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/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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
... days of extreme fire risk will become the norm rather than the exception ...
Careful, bas.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.
“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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?