperate enough they will accept it.

Well the real "long term solution" will be fusion energy, hopefully starting just a few decades in the future. But normal nuclear technology definitely can and should be the current focus, as it can provide for our energy needs with minimal environmental impact, as well as providing for greater energy independence. Nuclear has less impact than wind or solar in fact, as it does not take up vast areas to produce any useful quantity of energy, and radioactive waste can be safely stored in a few custom-built, isolated locations. Unfortunately, most of the "green" lobby doesn't see that, and so the increase in use of nuclear energy is much slower than it should be.

Anyway, this thread wasn't really about reducing CO2 emissions (see the original post).

Edited July 4, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

since you don't accept there's an actual climate change related need to reduce emissions... to significantly shift away from fossil fuel usage/dependency, what's your actual rationale for R&D investment in "new technologies"? And you can be sure of 'Big Oil's' support and active positive participation... right! Uhhh, by the way, what's stopping them now, today? Of course, how's that private sector funding of R&D working out for you - overall... so far? Anything close to viability trialing? Oh ya, when you actually get around to a viable scalable/marketable global deployment, what organizations/governments will you presume to carry the policy water for you - hey?

How about finding better ways to produce energy? That is valid argument no matter what one thinks of CO2. The problem with current energy policy is the obsession with CO2 reductions. Any policy that mandates reduction targets that cannot be met economically with current technology will fail because the government will end up pissing away billions on useless technology (a.k.a. scams) in order save face.

yes, of course, who could argue against the motherhood statement to find, 'better ways to produce energy'... but not to the exclusion of initiatives to reduce/delay CO2 emission reductions. That approach gets us back to this threads earlier premise that presumed to tout the geo-engineering panacea. Somehow, you find no contradiction in your avocation for technological advance while, at the same time, being unable to accept a likelihood of coordinated technological advance/emission reduction. You tout R&D while diminishing standard procedures that would/could 'prove' viability and scalable deployment. Notwithstanding, of course, that significant areas of the IEA roadmap deal with existing technologies and efficiencies related to existing technologies - hey? Are you purposely overlooking those components of the IEA roadmap?

numbers plucked out of the air??? Unless you're privy to the actual 700+ page report, are you basing that claim on your read of the executive summary I linked to? Interesting, you would presume to, what... blindly target technology gaps without regard to associated CO2 reduction targets? Oh my, prioritization is such a radical and illogical concept - duh! Obviously you couldn't be bothered to actually read the linked reports... certainly not if your take-away was a parcel of presumptive musings on failing existing policy versus targets versus existing technologies. Who would need a 40 year roadmap with your interpretations? Oh... right... carry on.

The problem is the technology does not exist. That is a fact. No government bureaucrat can change that no matter how many pages they put in their reports. The only thing they can do is say we need spend money on R&D. They cannot dictate whether a technological solution will be found. That means we cannot have policies that will fail if critical technology is not found in a timely fashion.

and, again, significant portions of the IEA roadmap deal with existing technologies and related efficiency gains... of course, new technologies are also needed to fill the gaps. The targets are/will be, the targets. If, over the roadmap period, gaps are not being met... you make adjustments - standard procedure. If that requires additional R&D focus/monies - make it so - standard procedure. If your hold-back reserve is one predicated upon expected failure... get out of the way.

BTW - I doubt you read the reports because if you did you would find it full of nothing but wishful thinking and hand waving when it comes to filling those gaps. That is all I found.

you should give it another read... this time, open your mind and drop your preconceived notions - hey?

[waldo]

Waldo defends his position with religious fervor and I have argued about the political intervention in the scientific process which is quite obvious.

standard Pliny ice-hole drive-by... but, yes, Pliny... your arguments are pure, resolute and completely devoid of fervor (/snarc). Of course, at some point, you may also actually have something to offer - something of substance. By the way, another gentle reminder - how's that list of yours coming along? You were making great gains but stalled out at just 2 names... surely, you have more - hey?

[waldo]

Well, we do in reality have technology that could provide us all the electrical energy we need without the production of C02, that being nuclear power. Unfortunately, that has the problem of facing opposition from the uneducated and fearful public.

if you had a chance, or bothered to read the linked to IEA exec summary report, you would recognize the emphasis on nuclear as one of the target solutions. However, the IEA roadmap also recognizes the practical side of not being able to completely divest from the existing reliance on oil/coal. Certainly, public education will be a component of expanding on the number of global nuclear installations.

[TimG]

That approach gets us back to this threads earlier premise that presumed to tout the geo-engineering panacea.

I said nothing about geo-engineering. I am saying is let it warm. Humans can/will adapt.

Somehow, you find no contradiction in your avocation for technological advance while, at the same time, being unable to accept a likelihood of coordinated technological advance/emission reduction.

I am saying that governments cannot dictate that technological innovation will occur on the schedules that politicians set. The government can invest in R&D but ultimately the decision on when to deploy new technologies should be driven by economics - not wishful thinking.

The targets are/will be, the targets. If, over the roadmap period, gaps are not being met... you make adjustments - standard procedure. If that requires additional R&D focus/monies - make it so - standard procedure. If your hold-back reserve is one predicated upon expected failure... get out of the way.

My hold back is as soon as governments start insisting they need to meet targets/timetables they will waste billions trying to pretend to reach those targets with various scams. This diverts resources that are better used elsewhere and creates special interest groups that become dependent on funding. Eliminate all discussions of targets/timetables and all discussion of subsidies for deployment and production of energy and I have no issue. Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

I said nothing about geo-engineering. I am saying is let it warm. Humans can/will adapt.

I didn't say you did... I simply compared your statements to the threads earlier discussed premise concerning geo-engineering. Adaptation, without accompanying mitigation, won't be a practical and viable working solution... world-wide.

I am saying that governments cannot dictate that technological innovation will occur on the schedules that politicians set. The government can invest in R&D but ultimately the decision on when to deploy new technologies should be driven by economics - not wishful thinking.

well... at least now you accept some government involvement... while you wait around for ROI, will your ascribed technological solutions for adaptation (only)... actually be there in the absence of policy mandates and associated emission reduction targets? Really? What will be the drivers? Efficiencies? Really... what's been stopping that from occurring, on it's own, these past decades?

My hold back is as soon as governments start insisting they need to meet targets/timetables they will waste billions trying to pretend to reach those targets with various scams. This diverts resources that are better used elsewhere and creates special interest groups that become dependent on funding. Eliminate all discussions of targets/timetables and all discussion of subsidies for deployment and production of energy and I have no issue.

like I said, get out the way... if your going in stance is one that presumes on failure and scam, simply get out of the way. What are you talking about? - R&D... and deployment... can't/won't happen without targets/timetables. Your presumption on long-term subsidization is simply, your presumption.

[TimG]

Adaptation, without accompanying mitigation, won't be a practical and viable working solution... world-wide.

Why not? Humans already live in every possible climate zone. In fact, given a choice humans migrate to warmer climates like Phoenix and Florida. The biggest barrier to adaptation is poverty and the best way to deal with that problem is economic development. Denying people access to low cost fossil fuels will actually make adaption more difficult.

while you wait around for ROI, will your ascribed technological solutions for adaptation (only).

Most of the technologies we need for adaption already exist (air conditioners, dams, sea walls, migration, drought resistent crops, etc).

what's been stopping that from occurring, on it's own, these past decades?

You touch on the entire point. It has not occurred because the technologies do not exist and they are not likely to appear in the near future. Nothing the government does is going to change that.

like I said, get out the way... if your going in stance is one that presumes on failure and scam, simply get out of the way.

I will get out of the way once people like you stop trying to take my money to pay for these hair brained schemes.

[waldo]

I will get out of the way once people like you stop trying to take my money to pay for these hair brained schemes.

whaaa! Next you'll be lining up quotes from Monckton about world government and the New World Order!

[TimG]

Next you'll be lining up quotes from Monckton about world government and the New World Order!

Moncton is a buffoon. But you completely evaded to real issue: governments only have so much money to spend. If they waste it on scams designed to fool the people into believing that something is being done about CO2 emissions then that money is not available to spend on other things such as building the infrastructure we need for adaptation.

Your kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that led to 1.2 billion being spent on a two day photo op.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Moncton is a buffoon. But you completely evaded to real issue: governments only have so much money to spend. If they waste it on scams designed to fool the people into believing that something is being done about CO2 emissions then that money is not available to spend on other things such as building the infrastructure we need for adaptation.

Your kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that led to 1.2 billion being spent on a two day photo op.

what do you need to adapt for? There's no problem - right?

like I said, if your going in stance presumes on failure/scam... get out of the way.

now... if you rail against the 1.2 billion Harper Conservative expenditure for G8/G20, what are your thoughts on Harper signing/supporting the G8 Muskoka declaration (as concerns climate change). Don't hold back now!

G8 Muskoka Declaration

:

Environmental Sustainability and Green Recovery

21. Among environmental issues,

climate change

remains top of mind. As we agreed in L’Aquila, we recognize the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. Achieving this goal requires deep cuts in global emissions. Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, we reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter. We will cooperate to that end. As part of this effort, we also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050, compared to 1990 or more recent years. Consistent with this ambitious long-term objective, we will undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, taking into account that baselines may vary and that efforts need to be comparable. Similarly, major emerging economies need to undertake quantifiable actions to reduce emissions significantly below business-as-usual by a specified year.

22. We strongly support the negotiations underway within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We reiterate our support for the Copenhagen Accord and the important contribution it makes to the UNFCCC negotiations. We urge those countries that have not already done so to associate themselves with the Accord and list their mitigation commitments and actions. Recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, we also call for the full and effective implementation of all the provisions of the Accord, including those related to measurement, reporting and verification thereby promoting transparency and trust. In this context, we are putting in place our respective fast-start finance contributions to help address the most urgent and immediate needs of the most vulnerable developing countries and to help developing countries lay the ground work for long-term, low-emission development. We express our commitment to cooperate actively and constructively with Mexico as the President of the sixteenth meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties on November 29 – December 10, 2010. We support related initiatives, including the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on identifying long-term public and private financing, and the Paris-Oslo Process on REDD+. We want a comprehensive, ambitious, fair, effective, binding, post-2012 agreement involving all countries, and including the respective responsibilities of all major economies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

23. While remaining committed to fighting climate change, we discussed the importance of ensuring that economies are climate resilient. We agreed that more research was needed to identify impacts at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels, and the options for adaptation, including through infrastructural and technological innovation. We particularly recognize the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We will share our national experiences and plans for adaptation, including through a conference on climate change adaptation in Russia in 2011.

24. To address climate change and increase energy security, we are committed to building low carbon and climate resilient economies, characterized by green growth and improved resource efficiency. We recognize the opportunities provided by a transition to low carbon and renewable energies, in particular for job creation. We encourage the IEA to develop work on an International Platform for low-carbon technologies, in order to accelerate their development and deployment. The elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services is essential to promote the dissemination of cleaner low-carbon energy technologies and associated services worldwide. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can play an important role in transitioning to a low-carbon emitting economy. We welcome the progress already made on our Toyako commitments to launch the 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010 and to achieve the broad deployment of CCS by 2020, in cooperation with developing countries. Several of us commit to accelerate the CCS demonstration projects and set a goal to achieve their full implementation by 2015. We also recognize the role nuclear energy can play in addressing climate change and energy security concerns, acknowledging the international commitment to safety, security and safeguards for non-proliferation as prerequisites for its peaceful use. We also recognise the potential of bioenergy for sustainable development, climate change mitigation and energy security. We welcome the work of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) and commit to facilitating swift adoption of voluntary sustainability criteria and indicators, as well as on capacity building activities.

25. In 2010, the UN International Year of Biodiversity, we regret that the international community is not on track to meeting its 2010 target to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity globally. We recognize that the current rate of loss is a serious threat, since biologically diverse and resilient ecosystems are critical to human well being, sustainable development and poverty eradication. We underline our support for Japan as it prepares to host the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity this October and in particular we underline the importance of adopting an ambitious and achievable post-2010 framework. We recognize the need to strengthen the science-policy interface in this area, and in this regard we welcome the agreement to establish an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

[TimG]

what do you need to adapt for? There's no problem - right?

What I said was we can adapt to whatever changes are likely to occur. Part of the problem with the entire is CAGW narrative is it assumes that humans are idiots and will do nothing to adapt to a changing climate. I assume humans will quietly and automatically adapt to most changes and question is whether we are likely to see changes that exceed our capacity to adapt.

now... if you rail against the 1.2 billion Harper Conservative expenditure for G8/G20, what are your thoughts on Harper signing/supporting the G8 Muskoka declaration (as concerns climate change).

I am waiting for the day when our political leadership will have the guts to tell CAGW crowd to go pound salt but that may never happen because CAGW has become religion to many. What really matters is the actual policies that get adopted. So far other than pissing away billions on useless CCS projects Harper has not done much damage on the environmental front which is fine with me. Edited July 5, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Here is an interesting article that illustrates why anti-CO2 policies in Canada will accomplish nothing other than making lower and middle class Canadians a lot poorer.

If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures “are very close to zero,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris.

Aspiring to a more Western standard of living, in many cases with the government’s encouragement, China’s population, 1.3 billion strong, is clamoring for more and bigger cars, for electricity-dependent home appliances and for more creature comforts like air-conditioned shopping malls.

As a result, China is actually becoming even less energy efficient. And because most of its energy is still produced by burning fossil fuels, China’s emission of carbon dioxide — a so-called greenhouse gas — is growing worse. This past winter and spring showed the largest six-month increase in tonnage ever by a single country.

Until recently, projections by both the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Administration in Washington had assumed that, even without an international energy agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, China would achieve rapid improvements in energy efficiency through 2020.

But now China is struggling to limit emissions even to the “business as usual” levels that climate models assume if the world does little to address global warming.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

what do you need to adapt for? There's no problem - right?

What I said was we can adapt to whatever changes are likely to occur. Part of the problem with the entire is CAGW narrative is it assumes that humans are idiots and will do nothing to adapt to a changing climate. I assume humans will quietly and automatically adapt to most changes and question is whether we are likely to see changes that exceed our capacity to adapt.

you accept changes are occurring… and that additional changes are likely to occur. As you stated before, you believe adaptation (without the need for mitigation), will suffice. You simply believe it; notwithstanding, of course, your presumption that all nations/peoples of the world will be able to adapt. And yet, some degree of uncertainty prompts you to offer up the question as to the likelihood of changes exceeding adaptation capacities.

you strongly emphasized that, “people like me stop trying to take your money to pay for these hair brained schemes.” I assume you meant only the hair brained mitigation schemes – hey? In your acceptance to adaptation (only)… do you expect that none of “your money” will be used to pay for adaptation solutions… in particular global adaptation solutions?

now... if you rail against the 1.2 billion Harper Conservative expenditure for G8/G20, what are your thoughts on Harper signing/supporting the G8 Muskoka declaration (as concerns climate change). Don't hold back now!

I am waiting for the day when our political leadership will have the guts to tell CAGW crowd to go pound salt but that may never happen because CAGW has become religion to many. What really matters is the actual policies that get adopted. So far other than pissing away billions on useless CCS projects Harper has not done much damage on the environmental front which is fine with me.

oh my! Those G8/G20 climate change related declarations show just how that “CAGW crowd” really has the G8/G20 political leadership primed, hey? Wow… how did that ever come about… surely it couldn’t have anything to do with the actual supporting science, hey?