In his Inauguration address on 21 January, Obama placed tackling climate change high on the agenda for his second term. His definitive statement that “we will respond to the threat of climate change” signalled to the US and the world that he was ready to take decisive action. In his State of the Union (SOTU) address, delivered yesterday, Obama elaborated on his plan to deliver concrete outcomes on climate change.
His approach sought to connect climate change with the lives of everyday Americans. In emphasising the widespread destruction caused by wildfires, droughts, heatwaves and hurricanes in the US in recent years, he framed it as a domestic issue that Americans have no choice but to address now “for the sake of our children and our future”.
He also connected climate change to the economy. He acknowledged that addressing it will be costly, but it will also bring opportunities, as the workforce is provided with the right skills and training, creating “middle class” jobs and empowering citizens to take control of their energy use. He declared “the good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth”.
What is striking is the way he connected domestic concerns to global ones. Energy security and remaining economically competitive on the global stage are also compelling reasons to act.
Obama, climate change and the next four years
Obama placed a national cap-and-trade scheme back on his policy platform. Significantly, he has not raised it since efforts for national climate change legislation were defeated in 2010. He urged Congress to pursue a market-based solution “like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on”, and appealed for this on ethical grounds “to protect future generations”.
This is a powerful call to Congress, but given the deep ideological divisions, it would be a triumph if Obama can deliver this in the next four years. Recognising this, Obama spelt out the actions that he will take without Congress support.
1. The clean energy revolution
The SOTU address comes at a time of dramatic and historic change in the US energy market. At the start of his first term, Obama called for a clean energy revolution. Yesterday Obama explained how the major policy initiatives and substantial investment in clean energy and technology development and deployment, are making this a reality.
A recent report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance confirmed “a revolution is transforming how Americans produce, consume, and even think about energy”. It shows that traditional sources of energy are in decline, while natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency are increasing. Last year the US added 17 GW of renewable energy capacity, a new record, and the uptake of renewables has doubled in the last five years.
The US EPA announced earlier this month that emissions from US power stations fell by 4.5% in 2011. Overall, US CO2 emissions have fallen by 13% in the past five years.
In declaring that “no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy”, Obama committed to continuing investment in clean energy innovation, so that renewable energy will become increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels. He confirmed that oil and gas development in the US will continue, but announced the creation of a new Energy Security Trust to fund research into cleaner fuels and shift cars “off oil for good”. This would be funded by oil and gas revenue.
2. Federal executive action
The biggest opportunity here is for the EPA to implement limitations on emissions from existing power stations. This would result in substantial cuts in CO2, as the electricity sector is the largest single source of GHG emissions, representing approximately one-third of US emissions.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that CO2 is a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to impose limitations on CO2 emissions from industrial sources such as power plants.
Last year, the EPA proposed performance standards for new power plants. It has indicated that its next step is to impose limitations on existing plants. This is likely to involve tough negotiations between the EPA and the US coal states, but ultimately it is within the EPA power to enforce it.
Polling shows that the timing is right; public support for climate change action in the US is high.
3. Support action by the states
State action on climate change in the US is extensive. The federal administration has an important role to play in facilitating further action and supporting their initiatives with other countries.
In announcing a new goal of halving the energy wasted by home and businesses over the next 20 years, Obama confirmed his support for progressive state action by promising federal funding for states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings.
In the US, there is a range of actions at state level in transportation, energy efficiency, smart grids, and renewable energy. Twenty-nine states have renewable energy portfolio standards, and 25 have their own emission reduction targets.
As well as contributing to emission reductions, states can serve, to quote US Justice Brandeis, as “laboratories of democracy” testing out approaches that might provide possible models for federal action. Californians will tell you about their state’s proud history of shaping federal laws, by taking the lead at state level, such as it did recently with low carbon fuel standards.
If the US is to achieve its 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets, federal co-operation with the states is essential, with or without a national carbon price.
What are the implications for Australia?
What does this mean for Australia? We are seeing a rapid transformation in energy markets on a global scale. In the last two weeks, China has conceded that “there’s no market for further development of energy-intensive industry”. Bloomberg reported that renewable energy is cheaper than energy from new coal powered stations. And Obama’s speech confirmed that the US is rapidly transitioning its economy.
This is just the latest signal that major economies are moving away from emissions-intensive fuels, and it has significant implications for Australia.
It will likely affect export demand for coal, which will certainly decline over time. Australia needs to transform its economy so that, once again, we are competitive in more areas than just the resources sector.
To deploy new technologies in Australia, we need durable legal frameworks. The carbon price and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are examples of mechanisms that send the right price signal to attract such investment. Finance mechanisms are also required to encourage the uptake of the range of clean technologies at scale.
In this context, the current threats by the Coalition to repeal Australia’s Clean Energy package, a package consistent with global developments, are unhelpful. Australia cannot afford to waste another two years prevaricating while the rest of the world is swiftly moving to a low carbon future.
It is quite likely that Obama’s presidency will be seen as the beginning of a long-term downward trend in carbon pollution. That might well be Obama’s climate legacy.
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
All very nice unless, of course, you recall that US Federal government environment initiatives of Obama's first term were marked by substantial waste - green jobs programs that delivered very little, and massive support for companies manufacturing green this and green that, that went into the American version of insolvency administration. Then there was the promise about electric cars which must be contrasted with the results of sales that negligible in Australian terms, let alone in the US market…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
Thanks for your perspective, Mr Lawson.
Would you be so good as to comment on President Obama's apparent enthusiasm for "cap-and-trade" schemes in the light of Oxford Energy Policy Professor Dieter Helm's "The Carbon Crunch - How We're Getting Climate Change Wrong - and How to Fix It"?
As does CEDA ("A taxing debate - the forgotten issues of climate policy") Professor Helm advocates consumption taxation.
Mike Hansen
Mr
Mark Lawson is a hard core climate science denier and author of the book "A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE LUNACY".
While I have not read Lawson's book, his views on climate science are summarised in the following 2007 article.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5559&page=1
He starts off by attacking Michael Mann and the "hockey stick" graph and makes the claim
Read more"That dispute was settled last year by a group of eminent statisticians who formed an ad hoc committee to the US Congressional…
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Mark, if you want to avoid a counter-charge of propaganda, perhaps you might like to explain what will happen if no action is taken.
Have you ever heard the expression 'penny wise and pound foolish'?
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Thanks for the warning, Mike - I'd thought Mark was merely an economic rationalist (now there's an oxymoron for you!) but, given that his views are that irrational, I shall waste no further time or effort trying to reason with him.
Spiro Vlachos
AL
Thanks for that link Mike! That's new reading for me, and very interesting. Also, your up to the same old nonsense, offering nothing but invective.
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Mike
I shouldn't dignify your comments with a response, but its perhaps an indication of the level of your debate that its completely irrelevant to both the article and my post, and that article you're quoting must be at least several years old.
Somewhere in the IPCC 2007 report you'll see that Mann has partially conceded the arguments and changed the original Hockey Stick so that it now has a few bumps. All but a few die hards have since let the matter drop.
Now do you have anything relevant to the article or post to say?
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
David - don't remember whether I've looked at those sources, and thank you for pointing them out, but cap and trade schemes have not proved to be much of a cure for the emission ills we're supposed to be suffering from. Part of the problem is that governments won't stop handing out free emission permits, so the carbon price keeps on collapsing. Come to think of it, it keeps collapsing anyway, even in voluntary schemes (Aus Carbon exchange and the one in Chicago).. Now I believe the thinking is that a straight tax is a better idea.. .
Mike Hansen
Mr
Anyone who gets the impression from Mark's comment that he is walking back from his climate science denialism should read the following article.
http://theconversation.edu.au/peer-review-isnt-perfect-and-the-media-doesnt-always-help-11318
Lawson has uncritically reported in the AFR some junk science on sea level rise from Alberto Boretti a man who he also coauthored a paper with ( a fact he did not disclose in his article).
http://www.webcitation.org/6CocobpUh
Dave McRae
logged in via Twitter
Care to cite any figures for your propaganda? I reject your un-attributed unsupported assertion that "green jobs programs that delivered very little, and massive support for companies manufacturing green this and green that"
So there was Solyndra - that's all you've got .. from $hundreds of billions over 4 years ..Solyndra less than 0.5%
Besides the return with successful businesses there's 100s of thousands employed that otherwise would not be in industries that will very soon, if not already, export ready. In addition to less pollution - I know you won't count CO2, but there also the mercury and such that cause cancer clusters - ~20,000 premature deaths in the USA due to coal fired power stations, and that figure is coming down due to gas and renewables.
You're meant to be a senior journalist - where the figures, the research, evidence - or is unsubstantiated words all you got? I suspect so.
Mike Hansen
Mr
@Dave McRae
What is truly frightening is that Mark Lawson's byline at the AFR is "Mark is a leader writer for the AFR and covers the clean energy sector from our Sydney newsroom."
This is from Obama's speech
"Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we."
If Australian business leaders get the clean energy information from Mark Lawson, they will be missing the boat.
Dave McRae
logged in via Twitter
Mr Lawson. Mike Hansen has already pointed out your climate science denial(if you're ever really keen to demonstrate it, there's a CO2 laser at ANU I'm sure we could get time on - if you're willing to put your little finger in front of it, we could prove CO2 interaction in the infra-red is indeed a matter of opinion).
But how are you travelling with the theory of economic supply and demand, price elasticity? I can Google Scholar on the price elasticity of fuels and all papers I know of show fuels…
Read moreDavid Clerke
Teacher
Which is why of course that temperatures leveled off sixteen or more years ago and there has been no statistically valid increase since.
Mike Hansen
Mr
@David Clerke aka John Coochey
"statistically valid"
What the does that mean?
As usual, you have read something on a climate science denial blog, not understood it and managed to mangle it when you transcribe it here.
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Felix - the problem with the article is not so much that action should or should not be taken - that's a point to be debated - but that the author mentioned a host of issues which were simply window dressing and left out basic facts such as the US never being in Kyoto.
Your other comment is simply irrational, but if you want to block out information you don't want to hear then so be it..
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Apart from Solyndra, and just taking a couple of examples from the news of last year, there was Ener1, went into bankruptcy protection despite a $US118 million grant for a battery making subsidiary.and a $US500 million green job training program which fell miserably short of targets and had to be investigated by congress.
Hundreds of billions over four years? Sorry, if that figure has nay basis in reality you'll find it includes things like subsides to wind industries which is also a waste…
Read moreMark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Dave - I'm sure you'd like to get me in front of a laser.. although I'm puzzled at the turn of the debate and this business about price elasticity. A tax will increases prices for fossil fuels, quite right.. so what was your point?
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
It occurred to me where those figures for the 100,000s of new jobs must have come from. I hope the US press didn't report any of that stuff but in Aus there use to be activist "studies" showing those types of figures.. usually these assumed major export industries would grow out of clean energy.
The reality was that all the manufacturing of green energy equipment - the wind generators and PV and the like went to China and Taiwan, and the manufacturers in the US and Aus went out of business or shifted offshore. There were media reports at the time. The studies forgot that manufacturing is still manufacturing, and the Chinese have an advantage.
Dave McRae
logged in via Twitter
My point was something that climate inactivists have great difficulty grasping. The next step - higher prices for fossil fuels mean decreased demand as well as allowing competing techs a look in, correction of a market failure of externalizing pollution.
You do know this, or should, but I acknowledge you don't want it getting around.
John Newton
Author Journalist
Mark - I remember a visiting UK expert on renewable energy being interviewed during the Howardocene period. He spoke of hus puzzlement that Australia went form a leader in alternative energy technology to a desert. When asked by the interviewer what went wrong. he replied "John Howard."
Don't know about the US, but our renewable energy industry was almost wiped out by the Howard government's support for fossil fuels. It's now in recovery mode
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Mark, don't lecture me about being irrational when you so clearly either deny or misunderstand basic science. I am not 'blocking out information I don't want to hear' (the classic self-pitying paranoia of the Moncktonian-Boltean denier) I am refraining from wasting my time listening to the opinions of fools.
Do you listen to your local astrologer, or are you blocking out information you don't want to hear?
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Mark, your book 'A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy' was published in July 2012 by Connor Court, the publishing stable (and I mean 'stable' in the fullest sense of the word) that produces the work of such noted scientific luminaries as Ian Plimer, James Dellingpole, Donna Lafaramboise and George Pell - so please don't try the disinegunous and cowardly excuse that Mike was citing an article that was 'at least seven years old.'
And, while you have every right to publish whatever you want through whichever company is willing to accept it, and post here to your heart's content, you will, I trust, also respect our democratic right to treat such pseudo-scientific rantings with the contempt they deserve.
Peter Evans
Retired
The green jobs program sound suspiciously like the direct action planned by the Coalition. I wonder if in a few years we will see the same comments about them e.g. substantial waste, little impact and support for companies about to fold (in our case ageing power stations)?
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"David Clerke": "no statistically valid increase"
16 year periods usually don't have a "statistically significant increase" e.g. 1981 to 1996 inclusive.
So what's your point?
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"Somewhere in the IPCC 2007 report you'll see that Mann has .. changed the original Hockey Stick so that it now has a few bumps."
It always had a few bumps so you're just making a strawman.
"All but a few die hards have since let the matter drop."
Yes, the denialists are certainly diehards. They keep carrying on about "the" hockey stick as if there is only one and as if the original one (MBH98/99) differs in any substantial way from the more up to date hockey sticks: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Hi ike-
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Hi Mike (Hansen)-
I don't know whether laugh or cry when I read what you are posting. If you still believe in Michael Mann's hockey stick then there is a good chance that you are also a firm believer in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
If you trust anything on desmogblog over what Wegner or Steve McIntyre wrote then you are sadly misguided. But an excellent True Believer. McIntyre (an acknowledged expert in statistics) showed that Mann's knowledge of statistics was grossly insufficient for the load that he imposed on the subject. If my memory is correct, Wegner (another stats whiz) confirmed what McIntyre wrote.
What is the full story of Wegner's "plagiarism"? Wasn't the text in question put in by someone else? In any case it was irrelevant to the Mann errors. As for the "vindications" of Mann, have a closer look at their methods and lack of depth in their "investigations".
Best regards.
IanM
John Newlands
tree changer
The reduction in US CO2 emissions may be largely attributable to the fracking boom which has created a temporary gas glut and EPA restrictions on mercury in coal flue gas. Some argue that coal is now being exported to China who intend to increase coal consumption from 3.9 to 4.2 Gtpa, contradicting other claims. Some also opine that the cheap US gas price will be gone in a few years.
Therefore there's not really too much to get excited about since scientists tell us we need to reduce CO2 emissions…
Read moreMark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
John - yes we can agree on the fracking boom changing everything around and yes 30 per cent is about the maximum penetration for wind and solar I would have said.. The actual optimum saving point is somewhat lower I suspect, but that's a matter for calculation..
David Arthur
n/a
Thanks for this article, Ms Lake.
You're correct that climate change action is a domestic concern, and the easiest way to cut domestic CO2 emissions is to close all our factories and import all manufactured goods from overseas, which is exactly what all these cap-and-trade schemes, and Australia's Clean Energy Futures package, will achieve.
No wonder it's such a vexed issue for trade unionists and economists who remain within the "progressive" orthodoxy; with all the glorious money to be made, no wonder that China is loath to question the actions that US, EU and Australia struggle to implement.
Please take the time to read Oxford Energy Policy Professor Dieter Helm's "The Carbon Crunch - How We're Getting Climate Change Wrong - and How to Fix It", and comment on his arguments.
Dave McRae
logged in via Twitter
The CEF policy has been in place since Jul12. How many factories has it closed? How has our balance of trade changed?
I love RWDBs - anything they say - take the opposite of and, if you can bet on it, it's a very good investment. No wonder stock have increased 13% since the Jul12 as the RWDB said it would collapse. (Off topic but similar example - means testing of private health rebate, RWDBs said it would cause the collapse of the private health sector. If one had purchased shares in Ramsay at the time, you'ld have nearly doubled your money)
So, CEF, since implementation, 8% reduction in CO2 emmissions (RWDB said nothing would happen) and 13% increase in ASX (RWDB said businesses will fail) and increases in confidence (RWDB said it would fall), inflation low (RWDB said high eg leg of lamb=$100 Sen B.Joyce)
For this reason I do like RWDB procrastinations - it's a fairly safe bet that the opposite will come about - please make many more :)
David Arthur
n/a
Thanks Dave.
I'm not arguing that "cap-and-trade" schemes won't cut emissions; I am arguing that they are woefully sub-optimal vehicles. Broad-based, REVENUE-NEUTRAL fossil fuel consumption taxes FFCT are far and away preferable.
I have made this point many times over at 'The Conversation', as a search for FFCT at site:theconversation.edu.au shows.
Clearly, what the world needs is wholesale replacement of fossil fuel use with alternatives.
The Kyoto mess and various emission trading…
Read moreMark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Yes, quite so.. if you want to reduce emissions forget the cap and trade stuff and stick with a tax.. that is, if you want to reduce emissions..
David Arthur
n/a
A carbon tax doesn't just reduce emissions.
1) Because it drives all your industries towards energy supply reformation, it opens opportunity and cloes off problems.
Read morea) Biogas recovery from urban waste water facilitates water recycling, turns an unavoidable cost into a potential profit generator
b) Biogas recovery from solid waste disposal decreases solid waste mass and volume, turns an unavoidable cost into a potential profit generator
c) Liquid transport fuels from biomass (eg mallee) replaces…
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Well, okay.. that's a pretty hopeful wish list .. um, export coal ceases?? They don't put export taxes on coal at the moment, or are you assuming a world wide tax.. won't be able to look again for a while..
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
David
Whilst I admire your zeal and your attention to the facts, (which is a refreshing change from the author's puff piece), I want to point out that urging Australia to take money away from schools, hospitals and ammunition from our soldiers and putting it toward 'Green Schemes' is a big risk. Why?
1. A carbon tax artificially raises electricity prices. I own a manufacturing and exporting company and we are on the ropes with the high A$. The last thing we need are artificially increased supply…
Read moreBrad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Mark,
This comment and the one below where you state that you have "no interest whatsoever in curbing emissions" seems to confirm what others have said here - that you deny the findings of climate science.
Is this correct?
Journalists and politicians have a strong ethical duty rely on the findings of science rather than their own opinions.
To ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of the relevant scientists in favour of your own ideology is utterly irresponsible in my book. Ignoring the science puts the lives of all our children and future generations at great risk.
See - http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2013/02/12/why-politicians-may-not-ethically-rely-on-their-own-uninformed-opinion-about-climate-science-and-10-questions-that-the-press-should-ask-politicians-about-climate-science-in-light-of-this-responsibilit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EthicsAndClimate+%28ETHICS+and+CLIMATE%29
David Arthur
n/a
A coal export tax? No way.
It's for each nation to apply its border adjustment tax on imported goods and materials, ideally including any fuel used to ship the goods to the port of entry; that's just part of how consumption taxes function, as you'd understand from reporting on the GST.
For a refresher, I suggest you read Geoff Carmody's contribution for CEDA (http://www.ceda.com.au/media/121695/a%20taxing%20debate%20%20the%20forgotten%20issues%20of%20climate%20policy.pdf) and Helm (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forget_kyoto_putting_a_tax_on_carbon_consumption/2590/, "The Carbon Crunch: How We're Getting Climate Change Wrong--and How to Fix It").
David Arthur
n/a
Thanks Mr Dean, have you no clue about how consumption taxes operate on exports? Surprising, really, considering your products are 'zero-rated' for GST purposes at port of export; I suggest you learn about the taxation environment in which your business operates.
The carbon consumption tax will operate in the same way. If your power bill goes up due to the carbon consumption tax, then change power providers to one whose operation is not subject to the carbon tax - you could even cover your factory…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
Mr Dean writes, in response to my expectation that Australia's export coal industry will cease:
"Along with adapting to being much poorer, we will have to order more Abrams tanks and fighter aircraft to defend ourselves. History says that if you lock up what someone else desperately wants, they will come and get it."
My point, Mr Dean, is that Australia's export coal industry will cease BECAUSE NO-ONE will want coal anymore. They won't bother coming to get it, if they have already weaned themselves off the stuff.
Australia's trade in fossil fuels netted $29 billion in 2009/10 (down from $47 billion in 2008/9). By choosing to export alumina rather than aluminium metal in 2009/10, potential export revenue foregone by Australia amounted to $14 billion.
That, however, is not the biggie. Export revenue foregone by Australia by exporting iron ore and pellets instead of turning them to iron and steel, and exporting the metal, was $606 billion.
Think about it.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Is this article for real?
The author claims, 'China has conceded that “there’s no market for further development of energy-intensive industry.'
You cannot be serious. China is planning to build over 1000, read ONE THOUSAND new coal burning power stations by 2030 to keep the wheels turning in its new industries and newly prosperous peasants homes.
Open your eyes and watch as coal mine after coal mine is opened in Australia to fuel their new stations.
Gerard Dean
Mike Hansen
Mr
1000. Not 999. ONE THOUSAND
I see Gerard that you are still getting your figures from the usual place.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
You got a link for that Gerard?
All I can find is news of China trying to cap their coal consumption.
Apparently I am not allowed to post links. I am sure people know how to google "Chinese coal cap".
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
It gets worse. What "Carbon Free" future does the rest of the world have that Australia is missing out on?
Firstly, Germany, long the environmentalist's poster nation is building 20 coal fired power plants using cheap Polish coal sanctioned by cheap European ETS credits.
Secondly, spare me the emotive argument that we should look to Obama and the USA to lead us to a carbon free world. The seven lane highways populated by 7 litre SUV's taking mom and the kids to superheated shopping malls so…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
On the other hand, see my reply to Mark Lawson for some of the benefits for Australia by moving the economy away from fossil fuel dependency.
Mark Lawson
senior journalist at Australian Financial Review
Gerard - I can only thoroughly agree. Although I have no interest whatsoever in curbing emissions I do care about lack of logic, and to anyone aware of the trends the article is plainly absurd.
Christopher Wright
Professor of Organisation Studies, University of Sydney at University of Sydney
Mark,
Wow - 'no interest in curbing missions whatsoever' - that's a pretty scary admission - you're not across the climate science then? Happy with 4, 5, 6 degrees average global warming this century? Foresee no business implications of major climatic changes, increasing propensity of extreme weather events?
Sorry climate change is the key strategic issue of this century - about time business journalists caught up with this. Most major businesses have already started to factor these changes into their strategic planning re market, physical, regulatory and reputational risks.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
They will wear you down Mark, comment by comment.
Still, once more back into the breach.
Gerard Dean
Mike Hansen
Mr
Dean's claim that Germany is building 20 coal fired power stations is total crap.
The climate cranks make that claim every time renewable energy is discussed here but are never able to point to specific sites or projects.
As Justin Guay from the Sierra Club International points out in this article from January this year.
"I hear the Germans are building new coal to replace all that nuclear. Nope. Twenty four new coal plant proposals have been abandoned in Germany since 2008. A small number of announced projects remain but it is widely expected none of these will in the end be permitted and some remain just on paper."
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/01/europes-coal-renaissance-masks-industry-downfall.html
It is revealing that Mark Lawson, the climate science denier who writes on clean energy for the AFR was unable to correct Dean.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Mark, by having 'no interest whatsoever in curbing emissions' you do not demonstrate that you care about lack of logic, you prove that you embody it.
Alice Kelly
sole parent
Trends mark, what trends? More and more and more countries are putting in place mechanisms to curb fossil fuel emissions whether they've signed Kyoto, or not. Renewable energy industries will be some of the the biggest growth industries in the 21 st. century. Small scale and large. If you can prove otherwise do so.
Whether you like it or not, my children will have to be a part of the transition which is taking place now, building momentum, and I don't think you or I have any idea what sort of industries / jobs will be a part of normal life in 2050. You will be dead.
The article I found to be insightful and relevant
Your comments "plainly absurd", very unreconstructed.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Check it out Gerard - electric cars with a range of 300 miles and speeds in excess of 70 mph. And the 'journalist' had to go to very extreme measures to run it out of charge.
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/14/tesla-slams-nytimes-reporter-for-dishonest-article-lies-doing-everything-he-could-possibly-do-to-run-the-tesla-battery-to-0/
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
It is truly scary that people who should be among the intellectual elite of the country are capable of making postings including "Happy with 4, 5, 6 degrees average global warming this century? " and ".....climate change is the key strategic issue of this century"
- about time business journalists caught up with this. Most major businesses have already started to factor these changes into their strategic planning re market, physical, regulatory and reputational risks.
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Ignore my last posting. It went out long before I had finished writing it.
IanM
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
It is truly scary that people who should be among the intellectual elite of the country are capable of making postings including "Happy with 4, 5, 6 degrees average global warming this century?" and ".....climate change is the key strategic issue of this century".
As for the article, it is equally scary that Obama has bought into the "climate change" story. First of all, climate is always changing. Then, the world did warm from the end of the Little Ice Age, around 1810. All of 0.6°C. There has…
Read moreFelix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Ian, businesses act on the basis of demonstrated science, unless you are now arguing that the majority of business leaders have also joined the overwhelming majority of scientists in being fooled by a fraud that only you and a tiny group of herioic rationalists are able to penetrate?
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
@Felix MacNeill
I am curious about this "overwhelming majority of scientists". Could you enlighten us as to your source of information regarding this "majority"? By any chance is it the one discussed and dismissed at http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/? Remember that a consensus only counts in religion; science does not work by consensus. A single dissenter who digs up facts can destroy the consensus of hundreds. Think of Galileo, Pasteur, and Australia…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
As an indicator of how far McQueen is in a scientific cuckoo land, here is an amusing Skeptical Science post where all the leading climate cranks concede in their own words that there is a greenhouse effect.
So when McQueen claims "no one has ever shown a srong (if any.....) linkage between CO2 and climate", he needs to be arguing with the climate cranks.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_Greenhouse_Gas_Effect_All-Star_Fan_Club.html
In the mean time McQueen offered his best advice when he said "Ignore my last posting."
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Ian,
I checked out Solomon's piece that you refered to and while he did point out some problems with that particular study I think that the conclusions he draws are speculative and self serving. You can find a stronger study demonstrating the consensus among relevant scientists regarding climate change here http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
"we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers…
Read moreIan L. McQueen
Retired
Hi Brad-
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Hi Brad-
Thank you for the polite reply and the new reference. The "1,372 climate researchers" that you refer to comes from what is known as the Anderegg paper. Here are the full details of both the Anderegg paper and the paper covered by Solomon: http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf?q=sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf
And a reminder that consensus only counts in religion, not science.
Best regards.
IanM
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Ian,
I checked out the Heartland Institute's paper and I don't think it contains much that detracts from the findings of the original journal articles.
The available evidence suggests that there is a consensus that involves around 97-98% of climate scientists.
Consensus may not be everything in science but in the absence of contrary evidence it is rational to listen to what the consensus of the relevant scientists is saying. This is particularly important when our children's futures are at stake.
Regarding your final point - If consensus doesn't count in science why are the climate science deniers putting so much effort into trying to undermine the public's knowledge about the scientific consensus regarding climate change?
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Hi Brad-
Regarding the consensus, it isn't us sceptics who are specifically trying to "undermine the public's knowledge about the scientific consensus"; we are trying to show that consensus just does not enter the picture where scientific matters are concerned. In science the acid test is whether something can be tested and reproduced by others (admittedly a bit difficult in climate matters!!). But "consensus" as such is unimportant. Otherwise the Earth-centric theory of the solar system would still be believed, we might still be burning witches, doctors would not feel any need to wash their hands, etc. Those beliefs were once the consensus.
Have a good day. I am in eastern Canada and it is now bedtime. Until later.
IanM
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Mike-
Once you venture into ad hominem land you lose all credibility. With a reference to "cuckoo land" you stepped over the line.
If you don't like what I say (which is based on fact and science), then tell us where and why I am wrong. Just standing on the curb and throwing stones is not a good argument. I can back up everything that I say with evidence. Can you?
Best regards.
IanM
Mike Hansen
Mr
Well Ian... let us put your claim to the test.
Please supply a peer reviewed science reference that includes links to observational evidence proving that there is no greenhouse effect.
This is your claim in contradiction to even the leading climate cranks.
Time to put up or stop trolling.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Ian, check out the difference between consensus of opinion (economists) and consensus of evidence (scientists).
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Ian,
I agree with your point that science (ie. hypotheses and theories) has to be open to falsification. However, I also have to agree with Donald Brown when he says -
"Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United…
Read moreChris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"the world did warm from the end of the Little Ice Age, around 1810."
Around 1910, actually.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Ian, Once you start citing Heartland you lose all credibility.
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Brad - there was a consensus in the science that the world was cooling in the 70's and that the worlds trees would be destroyed by acid rain from sulphur output. There was consensus that the world was flat, there was consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. It goes on and on. Nothing is proven until it matches empirical data and that is where you hang at the moment. The lack of attention to details particularly by Mann did your cause no favours. Neither did the dying polar bears or the No ice in the Arctic in 15 years (10 years ago).
Your science has been hung out by a bunch of radical statements that must make many of your scientists shake their heads in disbelief that their work can be undone by a few hot heads.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"there was a consensus in the science that the world was cooling in the 70's"
The world had been cooling a little. That was observation, not concensus.
"the worlds trees would be destroyed by acid rain from sulphur output"
Some of the worlds trees, which they were.
"There was consensus that the world was flat"
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. http://en.wikipedia…
Read moreBrad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Bob,
Like I said above, of course science (ie. hypotheses and theories) has to be open to falsification. The fact that it can be is exactly why relying on science is far superior than relying on ideology or opinion. However, denying climate science is not the same as falsifying it.
And, like I said before, to deny the overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the relevant climate scientists is utterly irresponsible in my book - it puts the lives of all of our children and future generations at risk
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Hi Brad: I have heard this argument before "it puts the lives of all of our children and future generations at risk" and like all risk assessments the opposite is also as great a risk. If we put so much effort, finances and resources into mitigating the risk of global warming then we condemn our children and grandchildren to a energy reduced world where they cannot compete with other nations nor afford to have an air conditioner or run a pump. They will also attempting to pay the enormous bills that…
Read moreBrad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Bob, sorry but
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
I think that future generations will be in a lot more trouble if we do what you propose.
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
If we ignore the overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the climate scientists and continue with the business as usual approach you seem to advocate then the dangerous climate change that they are predicted to face will make the costs you describe seem very trivial indeed.
Brad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
We know the threat that climate change poses. We have at our disposal a range of proven alternatives to the use of fossil fuels as well as a range of other cost effective solutions we could use to address the threat. If we continue to fail to take adequate action to protect our children and future generations from dangerous climate change we will surely go down in history as Gen S - the most selfish generations of all time.
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Hi Brad - thanks for the replies. I am building a house at the moment and as the electricity supply company wants to charge me $100,000 to attach the wires to my place I have been looking at all alternatives and I am struggling. There was a gas driven electricity option that would supply enough power but it is in the pilot stage and I missed out. Looked closely at solar and a wood driven unit from the USA but I don't want a system where I have to look after batteries or stoke wood all summer to get…
Read moreBrad Farrant
Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
Hi Bob, small scale power generation that is remote from the grid is not something I have expertise in. There are a number of not-for-profit organisations around that should be able to help with this. All the best, Brad
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Chris O'Neill wrote: "Once you start citing Heartland you lose all credibility."
Chris-
Please state the grounds on which you attempt to condemn "Heartland". Yes, what they say probably goes against what you believe. But is your belief based on solid grounds or is it just what Joe-down-at-the-pub told you? I've put several thousand hours into researching climate; how about you?
Heartland was established to publicize facts. Please tell us where Heartland is wrong. And don't use the "peer review" ploy; if a group has taken control of a publication, then it can block the publication of any material that runs counter to what that group is espousing. And that is exactly what has happened in "climate studies". If you are not aware of this fact then you are not reading widely enough.
Best regards.
IanM
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"Heartland was established to publicize facts."
How gullible can you get? Heartland is a political lobbying organisation as is obvious from their own statement: "The mission of the Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." Part of its illustrious history was working with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks.
Charming.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
On another thread Mr McQueen claims to have spent thousands of hours researching climate change. Then he went on to make the claim that CO2 could not possibly affect the climate because there was so much more H2O in the atmosphere (by weight/volume).
If he had spent thousands of hours researching climate change he would surely know that different greenhouse gases affect the climate by different amounts. He would surely know that H2O is responsible for about 60% of climate forcing and CO2 about 25%.
And now here he is passionately defending the Heartland Institute.
Anyone else smell a professional disinformer?
Alice Kelly
sole parent
http://huffingtonpost.com/news/heartland-institute
Ian, read some of these articles please
Ian L. McQueen
Retired
Anyone interested in the full story on Wegman, plus a good primer on McIntyre, is welcome to read http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf.
All 92 pages of it.....
Best regards.
Ian
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
"Obama’s presidency will be seen as the beginning of a long-term downward trend in carbon pollution" If you followed any data regarding CO2 output you would realise that America has been on a downward track for many years. Just look up CO2 output USA v China. The Chinese past the USA in 2009/10 in terms of CO2 output. The Chinese will hit 3.5 times the total worlds CO2 output in 2010 on its own by 2030 (prof Richard H. Muller) regardless of the commitments they have made to CO2 reduction.
Then…
Read moreChris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"If you followed any data regarding CO2 output you would realise that America has been on a downward track for many years. Just look up CO2 output USA v China."
Indeed. The USA has been moving away from coal and towards gas as we can see at http://oilprice.com/free-widgets . The USA now gets nearly 50% more energy from natural gas than from coal. This, of course, reduces CO2 emissions for the same energy.
"According to Hadcrut3 the global temp has not increased in 15 years"
Of course, Hadcrut3 left out large, rapidly warming areas like most of the Arctic and continental interiors. Datasets without this shortcoming tell a different story.
"the climate is getting hotter and has been since the last ice age and that is a fact"
You can't claim that without evidence. It is possible that it was warmer 7,000-8,000 years ago than now.
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Chris - If you don't know we have been coming out of an ice age for the last 10,000 years (wiki) and the seas have been rising along with temperatures. There is also a claim that there is a heating and cooling cycle between ice ages but I have done little reading in that area. The greater fear for the human race is a meteor and another ice age. If you think heating is a problem it aint nothing compared to cooling,
BTW the rss feeds give similar results to hadcrut3 and the hadcrut4 shows only a…
Read moreChris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Bob if you don't know we were out of the last ice age by 7,000 years ago (wiki). Cooling would be a problem if it happened but it isn't going to happen any time soon.
The NOAA claim of 15 years of zero trend at the 95% level was based on simulations of surface temperature, not lower troposphere temperature such as meaured by RSS.
Also, the NOAA claim ruled out zero or less trend, not zero plus some error estimate or less, so according to the NOAA claim there is no trigger for looking at the CO2 theory again.
Don't let cherry-picks that start at big El Ninos and finish at a double La Nina fool you into thinking there must be a pause in underlying warming: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/more-on-david-roses-nonsense/ and http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Chris - It could be cherry picking or you could be blinded by your belief either way it warrants some work rather than just dis it by calling it cherry picking. Here is some more data from Werner Brozek (no idea who he is but it is interesting).
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
Read moreFor Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level…
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Bob, none of that data makes any difference to what I pointed out above which contrary to your suggestion has nothing to do with belief. Any reasonably accurate measure of global temperature has not crossed the zero trend line over 15 years. That's the only fact that is relevant to NOAA's claim.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
90% of the extra heat the planet is absorbing is absorbed in the oceans. Some of that heat is then periodically released into the atmosphere (during El Nino phases) when it affects surface temperatures.
Oceanic heat content and sea levels have continued to rise in the last 15 years.
Oceanic Heat Content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level.html
Lucky for you the only people who will be affected by climate change are environmentalists.
Bob Thomas
Senior Manager
Gary - had a look at the aviso site and noticed they claim an increase of 3.12mm per year. This is well within the 2.8-3.2 mm per yr most sites are getting. This is 312mm per century or 1 ft per century or about what it was the last century except in Sydney harbour and some sites in Holland where there was no rise in the last century. Where are the metres of SL increase the models are predicting?
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
I'm not really an expert on the models but I think they forecast an acceleration of sea level rise as glacial melt increases.
If you are interested in sea level modelling you might like this article:
https://theconversation.edu.au/peer-review-isnt-perfect-and-the-media-doesnt-always-help-11318
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"This is 312mm per century or 1 ft per century or about what it was the last century"
That's more than it was last century.
"Where are the metres of SL increase the models are predicting?"
The models aren't predicting an expected SL increase of more than a metre this century (which would still displace millions of people) but it would be rather selfish of us to ignore the consequences of our actions in subsequent centuries.