Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show – well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind. We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.
The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth. And the depressed economy is no reason to wait – on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover.
…
The truth is that conservatives who predict economic doom if we try to fight climate change are betraying their own principles. They claim to believe that capitalism is infinitely adaptable, that the magic of the marketplace can deal with any problem. But for some reason they insist that cap and trade – a system specifically designed to bring the power of market incentives to bear on environmental problems – can’t work.
Well, they’re wrong – again. For we’ve been here before.
The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today’s fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.
But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.
Once again, Krugman is right.
If he keeps this up, he’s going to give economists a good name.
(But note that I’m not as optimistic as he seems to be about the prospects of something meaningful coming out of Copenhagen. As I’ve said before, I think the best we’ll get is some promises for an inadequate level of emissions cuts and an agreement to meet again, no later than next December.)
Good News and Bad News About the Ozone Hole:
Good news: The hole is getting smaller. Bad news: It was keeping temps lower.
Alarming new research has come to light that further illustrates the severity of global warming. According a recently published report from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the ozone hole, which is linked to causing skin-cancer, cataracts, damage to plant-life, and a reduction of the plankton population–has also been reducing the effects of global warming in Antarctica by keeping the temperature at the pole artificially low.
As the ozone hole continues to get smaller because of increased regulations regarding the use of ozone depleting gases in recent decades, the temperature of the icy continent will rise–causing more melting, more ice-sheet separation, and a more dramatic effect on global weather systems than previously thought.
…
Before you run out to buy silly string and Freon again, climate modeling expert Wenju Cai warns:
Even if ozone does not recover, greenhouse gasses will overtake the cooling effect of ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Paleoclimatologist Tas van Ommen, one of 100 contributors to the report, says that ice cores collected in Antarctica reveal a dramatic increase in warming gases over the last century, calling the levels “unprecedented” in the last 800,000 years–and “probably a lot longer than that.”
While the findings in this report may be troubling, it should only serve to stoke the fervor to reduce global warming. The fact that the ozone hole is becoming smaller, due in no small part to a world-wide collaborative effort to ban the gases that deplete it, should offer an encouraging lesson as we move ahead with our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases–even as we discover that the brunt of global warming may be worse than we previously thought.
Oops.
Kevin Anderson: Decision time… face the facts or give up:
Whilst the next fortnight of discussions in the Danish capital is pivotal to thrashing out the scope and structure of any meaningful agreement, stringent targets and detailed national commitments are unlikely to be forthcoming at this stage. Consequently, Copenhagen must be seen not as the last battle, but as a kick-start to an intense international process culminating, within a year, in detailed national commitments informed by the science of climate change.
Anything short of this will mean knowingly bequeathing to future generations a life of hardship and uncertainty at best and social and environmental collapse at worst. Moreover, our failure to act now condemns many millions of the world’s poorest citizens to the additional ravages and instability of a rapidly changing climate.
…
In recent weeks we’ve seen provisional commitments from several major emitting nations to achieve either absolute reductions in emissions (US) or lower the emissions per unit of economic growth (China and India) by 2020. These transitions should be welcomed. But they are little more than token gestures when compared with the scale of what the science concludes is necessary to give even a 50:50 chance of avoiding “dangerous climate change”.
Unfortunately, and in complete contrast to what the sceptics would have us all believe, scientists have repeatedly underplayed or at least remained quiet as to the scale of the disjuncture between the science and politics of climate change. For example, the Stern and Committee on Climate Change reports are premised on global emissions reaching their highest levels by 2015 and 2016 respectively, before beginning a process of year-on-year reductions.
But amongst those working on climate change there is near-universal acknowledgment that such early peaking years are politically unacceptable – yet the Stern and the CCC analyses remain pivotal in the formation of emission-reduction policy. Statements by the US, China and India, allied with commitments from other nations, suggest peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 is about as hard as the economic and political orthodoxy is prepared to push.
Consequently, if Copenhagen is to have any chance of kick-starting a global movement to stay below the 2C characterisation of dangerous climate change, it must inspire and instigate a rapid shift away from the current political and economic consensus. If peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 are left unquestioned, the cumulative quantity of greenhouse gases emitted will be sufficient to put temperatures on a 4C or higher trajectory. Accordingly, the first challenge for Copenhagen is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2C.
I know it sounds pessimistic, but this pretty accurately sums up my conclusion based on all the scientific and government reports, and web sites, I’ve read (with, admittedly, a fair amount of reading between the lines).
Copenhagen is one of the purest examples we could imagine of my favorite line from Apollo 13, “You’re telling me what you need, I’m telling you what you’ve got.” The politicians need a “viable” way to cut a deal, the rest of us need a “viable” planet.
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change:
AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true – which is not yet clearly the case – the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts” (see AMS Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression).
Keith L. Seitter, CCM
Executive Director
If, like me, you’re “lucky” enough to have one of the infamous climate change deniers forecasting weather on a local TV or radio station, feel free to e-mail him or her a link to this, and ask if he or she is now planning to resign from the AMS.
In my case, the weather forecaster works for the Rochester NBC TV affiliate, and he’s well known locally for writing letters to the local paper and spouting denier bilge.
Former Bush officials playing roles on behalf of oil, gas, mining and other energy interests:
As world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss the challenges posed by climate change, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today released a report revealing how the debate in Congress over climate change initiatives is being influenced by the people who made up President George W. Bush’s climate team.
CREW’s report, Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted – And Still Influence – America’s Debate Over Climate Change [3.7MB download], profiles many of these former Bush officials and the roles they are now playing on behalf of oil, gas, mining and other powerful energy interests.
CREW’s Smoke Screen report examines the critical positions several of these former Bush officials held on key bodies such as the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The report also reviews how they deliberately distorted critical scientific reporting on global warming.
According to CREW’s report, at least 22 former Bush-era climate officials have moved into lobbying or government relations. Fourteen of them are registered lobbyists.
“These alumni of the Bush climate team continue to shape and confuse the debate over global warming,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director. “They may have changed their uniforms, but they’re still playing for the same team.”
Click here to read CREW’s report.
Everyone surprised by this revelation will now sprout wings and fly to the moon.
