There is some kind of meeting going on in Copenhagen this week. Most of what the Antiplanner might say about it has already been said by others, such as this article or this one.
Aside from these stories, one of the reasons I’ve always been skeptical of anthropogenic climate change is that it is tailor-made for a greedy environmental movement. I spent nearly two decades immersed in that movement, and during that time everyone seemed to be looking for the Ideal Issue that would win them the debate over whatever little piece of earth they were trying to save.
The Ideal Issue is one that appears scientifically valid but is actually scientifically irrefutable. The Ideal Issue represents a major crisis, but — like the end-of-the-world predictions made by religious prophets — not one that will happen soon enough that its failure to take place will prove the issue invalid. For some, the Ideal Issue was a true public good, which meant it could only be solved through massive government interventions.
Climate change fits these criteria to a T. Before climate change, environmentalists used the Endangered Species Act as their Ideal Issue. After all, the law was written to trump all other laws or considerations. Under the law, Americans were required to save all species from extinction no matter what the cost.
To reinforce the urgency of their claims, environmentalists often pointed to a calculation that species were going extinct at the rate of one every half an hour. In fact, even the experts would be hard put to name more than one per year, and in nearly all of those cases they were animals that had been extinct for decades but were just now being recognized as gone. (The one-every-half-hour figure was based on calculations of extinction rates of beetles in the Brazilian rainforest, but no one knew whether those numbers were valid and, in any case, rainforest cutting has since declined.)
It soon became an inside joke that environmentalists used the Endangered Species Act not to save species but to stop projects they didn’t like. Under a primitive form of what is now called the precautionary principle, the very presence of a listed species on a piece of land could be used to prevent virtually anything from happening on that land, at least until various federal agencies had spent years doing studies and writing recovery plans.
The problem with endangered species is that life-or-death for a species is not as powerful as life-or-death for humans. So global warming quickly eclipsed endangered species as the Ideal Issue (though endangered species managed to get into the act with the listing of the polar bear). For one thing, we could show how real people would be impacted by climate change, such as the poor residents of Greenland who would be harmed if all their ice disappeared.
What is ED and does buy cialis online davidfraymusic.com it happen only to older men? Erectile dysfunction causes an inability in men to attain or maintain an erection for a satisfying intercourse. Take the dose on an empty stomach to enjoy the getting viagra in australia proper response. Apart from this medicinal help, an ED patient can also consult levitra no prescription the Doctor to see whether he can prescribe the correct measurement to the ED patients according to their criteria, normalized the body and increased resistance to stress without any noxious effects. If you are willing to indulge in tadalafil vs cialis some fruitful sessions of lovemaking. Droughts, hurricanes, and floods have been around for virtually ever. Yet today, every drought, hurricane, and flood is presented as another example of the effects of climate change. This is like the fundamentalists who claim that every earthquake and volcano is proof that armageddon is just around the corner.
None of these things prove that anthropogenic climate change isn’t happening. But too many activists find it too convenient to latch onto the issue for their own ends.
If anthropogenic climate change is for real, and if we really have to spend trillions of dollars to prevent or minimize its effects, we better spend that money carefully. I don’t see many activists interested in doing that. Instead, too many are full of schadenfreude about the impending end of industrial society.
I remember once giving a lecture to a group of young activists. I pointed out that our environmental impact is not directly proportional to our wealth. Drawing a chart on the board in the shape of an upside-down U, I stated that, as wealth increases, environmental impacts first go up, then down, because people first want food and shelter, but after other basic needs are met people want a clean environment.
A white-haired man in the audience got a big cheer when he said, “I think we should just go back to the left side of the chart before there was any industry at all.” He turned out to be David Brower, former director of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth. As the archdruid, Brower was a hero to many, but if we lived in his preindustrial society many of the people in the audience would have died in childbirth or some childhood disease, and almost none could have afforded to go to the university I was lecturing at. Of course, everyone assumes they would be the exceptions.
Environmentalists lack empathy. They say they care about the future of the planet, but they don’t care much about the individual people on the planet. Given a choice between banning DDT and reducing deaths to malaria, they will ban DDT. Given a choice between boosting mobility with cleaner cars and re-engineering society, they set a target of reducing per capita auto driving by two-thirds. Of course, they don’t plan on dying from malaria themselves, and probably don’t plan on reducing the amount they drive much either.
Environmental leaders used to teach humility, that even a small ecosystem is too complex to understand. Now they claim to have a perfect understanding of the entire planet’s climate — so much so that anything at all, warming or cooling — is taken as proof of their models. I am sorry; I just don’t believe it.
Update: Another environmental activist uses more words and perhaps better logic to express ideas similar to the ones above.
the highwayman said: I’d like to know where the money is coming from?
JK: Glad you asked.
The CRU/EAU people sought money from:
* Siemens (light rail manufacturer who keeps getting caught bribing officials.)
* Exxon-Mobile (Esso)
* Shell International
* And probably others. Here are the emails from the CRU at EAU. Of course the CRU is the foundation of the UN IPCC & their alarmist climate reports.
06/10/2009, From: Andrew Manning: (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising,… (1254832684.txt)
——————————
11 Sep 2000, From: “Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation… (968691929.txt)
———————————-
24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
(. . .)
19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. (959187643.txt)
Thanks
JK
MSetty posted:
> Well, yes. It sounds like we agree on the merits of a gradually increasing carbon tax. The main wrinkle is that I think
> the amount collected should be rebated back to each adult in an annual check.
>
> Those using more energy would pay more, while those who use less energy would save. The price system in action!
Keep in mind that we are speaking of energy that comes from the burning of carbon-based fuels or maybe just fossil fuels. Not electric power from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear sources.
As in transportation, time-of-day when power is used also matters, or at least it should.
> While “gumm’it action†(I suspect the main Objectivist objection (sic)) would be required to implement a carbon tax,
> something like this direct rebate would leave out the log-rolling rampant under so-called “cap and trade,†which I
> think is preferred by the politicians and Wall Street because, in the former case, payoffs to special interests
> abound, and in the latter case, it offers new opportunities for collecting transaction fees and speculation on
> financial bubble-making.
>
> The only way to make a carbon tax work politically (e.g., avoiding the Christmas Tree effect) is to not to peel off
> ANY funding for specific purposes, other than a tiny percentage for program administration (someone may have to audit
> the books of the coal and oil companies, for example).
I agree.
> I also don’t think that a $50 per ton tax is sufficient to solve the problem, unlike The Antiplanner; $200 to $300
> per ton is probably more like it to have the major impact the IPCC says we have to have (80%+ reduction by 2050)…
I do not claim to know what the cost should be.
But remember that I am not sold on the subject of global climate change in the first place. I am not saying it’s baloney, but I am not convinced – in part because the Earth has had many Ice Ages in the past, and may have them in the future, and the results of a new Ice Age would be more catastrophic to the population of the Earth than the warming problem that we (may) have today.
Andy, you are correct, and I apologize.
My intent, poorly written, was that the cost of the Loss of New Orleans due to Katrina can stand as an estimate of the cost of a loss of a city which will be inundated by rising sea levels due to AGW. In the original comment (#29) my wording was exactly as you read it. My fault.
No one has posted they’re probabilities.
I can’t place a monetary bet with any of you if you don’t post your odds.
I am not convinced – in part because the Earth has had many Ice Ages in the past, and may have them in the future, and the results of a new Ice Age would be more catastrophic to the population of the Earth than the warming problem that we (may) have today.
Ah. All is clear.
You erroneously think glaciers grow in warming temperatures, for some reason. Get you some learnin’ and you’ll come around to understand what teh sciency stuff says.
DS
No one has posted [their] probabilities.
My probability, as stated above, is 95%.
But I don’t think we’ll get to 800 ppmv, as we’ll take drastic action before the chance for that to occur comes around. My probability that we’ll get to 800 ppmv is LT 20%. My probability that we’ll get 2º warming is 60% – I won’t be around to see it but sadly my kid will.
DS
Dan, re my errant apostrophe, I should never type before coffee.
Dan, the time horizon and children point up a valid point for anti-AGWs. Childless people really should be given a tax credit for the pain for sacrifice. They have no reason to help otherwise. I have a child. I wouldn’t qualify.
Relevant and interesting article on the New Republic’s Web site by Bradford Plumer this morning:
Planet Worth – Goldman Sachs bets on global warming
Quoting:
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington–from electric utilities to Detroit automakers–one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.
But, given what happened the last time bankers went wild on a hot commodity, some politicians are leery of their interest in cap-and-trade. “I know the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market,†wrote North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan in July. “But given recent history, I have little confidence that markets are free or fair enough to trust them with a new, large cap-and-trade carbon securities market.†A small but vocal group of climate activists agrees. In The New York Times, nasa scientist James Hansen warned that the carbon market “appears likely to be loosely regulated, to be open to speculators, and to include derivatives†and that bankers would extract profits by inflicting high energy costs on the public, while volatile prices would make it harder for companies to make investments. These critics prefer an approach that leaves Wall Street out–say, a simple carbon tax.
Indeed, CPZ.
A straight restriction like the EPA could impose will mean far less money for capitalists and corporations, so it is in their interest to get their pets in Congress to pass legislation to benefit them.
One way or another we will start soon in cutting emissions.This being America, might as well make a few large corporations very rich while we’re at it.
—–
tg, is there a bet for 2º too, or is it only associated with 800 ppmv?
DS
Dan continues to fetishize glacier retreat and simplistically attributes retreat to increased atmospheric CO2.
Glacial retreat in Canada has revealed 7000-year-old tree stumps, indicating a rapid cooling of a warm climate.
Glacial retreat also occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300). Glacial retreat since circa 1850 (coinciding with the end of the Little Ice Age) has revealed plant matter from the Middle Ages, demonstrating that glacial extent during the MWP was lower than today.
Greenland ice cores point to a consistent pattern of warm and cool periods since 1500. The average period is 27 years, which correlates to fluctuation between warm and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Glacier movement has fluctuated even since the end of the LIA:
Glaciers in the northern and southern hemispheres behave independently from each other; Europe’s Alp’s glaciers didn’t peak until the LIA, while New Zealand ice sheets reached their post-ice age maximum about 6,500 years ago. A new theory about New Zealand’s glaciers points to regional shifts in wind patterns, which are affected by the PDO.
Changing land use patterns have contributed to glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro where nearby deforestation has disrupted evapotranspiration, resulting in less snow.
The Earth has warmed–and cooled–and glaciers have retreated–and advanced. The correlation between increased CO2 and atmospheric warming during the 20th century does not correlate with glacial movement.
Shall we move on to sea ice?
Unprecedented warming? Nope.
Why must fringe dwellers lie about what I wrote? It is easy enough to scroll upthread to check the veracity of the false claim. But I’ll take the 10 denier points nonetheless.
DS
ds wrote (quoting me):
>> I am not convinced – in part because the Earth has had many Ice Ages in the past, and may have them in the future,
>> and the results of a new Ice Age would be more catastrophic to the population of the Earth than the warming problem
>> that we (may) have today.
>
> Ah. All is clear.
>
> You erroneously think glaciers grow in warming temperatures, for some reason. Get you some learnin’ and you’ll come around to
> understand what teh sciency stuff says.
Not clear from the words above where I wrote anything about glaciers. I did say that a new (e.g. future) Ice Age (such as the ones that the Earth has experienced in the relatively recent past, as well as the Maunder Minimum (which I did not mention above) are not (in my opinion) desirable things for the welfare of the human population on the Earth.
Scott said: Bless you.(Even though there’s no god.)
THWM: Thank you.(Even though I’m not Buddhist.)
CPZ, you’ve altered an argument that has been used many times in the past. It doesn’t work now. The near-term future is warming. Must adapt and mitigate. And tg is looking for odds.
DS
JK sent: 11 Sep 2000, From: “Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation… (968691929.txt)
———————————-
24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
(. . .)
19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. (959187643.txt)
THWM: Then wouldn’t this put some of these people into the same camp as you?
The mention of “Eastern States Standard Oil” aka the ESSO branding was interestng, it’s still used by Exxon in Canada for their Imperial Oil division too.
http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/HomePage.asp
CPZ:“Not clear from the words above where I wrote anything about glaciers. I did say that a new (e.g. future) Ice Age (such as the ones that the Earth has experienced in the relatively recent past, as well as the Maunder Minimum (which I did not mention above) are not (in my opinion) desirable things for the welfare of the human population on the Earth.”
ws: I think any shift from our current climate scenario (colder, warmer, or both) is not a good scenario for our current settlement patterns. Except our habitation patterns conflict heavily with earth’s ever-changing climates. My personal opinion is that warmer temperatures are going to be a concern for the next hundreds of years, however, our longer than average interglacial period says we’re due for an ice age in at least ~15,000 years. Would that be stopped by higher ghg levels? Who knows? A bit too far off for me to be concerned.
Pingback: Climate as an Indicator of Faith in Government » The Antiplanner