大象传媒

"...this will be the last chance the world has to get to grips with reducing emissions if we are to avoid uncontrolled climate change."

Humanity can influence climate change. We don't control it. Never did, never will.

Considering that we've had global cooling since the early 2000s and that 2008 was one of the coldest years in quite a while, maybe we should just lay back on harmful regulations and taxes and allow the economy to grow once in a while?

Just a thought.

Politicians and street activists are not going to migrate the US from fossil to renewable fuels. This is going to be done by scientists and engineers. Were those 12,000 activists cracking their books on chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, and process control theory we'd be much farther along.

There is some validity, however, in getting the public out in the streets. The coal lobby is quite powerful. However, this is kind of like the computer joke we told each other in the 1970s: "Don't force it, get a bigger hammer".

The people that make profits pulling coal from the ground could just as easily make those profits storing carbon back in their pits. Whether this is CO2, algae, compacted biomass, ultramafic rocks, or limestone doesn't really matter: someone has to mix the CO2 with the binder, and put it away. This looks like a landfill rather than a mine, but it uses the same trucks, people, railroad tracks, and billing software. In this respect it would make more sense to make a deal: fix this problem instead of that problem and none of us will be any worse off.

As pointed out elsewhere, capturing CO2 from the air is relatively easy. Making it into natural gas (methane) is very easy. Power plants and cars have been using natural gas since the 1930s. The same efficiencies that make cars and power plants run better on the fuels they use now than they did in say, the 1970s, applies when methane is used as a fuel instead.

Ultimately the art of the deal is going to overtake efforts to shut down powerful interests. The persuaders need to do their math. There really isn't all that much to it.

mnpoor #3.

interesting post.

you wrote "As pointed out elsewhere, capturing CO2 from the air..". do you have reference/link? I seem to remember reading something about this a couple of weeks ago (no idea where) but was left with the impression that the amount of energy required to drive the conversion process is higher than the amount of energy that can be extracted from the methane.

jr4412 #4.

There are several extraction methods. Wikipedia is a good source. In a nutshell: pressure swing absorbtion (PSA), ammonia/water + CO2 forming ammonium bicarbonate, quicklime (CaO) absorbing CO2 to make calcium carbonate (CaCO3), algae, and powdered/wetted ultramafic rock (olivine). These do all use energy, and would only be carbon neutral if they ran on renewable energy sources. Wind power is good not only because it is cheap at present, but also because you need substantial air flow with it's associated CO2 content.

From there, the CO2 is dissolved into water and run through a traditional electrolytic cell, with the difference being that the hydrogen side is covered with a specific species of archaea. This produces methane instead of hydrogen, and the methane production is 80% efficient with respect to the eleclricity supplied.

It will take more energy to condense the CO2 and make the gas than the gas will contain: but even if half the energy is 'lost' the economics still work out. An electric car might use $1 in electricity, but $4 in gasoline if it is a conventional four or six cylinder engine. If you had to 'waste' $1 worth of electricity to get another $1 worth of methane, and the $1 worth of methane was enough to run your car instead of $4 gasoline, you're still ahead.

***prevent climate change in the future***

With your first paragraph Justin, you demonstrate a level of ignorance of the subject matter which is scary. Governments cannot prevent climate change. Whatever position you are on in terms of the scientific spectrum (a wide range of opinion), it is extreme hubris to pretend that the climate can be controlled or prevented from changing.

However, even given that hubris, it doesn't excuse the poor level of journalism on your part about the current state of American politics towards green policy. Let me quote from last week's Wall Street Journal:

***鈥淭here should be no cost to the consumer,鈥� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Wednesday. She vowed the legislation would 鈥渕ake good on that鈥� pledge.***

The legislation that Nancy Pelosi is talking about is the climate-change bill. Now, it should be obvious to anybody that a cap & trade policy which has no cost to the consumer isn't going to be effective in achieving reductions in emissions. It will raise money through taxation but essentially, its greenwash.

Then if we turn to the words of Todd Stern (Obama's chief US climate negotiator), we also see that the rhetoric of the Obama administration doesn't extend to action through negotiation. I quote:

***we cannot forget that we are engaged in a political process and that politics, in the classic formulation, is the art of the possible. Of course we cannot afford to be passive in our understanding of that principle 鈥� we need always to push the envelope of what is possible. But we ignore the principle at our peril.***

And this principle extends into rejecting the sort of meaningless gesture politics that Ed Miliband and his colleagues have participated in with their climate change bill. To quote Todd Stern again:

***insisting on a 25-40% cut below 1990 for the United States is a prescription not for progress but for stalemate. Again, we need to be guided both by science and by common sense.***

In fact, the position that the Obama administration has set out is the more modest aim of a 15% cut on 2005 emissions levels by 2020. Yet this doesn't seem to have registered with you Justin. So let me spell this out for you.

The Obama administration is expecting the decarbonization of the US economy by 2050 to be achieved through new technological advances.

That's the same policy as the previous administration - technology will save us. So what is going on with the rhetoric of the Obama administration regarding climate change? Its something much more cynical. They need to bounce congress into approving tax increases to pay for the stimulus plan and they want to do so under the guise of these tax rises being green taxes.

Perhaps if you got to grips with the politics Justin rather than being a cheer-leader, you might make a journalist yet.

How do you persuade people to make sacrifices now to prevent climate change in the future and remain popular enough to get re-elected?

Indeed. I have long wondered how an environmental message gets squared with economic growth and ignoring population factors.

Whilst very concerned, and maintaining a watching brief as information and 'debate' (such as it is) unfurls, I have tended to avoid climate change discussions as they seem to pretty much fall into two camps from the off, and then rattle on in a bizarre 'warmist'/'denier' slagfest that gets no one very far. There's a fine one on Mr. Black's blog currently.

To try and offer a reply (if not an answer) to the question posed, I'd simply opine that those seeking to get others to make sacrifices, or even take globally-significant issues seriously, might find more moved to listen and get on board if they were honest, consistent and lead by example.

Just slotting probably/possibly man-worsened climate change into the agenda when the political mood takes or the taxes seem worthwhile, and/or having a niche collection of dubiously qualified folk 'reporting' from the four corners of the globe at the drop of a frequent flier mile when something fits the narrative, usually with highly short-term, unproven science, so far strikes this member of the audience as the actions of pretty poor messengers to convey what might be some critical messages clearly, objectively and with the authority of experience and conviction.

I like your US reports! Keep them on! Enrich the average USAMERICAN!!

very simple.....somebody else do it.

To Big John Lish

You say "Now, it should be obvious to anybody that a cap & trade policy which has no cost to the consumer isn't going to be effective in achieving reductions in emissions."

I appreciate there may be an issue of precision of language here, but would you agree with me that it is at least theoretically possible that that a cap and trade policy could ensure consumers who switched to low or zero carbon products and energy sources would pay less, while those who continued to use high carbon products/energy sources would pay more. If, the balance of these two effects was designed right the total cost to consumers could be nil, and people would be encourgaed to move to the low carbon behaviours, meaning the policy could be effective. There would admittedly be a cost to some consumers (the high carbon ones) so if you mean a policy with no cost to any consumer you are far more likely to be right. I suggest that is a nonsense interpretation of what Nancy Pelosi was saying however - when politicans promise things, it tends to be for populations as a whole, not every single individual.

More broadly, you don't seem to disagree that climate change will cause costs to society - though you mention a broad spectrum of scientific opinion. The truth is that spectrum is heavily weighted, as most scientists believe major disruption is likely. As an increase in the price of fuel will lead to less use of it, it should therefore reduce costs from climate change. Given consumers of fuel will (whether through taxes, or food bills, or insurance premiums or whatever) almost certainly also be paying for climate change impacts, isn't it simplisic to say the extra fuel costs simply mean more costs for consumers, while ignoring any savings they may make from avoiding some element of climate change? Can we afford to reduce climate change emissions, or can we afford not to?

And finally, in what way is the UK climate change act simply meaningless gesture politics? The Act (it is a law now) sets out a process that politicians must work through, and I accept they could fail. But it requires them to justify the goals they set for climate change policy according to the science, and requires reporting and monitoring of their progress toward those goals. Such transparency is a powerful motivator - I'm sure now MPs know their expenses are to be made public we will see a lot less moat-cleaning at taxpayers expense. Given how much more important climate change is, lets hope public exposure of politicians success or failure in reducing carbon emissions will lead to similar improvements in behaviour.

Let me ask another question - why are trains considered 'ethical'?
How much money has to be ploughed into maintaining track?
Trains built that weigh 1000s of tons? Your train didn't seem that full? What was the MPG/person for that train?

How would the many rural communities that live with a simple tarmac road benefit from this kind of mass transit?

You don't ask these questions, of course. You never will, and until you do, you will have no understanding of how North America really functions. Its a shame that your politics have to get in the way.

It might make sense in good ol' over-crowded SE England, but not here. Thankyou.

In years to come, psychology students will study this cult behaviour:

+ Flying round the world saying that flying is bad
+ Websites and blogs saying how bad the internet is
+ Anti-car campaigner G Monbiot buying a .... car
+ The so-called "war on carbon"
+ The bio-diesel fiasco
+ Otherwise intelligent people switching the lights of for an hour then driving round to see who else is sitting in the dark

I'm not sure if it's going to be filed under "cognitive dissonance" or "group-think" - maybe both...

In the middle east, many buildings are white - either painted white or using white or light coloured building materials. They have been this way for millenia. It helps to cool the interior, reflecting much of the heat away.

On Tuesday (26th May 2009), the US Secretary of Energy and Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu, spoke to a delegation of the worlds climate specialists in London, and intimated that this practise could be adopted globally for all buildings and even vehicles. Suggesting that white-painted roofs and lighter coloured stone for roadways and pavements, along with using more reflective colours (white and light) for vehicles, would have the considered effect of removing all the worlds cars from the roads for 11 years. Quite a statement, and in my opinion, certainly worth considering.

Buildings that reflect sunlight back up (into space), he said, would be cooler inside. Those buildings would need less aircon during warmer weather, and a secondary effect is that as the sunlight is reflected straight back, it does not get converted to Infra Red radiation which is then trapped by the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

His calculations predicted that geoengineering, like this, on a global scale, would be the equivalent reducing carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years. This statement, in itself, makes this scenario worthy of consideration.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the UK Met Office, says that the expected 2C rise in global temperatures is hugely optimistic, and if our CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels continues, without a drastic immediate reduction, we are less than 50% likely to be correct. A more realistic outlook is that we are looking at a rise of up to 6C this century. Dr Pope goes on to say that for every 10 years we delay action, a further 0.5C can be added to the expected temperature rise.

That would be catastrophic for our way of life, society in general, and the natural order of things.

The real Politics of Climate Change.

What people needed and wanted was a stereotyped form of history, without too much attention to the truth- which was in any case, extremely hard to recover. So uncertainty, fiction and falsehood abounded, both on the side of the government and among those who were opposed to it. Michael Grant. The Emperor Constantine.

Climate change sceptics are challenging conventional wisdom and therefore they need a convincing political explanation of why and how the scare about climate change has become so wide-spread. It is always a challenge for a minority to explain why the verdict of the majority is wrong. Climate sceptics have proposed a variety of sources and political motives drawn from the entire spectrum of politics to explain how the current situation arose.
On the right, there are those who wish to free the Western economies from dependency on imported fossil fuel. For reasons of national security they wish to diversify energy supply and to obtain a measure of national self-sufficiency. They have therefore allied themselves with environmentalism. On the left, climate change is part of a larger socialist or anti-establishment agenda that questions modern free trade systems, economic inequalities, modern consumerism and so on. However, the political response to climate change is now fully supported by the state bureaucracies and the policy has acquired a bureaucratic momentum that is difficult to stop. Today bureaucracy is the dominant force in climate change politics.

Bureaucracy and Climate Change.
It should surprise no-one that the there is a large amount of bureaucratic scare-mongering in governments response to climate change. Bureaucracies generally have a self-interested motive in exaggerating danger and erring on the side of excessive caution in dealing with a given policy threat. Individual bureaucrats do not bear the costs of excessive planning in person and, in fact, they make a living from exaggerating the need for and the benefits of government planning. Furthermore, voters naturally complain first about a disaster and ask about costs only later. So administrators have every incentive to exaggerate dangers and to adopt a policy of excessive risk-aversion. No member of the public would thank an adviser who fails to avert disaster. (Everyone remembers Michael Fish, the weatherman who famously failed to predict the severity of the great storm of October 1987 in the UK.)
There have been various examples of risk-averse planning by bureaucracy in the last decade. Large amounts were spent by government on dealing with the millennium bug, a threat to computers that never materialised. Governments have recently spent large amounts preparing for an attack of deadly Asian bird flu, only to find that an unexpected pandemic has arrived in the form of a relatively mild Mexican swine flu. Planning for Asian flu involved an extensive campaign of public health information at airports etc. The greatest disaster of recent times that never materialised was the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons systems never existed. In the U.K. fears over BSE and foot and mouth disease amongst cattle have lead to the national herds and flocks being slaughtered twice over. It is in this context of excessive risk-aversion, that governments response to climate changes is best considered.
Since the signing of the Kyoto treaty, the threat of dangerous climate change has been an unquestioned political fact for bureaucrats. It is a technical subject that is largely beyond the control of individual politicians. For example, the current climate change secretary, Ed Miliband was not originally interested in climate change. His main personal concern was domestic social equality. He will not be in his current position for more than two years and is pretty much fed his lines on climate change by civil servants. Climate change policy is thus very much a Yes Minister situation. The policy remains under the long-term control of bureaucrats.
From an administrative point of view, it is necessary to suppress open rational debate on the advantages of temperature increase because such discussion would produce instant political deadlock. Whilst some countries such as Australia would see agricultural areas turn to desert, others such as North Canada and Siberia are likely to be major beneficiaries. North Russia contains about five large rivers running into permanently frozen Artic estuaries. This area has major agricultural potential in the event of global temperature increase. Here in the U.K., climate change is not a significant threat. In fact, the major threat from temperature increase in Britain is non-climatic, namely a catastrophic rise in sea level. Most climatic zones are not temperature-sensitive. No government would ever produce an accurate map of the world showing the true economic effects of climate change because the subject is so contentious. Clearly the economic effects of climate change are mixed. Temperature increase is good for someone who wants to spend less on their winter gas bill. It is bad for anyone wishing to set up a ski business in Scotland.
Bureaucrats across the world have a political motive in misusing scientific propaganda in order to drive through the Kyoto agreement without permitting genuine debate on this subject. The degree of misrepresentation is fully comparable with the totalitarian and anti-communist propaganda of various German, American and Russian governments during the twentieth century. The current interest in Antarctica amongst climatologists is an example of such scare-mongering and propaganda. It is largely fuelled by self-interest and ideology. The climatologists make a living from exaggerating the dangers and pandering to the wishes of their political masters.
The UK government attempts to control the debate and flow of information about climate change through its funding of certain key institutions. The Independent Committee on Climate Change (ICCC) that advises UK government has drawn its experts from institutions such as the Grantham Institute and the Carbon Trust. A committee that takes its membership from such sources cannot be considered independent. The Grantham Institute and the Carbon Trust take the threat of climate change as a given and then function as ideological pressure groups that are dedicated to dealing with consequences of climate change. They are funded generously by government. Defra, the Meteorological Office and the Hadley centre work and liase closely to ensure that there is a single governmental policy about climate change. Through its funding of professional analysis and independent research the UK government acts a key source of information and propaganda for the international community in promoting the alleged threat of dangerous climate change. The UK government uses every means at its disposal to persuade civil society about the effects of climate change. This includes government funding for international trips by, HRH Prince of Wales, that promote the theory of dangerous climate change.

Some Key Personnel and Institutions.
A relatively small number of individual advisers, drawn from such institutions, provide advice to government on climate change. Lord Stern has previously worked at ERDB and the World Bank. As economic adviser to Gordon Brown, he worked on the Commission for Africa. He has thus spent his career specialising in the economics of wealth transfer and this remains at the core of his thinking about climate change. He has specialised in the economics of special pleading for the impoverished. This is clear from what he says during his more unguarded moments. For example, see a recent blog at the World Bank:

Other key advisers like, Sam Frankhauser and Michael Grubb, have also worked at institutions that are concerned with the promotion of growth and social equality. Sam Frankhauser has worked for ERDB, the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility. The later is a U.N. sponsored organisation that functions a pressure group for poorer countries and desert countries in Africa. Dr. Frankhauser has made a career out solving the alleged problems of climate change. Here is an example of some sales literature for Dr. Sam Frankhauser from one of his employers:
IDEAcarbon is pleased to announce the appointment of Samuel Fankhauser as Managing Director (Strategic Advice). Sam, who has worked on climate change since 1990, brings to this position a wealth of both practical and analytical experience. He joins IDEAcarbon from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), where he was Deputy Chief Economist. A priority for Sam will be the development of CarbonFirst, IDEAcarbons premium research product. Modelled on the successful IDEAfirst, CarbonFirst provides senior decision makers with unbiased, high-quality analysis and intelligence from IDEAcarbons unrivalled team of analysts and advisors. Sam will also be involved in other IDEAcarbon products such as its monthly market survey and the quarterly carbon market review...
Supra-national Bureaucracies.
At the level of supra-national bureaucracies, the UN and NGOs actively promote the notion of climate change as a basis for special relief to impoverished nations. Climate change has been inextricably linked to the notions of political and economic inequality. It is politically opportune for Africa that the alleged problems of climate change arose just at a time when the excuse of colonialism as an explanation for the continents impoverishment was wearing thin. Climate change has thus given a new dimension to the begging bowl politics of international diplomacy. At the level of supra-national bureaucracies, the UN has also set up the IPCC as part of the World Meteorological Organisation. It is frequently alleged that a small number of scientist-bureaucrats, in particular Dr. James Hansen, exert undemocratic influence over this organisation and that assessments about risk and politics are dressed up as science.
The EU has also been one of the leading supra-national bureaucracies promoting the climate change agenda. Climate change, as a political problem is ideally suited to the aims and purposes of the EU because it demands a high degree of international co-operation and integration of policy. Climate change is an international crisis that requires a pacifist, non-military response. This also makes it an ideal political problem or puzzle for the EU and the UN. Many other organisations, such as the World Bank find environmentalism a most congenial political issue for similar reasons. It is thus in the interest of supra-national bureaucrats to promote agreements such as the Kyoto treaty. In particular, such treaties provide an ideal purpose for the EU state apparatus.
Some sceptics believe that the climate change scare has come about as a result of a conspiracy between these groups to organise an agenda for world government. It is just as probable that bureaucrats are simply carrying out orders that emanate from within their bureaucracy, for which no individual civil servant need take responsibility. In effect, government is now embarked on an unstoppable, quasi-socialist, international cock-up.

" 2. At 11:56pm on 29 Apr 2009, krazykaju wrote:

Considering that we've had global cooling since the early 2000s "

You mean the last 10 years average which turns out to be 0.17C warmer than the previous non-cooling 10 years?

"and that 2008 was one of the coldest years in quite a while,"

Whilst being warmer than any year before 1998, even local peaks...

"What people needed and wanted was a stereotyped form of history, without too much attention to the truth"

You're talking about the denialist crowd here, aren't you?

After all, they are always saying how Vostock ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature (though then where is the 800 year old temperature increase causing this increase in CO2?) and refusing to point out the truth that this delay is proof CO2 increases temperature after it is increased.
The Grantham Institute and the Carbon Trust take the threat of climate change as a given
"Climate change sceptics are challenging conventional wisdom and therefore they need a convincing political explanation"

Deniaists are also challenging the facts. So they have to make up political rhetoric like "this is all a scam so they can get grant money!!!".

"of why and how the scare about climate change has become so wide-spread."

Denialists also spread the scare that it will cost massive amounts of money and ignore that merely living costs massive amounts of money. They spread the scare that it's all about eco-nazis wanting us to live in caves.

They spread scare and you forget to mention it because it's a scare you WANT spread.

"Temperature increase is good for someone who wants to spend less on their winter gas bill. It is bad for anyone wishing to set up a ski business in Scotland."

It also killed 35,000 people in Europe in one summer.

Unless you like people dying, this is a downside too.

"The Grantham Institute and the Carbon Trust take the threat of climate change as a given "

And the Heartland institute and other left-wing thinktanks take the threat of government inteverntion in ANYTHING to do with corporations as self-evidently wrong in all and every way. And produce political pressure to ensure that nothing is done.

"In effect, government is now embarked on an unstoppable, quasi-socialist, international cock-up. "

The only way to prove that is to let them cock it up.

Or are you afraid that your dissertation based on political dogma is wrong?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"How do you persuade people to make sacrifices now to prevent climate change in the future and remain popular enough to get re-elected?"

That is the million dollar question. Its also the reason we have seen so little action on climate change. The Bush administration is the primary culprit.

We are reaching the stage now where unpopular descisions MUST be made to safeguard our future. The third world is already , mostly down to the inaction of the west. The longer we leave it, the more unpopular the descisions will need to be.