Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

I heard the same interview, bellenuit. Made sense to me also.
Good for the ABC this time in allowing him to speak freely.

 

[sydboy007]

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.

The Clean Energy fund was one way Labor was achieving this. We already have some reasonable technologies that provide low to emissions free energy. The problem is getting the mass production and economies of scale into play. You only have to look at the cost of solar PV over the last 5 years to see how fast prices can come down once the market is involved.

Helping the market decide on the technologies it's willing to partially fund is a good way to let the market pick winners, not Government. My understanding is the Clean Energy fund was run along the lines of the EFIC, and as yet I've not heard of any claims that the money has been 'wasted"

There's unlike to be some magical single technology to help us move away from fossil fuels. I'd love to see funding to the CSIRO and universities increased, along with importing some talent from Silicon valley so that the brilliant ideas this country is continually creating can be further developed here rather than being sold off as too early a stage because we're just too focused on the houses and holes economy to want to invest in anything else.

 

[Logique]

I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.

The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.

He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.

In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.

Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg was it? http://www.lomborg.com/

Irrespective, Lomborg is one of the more realistic and rational commentators.

 

[DB008]

The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.

I agree with this.

Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build huge solar farms.

 

[wayneL]

I was quite surprised to hear an interview on ABC NewsRadio this morning that went against the carbon pricing solution trend. I can't recall who it was, but it think the interviewer said it was a Danish or Swedish "Economic Climate" scientist.

The gist of what he said was that carbon pricing was the wrong way to go and that the best solution is to invest heavily in coming up with cleaner and cheaper energy solutions.

He said the IPPC reports were in general very good reports based on where the science is now. The problem he saw was with those who then went on to overplay the message by being over alarmist.

In relation to carbon pricing, he said that it was a failed solution and would never be adopted by enough of the countries that produce significant amounts of carbon to be effective He said $5 per tonne was the maximum rate before it started damaging economies, but that rate was ineffective at reducing emissions. None of the big producers were going to adopt a rate above the economy damaging levels and it was a waste of time pursuing that goal. Reaching an agreement on carbon pricing had failed several times in the past, would continue to fail and only leads to political disagreement within and between countries (how true is that).

His proposed solution was direct action. Invest heavily in research to create clean energy solutions so cheap that consumers (industry and individuals) will use it in preference to dirty fossil fuels.

Solutions that are simply going to reduce people's standard of living won't work because they are politically unacceptable and won't be adopted. Divert the "energy" and resources to solutions that drive the cost of clean energy down, thus increasing the standard of living and you are more likely to succeed.

Makes sense to me.

I heard that too. Was a great interview and made absolute sense to me also.

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg was it? http://www.lomborg.com/

Irrespective, Lomborg is one of the more realistic and rational commentators.

Yes it was Lomborg... and agree.

 

[sydboy007]

I agree with this.

Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build huge solar farms.

Doesn't even have to be that. We're a huge LNG exporter now.

With a lot more funding I'm sure this CSIRO project could be reaping us $$$ - http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Flagship/SolarGas.aspx

LNG with 25% extra energy content. I've no idea what a LNG tanker costs to rent but if you can get the equivalent of 5 loads in 4 then that's got to be a decent cost competitive advantage to Australian LNG exports.

Much stricter building codes would help too, and making car efficiency similar to Europe would cut our petroleum import bill by billions, and increasing the frequency of the energy start rating upgrades would also help to improve the minimum efficiency of appliances sold here.

We have so much low hanging fruit that has such a fast rate of return. We're a energy intensive economy, and a lot of that is due to inefficiency. We need to aspire to be up there with the Japanese and Germans in terms of how much energy per unit of GDP we need.

 

[basilio]

Excellent analysis in The Guardian on the various climate change scenarios produced in the 2013 IPPC report (as compared to the 2007 report). Great graphs.

UN climate change panel: two graphs that tell the real story of the IPCC report

The sensitivity of the climate is not as important as how much carbon we can 'safely' emit, as these graphs show


Millions of words have been written about the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But for me, two key messages stand out – one for its importance, the other for its lack of importance, relative to the attention that it has received. Since our interactive graph about temperatures in your lifetime has generated so much interest, I thought I'd do a graph to explain each of these two points too.
The thing that doesn't matter (much): revisions of climate sensitivity

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report

 

[explod]

I agree with this.

Buying 'carbon credits' is a waste. Doing something directly is the best option. And example of this would be to build huge solar farms.

He he, why would you bother supporting that if you do not believe in the hysteria, so called.

And wayneL ole Pal, notice you assent to the windfarm comment also. As I intimated some time back now, I see capitulation coming.

 

[wayneL]

He he, why would you bother supporting that if you do not believe in the hysteria, so called.

And wayneL ole Pal, notice you assent to the windfarm comment also. As I intimated some time back now, I see capitulation coming.

What on earth are you talking about Plod?

 

[sydboy007]

maybe not climate hysteria, but certainly causing some grief to the electricity suppliers

From SP Ausnet and the effects of increasing building efficiency standards.

 

[Knobby22]

Anyone notice the change in emphasis in the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun?
Now they are supporting the science of global warming. With record breaking weather and massive bushfires in Spring, in NSW, it became a bit hard to tow the same line.
I think though that orders have been given from above.

 

[basilio]

Anyone notice the change in emphasis in the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun?
Now they are supporting the science of global warming. With record breaking weather and massive bushfires in Spring, in NSW, it became a bit hard to tow the same line.
I think though that orders have been given from above.

No I hadn't noticed Knobby. But then I don't actually read them in detail. Has this gone as far as saying that a price on carbon is actually a good idea if we want to slow things down and that TA should reconsider his policies ?

Does this extend to Andrew Bolts views ? Could we anticipate any significant change in his strident denial of everything to do with the topic ?

 

[Knobby22]

No, but they acknowledge global warming is real and a problem.

Also saw Steve Price on "The Project" towing the line, albeit a bit uncomfortably. You could sense the other members of the panel smiling as they got him on it.

Someone has told the right wing commentariat to change their tune. It's amazing watching them act in unison.
I can't wait for Andrew Bolt's next column on this subject though he may resist as Gina is his touchstone.

As I said a few years back, in about 6-10 years time the Republican party will declare war on global warming and the change will be complete.

Humanity may be emotional and tribal but we are still rational and in my view generally the more conservative elements of society are more rational than the left, so though new ideas may be resisted, change occurs.

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/41594-what-firefighters-say-about-climate-change.html

"You do not find many climate change sceptics on the end of [fire] hoses anymore… They are dealing with increasing numbers of fires, increasing rainfall events, increasing storm events. – A senior Victorian fire officer, interviewed in 2012 for a recent National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility report."

 

[basilio]

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/41594-what-firefighters-say-about-climate-change.html

"You do not find many climate change sceptics on the end of [fire] hoses anymore… They are dealing with increasing numbers of fires, increasing rainfall events, increasing storm events. – A senior Victorian fire officer, interviewed in 2012 for a recent National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility report."

Nope. The skeptics have been classified as Liberal PM material and are now running thecountry.

 

[sydboy007]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia

interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.

I'm not focusing on the actual starting cause of the fires, but more that the firies are right and it's drier and much easier for fires to start out there now there's generally less soil moisture and hot drier weather that's perfect for fires to start and grow very quickly.

 

[basilio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia


I'm not focusing on the actual starting cause of the fires, but more that the firies are right and it's drier and much easier for fires to start out there now there's generally less soil moisture and hot drier weather that's perfect for fires to start and grow very quickly.

Interesting isn't it ? We have a repeated reality that long hot dry spells, days of extreme temperature and high winds will turn any fire into a major disaster. Thats why we have extreme bushfire warnings and days of Total Fire Ban.

The evidence of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that temperatures have increased markedly in the past 30 years and that extreme weather events are now more likely than ever before.
The science of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that greenhouse gas emissions will will continue to increase global temperatures and that days of extreme fire risk will become the norm rather than the exception in the next 20 years.

And despite 30 years of research and clear evidence the PM stills denys there is an connection between "TITCBD" and extreme bushfire behaviour.

Go figure.

 

[burglar]

... days of extreme fire risk will become the norm rather than the exception ...

I would argue that has been the norm for living memory.

The ferocity or frequency of bushfires has much to do with development in high risk areas.
(and the stupidity of greenies
and also the rise and rise of pyromania in 8 year olds.)

IMO very little to do with a creep of average temperature!!

 

[spooly74]

The evidence of "the issue that can't be discussed" is that temperatures have increased markedly in the past 30 years and that extreme weather events are now more likely than ever before.

Careful, bas.
You might start getting labelled a skeptic.

“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"

"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Chapter 2 on Extremes

 

[basilio]

Be really interested to see the totality of that summary Spooly.

Just for clarification lets re examine "extreme weather events are more likely than ever before".

In the context of the discussion I was referring to particular extended days of high heat and long periods of below average rainfall. In any forest setting that is a recipe for particularly dangerous bushfires situations. Look at Victoria 2009 for example.

In your reference the extreme weather events referred to hurricanes and local hail storms. Clearly this is not what I was talking about.

There is no way that the sections you have presented conflict with the overall understandings of IPCC 5. The projections for continued warming and the scientific confidence of their certainty is higher than ever.

Burglar you argue that urban creep has taken us further into the bush and thus at greater risk of bushfires regardless of extreme weather conditions. Couple of thoughts.

1) Extreme weather conditions have been proved to turn nasty bushfires into completely catastrophic events. The Victorian disaster of 2009 resulted in a total rewrite of previous bushfire advice as fire fighters recognised that the ground rules had changed with the new climate patterns

2) I believe that many more people were living in rural bush areas 30-40- 60 years ago. The facts are that over the last 60 years bush populations have steadily decreased as people have died or moved to the city. In that sense bush fires in the 30's, 50's and 60's would have threatened significantly more people than currently.
But I do agree with you that at the cities edges populations are more at risk.

On that note back in the early 60's Melbourne had massive bush fires that threatened areas of Mitcham which at that stage was a fringe suburb.

14-16 January 1962

Fires in the Dandenong Ranges and on the outskirts of Melbourne caused thirty three fatalities and destroyed over 450 houses. Areas severely affected include The Basin, Christmas Hills, Kinglake, St Andrews, Hurstbridge, Warrandyte and Mitcham.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/firesum.html