As per, The Guardian tries to keep abreast of developments in climate science. Though at times the headlines are irritatingly provocative, in general it does a decent job.
This morning's piece on Wm Happer, here, contained a quotation from the latter which is so stupid I thought it deserved a mention:
“There’s a huge amount of money that we spend on saving the planet,” he said. “If it turns out that the planet doesn’t need saving as much as we thought, well, there are other ways you could spend the money."
Though the stupidity is self-evident to some of us, I'll try not to take anything for granted and just unpack this a bit.
First off: "there's a huge amount of money we spend on saving the planet"
Okay, Mr Happer, please provide examples of these 'huge amounts' of money. Now, compare the amounts with the 'huge amounts' we spend trashing the planet; how do these figures compare?
Beyond this, why does anyone think that the planet might need saving in the first place?
Is it, perhaps, because some people have identified a number of risks? Is it because decades of analysis from insurance companies, military think tanks, corporates and, on top of these, academics and specialists, have led these people to think that some types of human interaction with the planet is a risk, not just to the planet but, more meaningfully, to the people who live here?
Trying to find an analogy is challenging, because there is really very little comparison to be made - we only have one planet. We need it. We need the living things besides us which live on it. We need its atmosphere and oceans. We'd quite like to keep hold of most of the people on it, too, for a decent lifespan.
Then we need to ask; what is it that people think the planet needs protecting from? What is the source of these risks? It is us, our activities, exploitation, misuse, abuse, destruction, pollution, chaotic and entropic dissolution of that which we once inherited.
Happer's point is easy to unpick: the administration is going to remove not just protection but also monitoring. The mistreatment of 'the planet' is not a risk - not enough of a risk - to justify reining back its continuation, or the corporates who profit from it, despite the endless, depressing, ongoing warnings from pretty much every direction that if we go on like these we really will be screwed.
This isn't an argument for inaction - it is way too stupid to be graced with the title of 'argument'. It is an excuse. Happer may as well have said : "we aren't going to even try to improve things because it might make some of us less rich".
Get used to it. This is going to continue for a while. It has been going on in the UK for several years, with government using any excuse to justify its systematic ideology-driven demolition of all the social systems which we have already paid for, simply to reduce its revenue commitments and pass on the problems and solutions into private (and often international) hands.
The current administration will provide spurious and trivial justifications for stupid decisions which bear no relation to the reasons for them.
Get used to it, and move on. If the chimps are throwing their caca at the visitors, go enjoy the penguins instead, while you still can.
Showing posts with label climate policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Friday, 10 February 2017
23 minutes to kiss the planet goodbye
Waking up in the middle of the night, the World Service was interviewing Myron Ebell.
I hope friends in the US can access this from the BBC World Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rq0fk#play
If you feel in the slightest depressed, don't listen till you are more cheerful. I haven't slept in the three hours since the show was broadcast, it's now around 06:30am.
A couple of sample take homes for the lazy:
I hope friends in the US can access this from the BBC World Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rq0fk#play
If you feel in the slightest depressed, don't listen till you are more cheerful. I haven't slept in the three hours since the show was broadcast, it's now around 06:30am.
A couple of sample take homes for the lazy:
- The EPA is to be gutted (staff cut by 2/3 and budgets slashed)
- The hiatus proves that there is no connection between CO2 and warming
- roughly: " it has recently been shown that the temperature record is a hoax". No, really.
Can you spot the glaring inconsistency? Others already have.
Really should go back to bed, but time seems to be getting more precious every day these days...
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Climate change - why the fuss?
Sometimes it is hard to remember why people make a fuss about climate change and global warming. In the politically charged arena of online advocacy the language of the issues has been framed by the denihilist procrastinators, so that most discussions of consequences revolve around whether or not climate change is 'catastrophic', whether or not warnings are 'alarmist' (crying wolf), whether or not projections of harm with large uncertainties are useful for policy discussions.
All of these, deliberately, miss the point, the reasons why action to mitigate and adapt are urgent, and reveal the moral vacuum which is inhabited by too many people these days.
So, here is a reminder of why I bother to have a blog and to comment on websites and fora such as Quora. These are my reasons. Some co-bloggers will have similar motives, others will have their own, but for me, this is the bottom line.
People will suffer.
Recent work has shown the link which already exists between both emergency and systemic situations and their consequences. Not just storms, floods and wildfires, which make dramatic TV and therefore feature in the media, but drought, seasonal shifts threatening food supply chains, evapo-transpiration effects, disease vector changes; there is really quite a long list.
Inasmuch as these measured effects are either affected or exacerbated by the changing climate - and the argument is not that they are not affected, but the extent to which a measurable difference can be identified and isolated - the problems which exist now are overshadowed by the problems which will exist soon.
So, people have already suffered, and more people will suffer. Many more.
There is a strong general agreement that, whilst balancing other social factors, a move to reduce the upper limit of the changes down the line (through mitigation) will actually reduce the extent and degree of suffering.
Recent discussions on Quora have enlightened me to contemporary attitudes to the harm expected from climate change; there are people who think this is not important, that the suffering of others does not matter.
At the more radical end, it would be surprising if others hadn't worked out what I have calculated and reached the conclusion that by the end of this century, and quite likely well before this, many millions of people will have either died or been permanently displaced by the various upheavals which result from and are magnified by climate change. For some people, this is perceived as a 'good thing'.
So there are already two opposing forces pulling in different directions when it comes to the question of why climate mitigation is necessary.
On one side, we have identified that people are suffering and will suffer, and that at least some of this suffering is preventable. Our duty/responsibility is clear - if we can act to reduce the suffering of others, we should act. This is a baseline in the very notion of society. There is a further principle too, that if we choose not to act when we have the means to do so, then we are culpable in that suffering. Most particularly, our political leaders, who have executive power and common responsibility, are on the line for allowing suffering without intervention or assistance, where these would prevent it.
On the other side, we are conscious that population stress is another magnifier of suffering and that environmental and ecological problems, along with infrastructure problems, in part exist because of the strain put on them by increased consumption demand purely from the pressure of numbers. An analyst taking the very long view might conclude that allowing a degree of suffering for the time being, so that population pressures are eased down the line, could be a better solution.
But this is very harsh on the victims. One reason why climate impact projections focus on economic or environmental damage is that these have a degree of measurability and are thus amenable to modelling. Conversely, the extent and degree of human suffering - people being harmed, is much more difficult to quantify, since it is also affected by a cluster of magnifiers and causes which are more or less connected to climate. Nonetheless, the IPCC, WHO, UNEP and UNHCR. along with other agencies, have placed their analysis in the public record, and it makes for ugly reading.
The more recent projections suggest that there will be several million additional premature (and unnecessary) deaths from climate related impacts by 2050 alone. The current estimates include 160,000 per year already in the system, rising to 250,000 a year out to 2030-2050.
Later, I'll write about the error we make in assessing the personal consequences of climate inaction, but there is still a lot more to say.
For the time being, let this sink in. Not very long ago, there was no doubt that the untimely deaths of six million people as a consequence of a state policy was such an appalling crime that the perpetrators with command responsibility were tried and executed for their decisions. This was the Holocaust.
What is the material difference, especially to the victims, between that situation and this? What is the moral difference between that situation and this? For those who promote caution or outright denial of the issues linked to climate change, I ask - are you, morally, any better than those people? Are you, in effect, wearing a symbol-laden armband in support of the unspeakable? How will you be judged?
All of these, deliberately, miss the point, the reasons why action to mitigate and adapt are urgent, and reveal the moral vacuum which is inhabited by too many people these days.
So, here is a reminder of why I bother to have a blog and to comment on websites and fora such as Quora. These are my reasons. Some co-bloggers will have similar motives, others will have their own, but for me, this is the bottom line.
People will suffer.
Recent work has shown the link which already exists between both emergency and systemic situations and their consequences. Not just storms, floods and wildfires, which make dramatic TV and therefore feature in the media, but drought, seasonal shifts threatening food supply chains, evapo-transpiration effects, disease vector changes; there is really quite a long list.
Inasmuch as these measured effects are either affected or exacerbated by the changing climate - and the argument is not that they are not affected, but the extent to which a measurable difference can be identified and isolated - the problems which exist now are overshadowed by the problems which will exist soon.
So, people have already suffered, and more people will suffer. Many more.
There is a strong general agreement that, whilst balancing other social factors, a move to reduce the upper limit of the changes down the line (through mitigation) will actually reduce the extent and degree of suffering.
Recent discussions on Quora have enlightened me to contemporary attitudes to the harm expected from climate change; there are people who think this is not important, that the suffering of others does not matter.
At the more radical end, it would be surprising if others hadn't worked out what I have calculated and reached the conclusion that by the end of this century, and quite likely well before this, many millions of people will have either died or been permanently displaced by the various upheavals which result from and are magnified by climate change. For some people, this is perceived as a 'good thing'.
So there are already two opposing forces pulling in different directions when it comes to the question of why climate mitigation is necessary.
On one side, we have identified that people are suffering and will suffer, and that at least some of this suffering is preventable. Our duty/responsibility is clear - if we can act to reduce the suffering of others, we should act. This is a baseline in the very notion of society. There is a further principle too, that if we choose not to act when we have the means to do so, then we are culpable in that suffering. Most particularly, our political leaders, who have executive power and common responsibility, are on the line for allowing suffering without intervention or assistance, where these would prevent it.
On the other side, we are conscious that population stress is another magnifier of suffering and that environmental and ecological problems, along with infrastructure problems, in part exist because of the strain put on them by increased consumption demand purely from the pressure of numbers. An analyst taking the very long view might conclude that allowing a degree of suffering for the time being, so that population pressures are eased down the line, could be a better solution.
But this is very harsh on the victims. One reason why climate impact projections focus on economic or environmental damage is that these have a degree of measurability and are thus amenable to modelling. Conversely, the extent and degree of human suffering - people being harmed, is much more difficult to quantify, since it is also affected by a cluster of magnifiers and causes which are more or less connected to climate. Nonetheless, the IPCC, WHO, UNEP and UNHCR. along with other agencies, have placed their analysis in the public record, and it makes for ugly reading.
The more recent projections suggest that there will be several million additional premature (and unnecessary) deaths from climate related impacts by 2050 alone. The current estimates include 160,000 per year already in the system, rising to 250,000 a year out to 2030-2050.
Later, I'll write about the error we make in assessing the personal consequences of climate inaction, but there is still a lot more to say.
For the time being, let this sink in. Not very long ago, there was no doubt that the untimely deaths of six million people as a consequence of a state policy was such an appalling crime that the perpetrators with command responsibility were tried and executed for their decisions. This was the Holocaust.
What is the material difference, especially to the victims, between that situation and this? What is the moral difference between that situation and this? For those who promote caution or outright denial of the issues linked to climate change, I ask - are you, morally, any better than those people? Are you, in effect, wearing a symbol-laden armband in support of the unspeakable? How will you be judged?
Friday, 27 January 2017
It just seemed like the right thing to do
Back in the chain Gang
I've never exactly been a Player in the online climate science field, though have dribbled around the edges for some time and have occasionally received encouraging noises from scientists whose opinions I respect.
But in previous iterations, my blogs have received a few tens of thousands of readers, and, more recently, I have a steady readership when I post on Quora.
So, though it may be a small constituency, yet there may be some people who appreciate what I try to do online and it is for them, as well as myself, that I have decided to reopen the blog.
Why now? Mainly, because it feels as if Truth is under attack. Prejudice and dishonesty abounds and is sometimes rewarded. Decency is not in vogue, and being human matters less than being noisy/young/pretty/opinionated/a cat.
Which leads to my second reason: for some time I have been concerned that there is a moral issue in respect to climate science and future-casting in general which is being steadily eroded. And this issue is our treatment of, and respect for, each other as humans.
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day. It exists because many people think it important to remember the evil which can and has been done in our names, or with our consent. It is important.
As I spend more time than is healthy considering, analysing and speculating about our collective future, I am reasonably confident that our society is changing, not for the better. There is an ongoing and future injustice which, if the projections play out, represents a human harm, a level of suffering, which is not just comparable to the suffering of the holocaust, but on a scale so vast as to be almost unthinkable.
Seventy five years ago, there were people who saw what was happening in Europe, in Nazi Germany and elsewhere, a more virulent continuation of historic persecutions going back centuries, and they turned away. Some did not.
And this is why I have returned. If a vast, unspeakable crime against humanity is to be committed, it will not be with my consent, not in my name, and I will not ignore it or simply let it happen. I am opening a dialogue to people who understand the stakes in climate, politics, environmental and social Justice and injustices, and who believe that such depravity should not go unchallenged.
All this is very serious, but please don't be put off - I'll still sometimes make a joke.
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
In defence of Tol, or not
This morning's exchange with Richard Tol at the Guardian allowed me the opportunity to raise a point which I think needs to be clear to people engaged in climate science discussions online: Tol is not a hardcore denialist.
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
12
I particularly like the bit where Mr Nuccitelli tells Dr Spencer what Dr Spencer really thinks.
Reply
Report
- This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
- Kudos due for paying attention and bothering to respond. TY. I sort of know this anyway, really, because I've read your (available) papers. But people often misunderstand you - probably because you are as guilty as Dana of stirring things up, so I think the polarisation comment is a bit rich.
I know many 'denial' commenters such as Ridley etc depend heavily on your work, especially as distorted by Lomborg via Copenhagen, but you never seem to spend time correcting their misunderstandings or inaccuracies. As a result, there's a tendency to place you one one side of 'the divide'. This may be unfair in your eyes, but it is perfectly understandable in mine.
Polarization? Isn't that the bread and butter of journalism? I agree it can be frustrating, but via friends in the USA it is clear that there the discussions are not just polarised, they are politicised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)