Mr Posting Robot
10/28/2011 10:00:00 AM
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
The next steps on climate change
Getting angry and going right
The Economist
Thu Oct 27th 2011
Austin -- Given the broad scientific consensus that climate change is
happening, based on data showing that climate change is happening, climate
scepticism must be predicated on a belief that the data is flawed. The paper
has a look at climate data to date and the methodological limitations that
have given rise to what Richard Muller, an astrophysicist, characterise as
"legitimate scepticism". As the article explains, Dr Muller, being somewhat
sceptical himself in the wake of the 2009 "Climategate" scandal, convened the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group to examine the data and existing
analyses using a methodology designed to incorporate some of the concerns of
the legitimate sceptics. On Oct 20th, the group released 4 papers that
corroborate the climate consensus: "The group estimates that over the past 50
y the land surface warmed by 0.911?C: a mere 2% less than NOAA's estimate."
The corroboration should comfort people who are concerned about climate
change, although the data are not comforting in the grand scheme of things. No
doubt a lot of climate sceptics are stubborn and will not be moved by new
methodological approaches. Some, however, will. And although American
environmentalists are regrouping after a series of setbacks, they're hardly
going to abandon the issue of climate change. Reinforced data may help as
they retool their strategies.
What will those strategies be? Over at Duck of Minerva, Josh Busby, a
political scientist at the University of Texas, looks at 2 alternatives:
"Get Angry" or "Go Right". The 1st would involve a more voluble environmental
movement as a counterweight to the fractious climate sceptics (who are, keep
in mind, the minority)--a sort of "Green Tea Party" organised around such
issues as the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The second strategy
would involve building the coalition by reaching out to Republicans, by
focusing on the potential economic benefits of a shift to clean power, for
example, or the national-security implications of dependence on oil imports.
With regard to the 1st strategy, targeted anger, as opposed to the inchoate
variety, can be useful and convincing. Around the anniversary of the Deepwater
Horizon spill, for example, some noted that the environmental impact of the
"disaster" was looking less catastrophic than people had initially
predicted. They took this as evidence that people had overreacted. But another
way of looking at it is that the public fury over the spill was key to
spurring the response that mitigated the impact. Similarly, the Environmental
Protection Agency is planning to regulate mercury, a pollutant that can harm
pregnancies, over the protests of nearly 1/2 of the states and most
congressional Republicans. Speaking at SXSWEco earlier this month, Mary Anne
Hitt of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, argued that the EPA's ability
to fight back has been strengthened by the public's response. On
issues where the harm is discernable and logical responses are readily
available, public anger can drive change.
When it comes to climate change, however, Mr Busby is rightly sceptical of the
angry approach: "Even if this movement were successful, it might get attached
to policies that ultimately prove unworkable. The Tea Party's influence on the
debt ceiling debate may be instructive." Building a bigger tent, he reckons,
would be more effective, partly because it would mitigate the risk of negative
political externalities such as partisan polarisation and would therefore be
more sustainable over the long term.
The "going right" strategy also benefits from the fact that it's possible to
address climate change without making it primarily or even overtly about
climate change. There are a lot of policies and developments afoot that have
climate benefits without being framed as such. The mercury regulation is
one. The EPA's action focuses on the impacts to human health, but one
result of the regulation will be to raise the costs of burning coal, a major
climate culprit. Another example comes from Texas, the nation's leading
wind-power state and not a particular friend of the environment. Last wk in
Fort Worth, I met a wind executive from Amarillo. I asked whether he supports
wind for the environmental benefits or for strictly business
reasons. Business, he said. Then he added something that flips the usual
script about renewable energy: a few wk earlier he had been in Copenhagen, and
was struck by the casual environmentalism of the Danes. As a result, he had
started to think about the environment, and had been riding his bike to
work. In, again, Amarillo.
We hadn't discussed his views on climate change, but then, it wasn't really
relevant. "Going right" on climate change is a worthwhile idea. As I've
written before, with regard to criminal-justice reform, if the "opposite"
party signs on to your programme, there's your proof of concept. And if
climate change is a bridge too far, you can tweak the strategy to "go right"
on subsidiary issues, like developing renewable energy.
MYREF: 20111028210001 msg2011102827119
[240 more news items]
---
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a
steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last
50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to
human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100