Idiots, Cowards and Bastards.

Written By: - Date published: 4:18 pm, September 22nd, 2014 - 47 comments
Categories: energy, global warming, science - Tags: , ,

2 700 events protesting inaction on global warming have just taken place across 161 countries.  And Lord Stern has released a new, somewhat upbeat report , claiming there are fifteen years in which to take action on global warming. I’ll come back to that, but first the good news.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a good thing. It’s good because we know and control the things we do that cause average global surface temperatures to rise. So all we need to do is stop doing those things. Pretty damned simple then.

What follows is largely an attempt to distil information relating to carbon emissions from energy use contained in reports and articles by leading climate scientists Alice Bows and Kevin Anderson  Any information not otherwise linked, is contained in a 2012 presentation by Anderson that I’m providing video, transcript and powerpoint slide links to.

As far back as 1992, governments of the world came together at Rio to…well, essentially to talk about global warming among other matters. They waffled a lot and did nothing. Thereafter, very conservative IPCC reports were compiled and more meetings were held. All the while, total atmospheric carbon increased and the rate of accumulation also increased. ( Graph – pp 22)

Seventeen years after Rio, government people all flew into Copenhagen and signed a non-binding declaration to “hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius and to take actions to meet this objective, consistent with the science, and on the basis of equity”.

Three years after that, in 2012, Anderson presented findings from his having trawled through the available scientific data and various reports to reveal the following scenario for keeping average global surface temperature warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

If the energy related carbon emissions of non-Annex 1 countries ( India, China, the African continent etc) increased by only 3.5% per annum, and their emissions peaked in or around ~2025 (China) ~2040 (India) and ~ 2050 (Africa) – and their emissions then reduced at twice the rate neo-classical economists hold to be compatible with a viable global market system of production and distribution (ie, if they reduced at a rate of 7% p.a.), then Annex 1 countries (that includes us in NZ) would have had to have brought carbon emissions from all sources (not just fuel related sources) down to zero in 2010.

Now here’s the thing. Impossible as it is to time travel or to get carbon emissions from all sources down to zero, that was only for a 50/50 chance of avoiding 2 degrees C of warming.

Also, when 2 degrees C was put on the table in the late 90s  (Para one of abstract) it was viewed as being the difference between ‘acceptable’ levels of warming and ‘dangerous’ levels of warming. As more comprehensive scientific data became available, 2 degrees C has come to be understood as the difference between ‘dangerous and ‘extremely dangerous’ levels of warming.  (graph on pp 19)

But, back to a 2 degrees C target. If we throw away any idea of fairness, and coerce or convince China, India and Africa to just stop any attempts to develop, then our 50/50 chance of avoiding “extremely dangerous” levels of global warming entails no household appliances, no cars, no ships or planes, no street lighting or industry – in short, nothing anywhere in the world, running on any energy related to fossil fuels by 2040.

Now, given that emissions are currently going up, and given that it’s unlikely non-Annex 1 countries will simply agree to forego development, it doesn’t seem feasible to suggest the world will achieve zero emissions from all energy sources in that time frame.

So that leaves us having to accept “extremely dangerous” levels of warming. That’s the deal we’ve dealt ourselves. The only question left then is: “How little above 2 degrees can we aim for”? Currently, according to informed scientific opinion, we’re in the midst of creating a future world of 6 degrees C of warming. Some reports by the likes of the World Bank, pdfs here, and here , the International Energy Agency and Price Waterhouse Cooper  suggest that 4 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial global temperatures could be experienced by as early as 2040-2050. ( p1 para 4 and 5)

Putting aside the question of crossing any tipping points (because the games a bogey at that point…completely out of our control), and if we also assume great strides are made in reducing carbon from agricultural/deforestation sources, then the scenario for almost certainly avoiding 4 degrees of warming is that we must, as a species, globally peak energy related emissions by 2020. And then achieve global reductions in emissions at a rate of 3.5% per annum thereafter. (P13 para 4)

Currently, the idea that we must peak energy related emissions in five or six years time doesn’t form any part of any government’s policy that I’ve come across. Here in NZ the idea seems to be to drop CO2 emissions to half of what they were in 1990 by 2050.  I’ll leave it to you to decide, given the science and the fact that the problem with atmospheric carbon is its accumulation over time, as to whether that’s an adequate response.

The bottom line is that 4 degrees warming isn’t an option for us either biologically or in terms of having a civilisation. That level of warming is widely seen within the scientific community as being incompatible with any kind of organised global community. So we have to avoid it. No ‘ifs’ and no ‘buts’.

Now before you go scrabbling to bring to mind various reports, or reports of reports, that paint an altogether rosier picture than this in order to conclude that what’s been outlined here is fairly baseless, there’s a few things you need to know.

Almost all reports on AGW, including Stern’s update mentioned at the beginning of the post, assume fanciful negative carbon scenarios, usually in order to suggest “likely” outcomes – where ‘likely’ usually means somewhere in the range of ‘better than a 66% chance’. (Table on p3)

So, you know, when a report gushes that we’ll “likely” avoid 2 degrees warming, but is all the while quietly inserting negative carbon scenarios into the picture, it’s not just a punt (a two in three chance), but it’s a punt based on a clutch of coincidental abracadabra moments – the moment when thousands of CC&S compatible power stations will just pop up from nowhere; the moment when the logistics of sourcing bio-fuels for power stations, shipping, aviation, road transport, and everything else that’ll be looking to run on bio-fuel, is instantaneously and somewhat neatly resolved; the moment when all the necessary geological features for storage just appear from nowhere; the moment when CC&S on a large scale, doesn’t just magically appear, but is serendipitously found to ‘work’ exactly as hoped.

See, even if current, tried and tested technology, such as nuclear is proposed as a ‘get out of jail free card’, big questions remain such as – Is there enough uranium in the world to fuel thousands and thousands more nuclear power stations?…(sigh)…at which point, some people duck and dive and begin wittering on about thorium reactors…

So okay, it takes years – decades – for large scale technology to be developed, tested and rolled out. And then more years of tweaking and redesigning to get it (hopefully) performing as envisaged. And we don’t have years. Well, we do – we have about five of them. Given the lag in cause and effect, it is precisely the CO2 that we emit today, that then stacks on top the total we’ve already emitted, that determines the temperature increases of the future.

As for influential and popular reports by such luminaries as Stern and Hanson, that governments have based policy on, the pictures those reports painted have been well and truly discredited by Anderson and Bowes who have pointed out that (among other things) they employed wildly optimistic and non-empirical data sets to determine certain parameters of their models (eg – emission rates much lower than the actual known rates and peak emission dates arbitrarily placed in the past or in the immediate future etc)

So, the stuff mentioned in the previous paragraphs is based on bollocks and not science, and yet it’s precisely that stuff that underpins the vast majority of well regarded and influential reports on AGW. No-one within the scientific community, at least not to my knowledge, and yes, I have searched, has challenged the critical analyses Bowes and Anderson have made on the various and numerous reports they’ve considered. The Copenhagen Accord was a commitment by governments to form policies to keep temperatures below 2 degrees on a basis that was consistent with the science; not a commitment keep temperature increases below 2 degrees based on hopes and prayers.

So, that’s the science; avoiding 2 degrees C is now all but impossible, and dipping below 4 degrees C is looking increasingly unlikely. But look. If you want to keep on contributing to impossible futures, if not for yourself, then certainly for any young people attached to your life, then cling to whatever rosy falsehoods you have and carry on exactly as you are.

Alternatively, understand that your civilisation and way of life will not be possible with 4 degrees of warming. And acknowledge that this civilisation and you’re way of living is steadily making any dip below 4 degrees C of warming increasingly improbable. Then act intelligently, accordingly, and maybe most importantly of all, quickly.

47 comments on “Idiots, Cowards and Bastards. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. aerobubble 1
    22 September 2014 at 4:50 pm

    If Climate Change were a problem (I believe it is), and the problem is CO2, then growing things should sequestrate carbon. Why has nobody been trying to sell me fast growing bamboo seeds? So that I can do my bit? If everyone uses their spare patch of earth to capture carbon we won’t have to wait for politicians to get their head around it. Farm the bamboo, turn it into bio-fuel or bury in some old mine workings with minimum wage workers. Maybe even liquidize it and pump it down old oil wells.

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      22 September 2014 at 4:52 pm

      “turn it into bio-fuel”

      Then you’re not achieving anything.

      “Maybe even liquidize it and pump it down old oil wells.”

      It’s questionable how sensible it is to go the effort of drilling very high-quality petroleum, burning it, and replacing it with low-quality (and comparatively carbon-light) bio-fuel. Be better just to stop drilling for new oil entirely.

      • aerobubble 1.1.1
        22 September 2014 at 4:58 pm

        Bio-fuel are wrong because? They take more oil to grow, take farm land.

        My front garden is not farm land, its prime growing area for bamboo.

        As for liquidizing it, sure its mostly water, my bad.

        Bamboo makes great building, furniture, even shoots are tasty.

        So yeah, no.

        • wtl 1.1.1.1
          22 September 2014 at 5:06 pm

          Your front garden is also tiny. Have you done the calculations to work out the amount of carbon your front garden can potentially sequester? What about the amount energy the remaining stages will take (liquifying the bamboo and/or transporting/burying it)?

          • greywarbler 1.1.1.1.1
            22 September 2014 at 5:11 pm

            wtl
            Do for sure see problems and discuss them but don’t sneer at individual effort. Put your energy into suggesting something additional if you have experience or information, or go and make your own small effort, or STFU.

            • Bill 1.1.1.1.1.1
              22 September 2014 at 5:25 pm

              Pointing out stupidity is not something to be discouraged.

              • greywarbler …
                22 September 2014 at 7:14 pm

                @ Bill
                I suggested seeing problems and discussing them. Not calling people or their ideas stupid when they are making a sincere effort. I think that is the most effective way of making improvements in understanding and response.

            • wtl 1.1.1.1.1.2
              22 September 2014 at 8:16 pm

              Sneering? I was simply pointing out that coming up with effective solutions requires more detailed thought rather than just coming up with a proposal off the top of your head. If you want to contribute to solving global warming there are far more effective things that can be done apart from growing bamboo in your front lawn, such as using public transport, avoiding air travel or becoming a vegetarian.

              The problem is that “solutions” such as this are all too often used as excuses for not doing anything worthwhile (e.g. it’s okay if I take a trip to Europe every year because I am planting bamboo in my front yard). They are also used as a strategy for minimizing the problem we are all facing (oh! global warming isn’t a big deal, all that is needed for us to grow more trees). To really deal with global warming we will need a collective effort to reduce our energy usage and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Carbon sequestration may be a worthwhile strategy, but it will have to be done on a large scale and with proper research to ensure it is done in the most effective way possible. Also, the possibility of carbon sequestration must NOT be used as an excuse to avoid cutting down on our energy usage or stopping the use of fossil fuels.

          • aerobubble 1.1.1.1.2
            23 September 2014 at 2:24 pm

            My front garden is a nice size but that wasn’t the point. No reasonable person could think I was talking about just my garden, that would be divvy.

    • Bill 1.2
      22 September 2014 at 5:05 pm

      …if we also assume great strides are made in reducing carbon from agricultural/deforestation sources, then the scenario for almost certainly avoiding 4 degrees of warming is…

    • Jenny 1.3
      22 September 2014 at 5:58 pm

      @aerobubble

      More urgent and effective than sequestration and mitigation we must cut back our emissions.

      To have any hope of halting further climate change or even stopping the already baked in changes being much worse when they hit, the world needs to go onto a war footing. The scientists tell us that nothing less than global mobilisation on the same scale needed to defeat fascism is required. But this time instead of rallying all our collective energies and sacrifice to take life we need to rally the same sort of human energy and invention to save it.

      Human civilisation and culture and everything you hold dear is at stake.

    • Doug Mackie 1.4
      22 September 2014 at 10:43 pm

      Because such plants die after a decade or two and return the carbon to the atmosphere. Biofuels etc don’t add fossil C but neither do they remove it.

      • Richard Christie 1.4.1
        23 September 2014 at 8:27 am

        As bio fuels can reduce fossil fuel dependance = steady state system (nett reduction in added C02 from previously sequestered sources).

      • weka 1.4.2
        23 September 2014 at 11:17 am

        “Because such plants die after a decade or two and return the carbon to the atmosphere. Biofuels etc don’t add fossil C but neither do they remove it.”

        Unless they are grown in such a way as to increase soil carbon.

  2. Lanthanide 2
    22 September 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Presumably these models all assume BAU, and don’t take into account peak oil.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      22 September 2014 at 5:06 pm

      Yep. One way or another, we will definitely have a much lower carbon economy by 2040 or 2050. It’s not even a choice.

      • Gareth 2.1.1
        23 September 2014 at 8:45 am

        I think you’re looking for this: http://www.carbontracker.org/report/carbon-bubble/

        As of 2012 there were 2,795 Gigatons of CO2 in known proven reserves of oil and coal.

        As of 2012, we had 565 Gigtons of CO2 we could burn before we hit a concentration that gives us a 2 C increase. We’re burning about 40 Gigatons a year globally, so there should be around 480 Gigatons left of our ceiling now.

        If governments were as committed to 2C as they say they are, then they have to come to a global zero carbon plan in the next 12 years.

        But they’re not. As Bill said, we’re on track for 6C. And that’s a globally averaged 6C, so over large land masses closer to the equator you’re talking a 20C increase.

    • Bill 2.2
      22 September 2014 at 5:09 pm

      Go look at the figures for proven and recoverable reserves and stack it against any projected atmospheric carbon budgets for this century that would allow us to head off warming. There is enough recoverable oil/gas and coal to cook the planet over and over. Forget about peak oil as a way of being ‘saved’.

      • Lanthanide 2.2.1
        22 September 2014 at 5:12 pm

        Yeah, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that it would defeat global warming, the main problem being the accessible coal.

        But if civilization completely collapses from peak oil, resulting in 1-2B people dying, that will make things a bit easier on those that remain.

        • Bill 2.2.1.1
          22 September 2014 at 5:23 pm

          You want to bank on some peak oil related catastrophe happening before the effects of 2 degrees hit in the hope that means the effects of 2 degrees won’t be so severe?

          Nothing is going to be ‘a bit easier’ for anyone alive in a world experiencing + 2 degrees… and never mind that 2 will be a weigh station on the way to somewhere in the region of + 4 degrees or even higher unless we peak global emissions from energy by 2020 and drop at 3.5% per annum or drop to zero by 2040.

        • weka 2.2.1.2
          22 September 2014 at 5:49 pm

          Lanth, the peak oil specialists who previously thought peak oil would force a reduction in ghg emissions now generally don’t think that. Peak oil is just taking too long for us to rely on.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.3
          22 September 2014 at 6:40 pm

          But if civilization completely collapses from peak oil, resulting in 1-2B people dying, that will make things a bit easier on those that remain.

          Carrying capacity of this planet with minimal access to oil or coal energy is currently MUCH less than 5B people….we can build infrastructure and systems to change that of course…but we are nowhere close yet.

        • Tracey 2.2.1.4
          23 September 2014 at 9:05 am

          cos of the compost you mean?

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.2
        23 September 2014 at 8:55 am

        There is enough recoverable oil/gas and coal to cook the planet over and over. Forget about peak oil as a way of being ‘saved’.

        Technically recoverable doesn’t mean economically recoverable. 80% of that will stay in the ground as the economy continues to decline and unaffordability of the fuel worsens.

  3. Jenny 3
    22 September 2014 at 4:57 pm

    “Idiots, Cowards and Bastards.”

    BILL

    “Global protests as greenhouse gases hit high”

    Thousands of peaceful demonstrators, including Native Americans in traditional clothing, politicians and top environmental activists, descended on Manhattan on Sunday (local time).

    The People’s Climate March came before a United Nations Climate Summit scheduled to begin Tuesday, when 120 world leaders will meet to discuss strategies for achieving a new global climate treaty…..

    …..Stanley Sturgill, a retired coal miner from Kentucky who now suffers from black lung, a condition brought on by prolonged exposure to coal dust, was in the crowd.
    “We have dug the coal that has generated the electricity to power this country but our people are paying a price for it,” he said. “We are here to tell our world leaders that we are at the front lines of this crisis.” Stuff.co.nz Monday, September 22, 2014

    So what will New Zealand representatives at this conference be telling the Stanley Sturgill’s of the world?

    Last week the National government announced two policies that will maintain and increase New Zealand’s Greenhouse gas emissions. First a $103 million bail out for the technically insolvent Solid Energy to allow them to continue polluting at a loss. This is on top of the $150 million already forwarded to Solid Energy by the government last year. Gareth Hughes of the Green Party stated at the time, that the money would have been better spent paying New Zealand’s coal workers a just transition to jobs that don’t fry the planet. Why is the New Zealand taxpayer paying the polluters for more coal industry victims like Stanley Sturgill or the NZ Pike river miners. Just like last time the Labour Party stay silent. As I predicted, a promised post by Greg Presland on the last Solid Energy bailout never saw the light of day. And for holding him to his word, I was banned from The Standard Oil website. Will Greg Presland finally reveal his thoughts on the chilling climate crime that the bail out of Solid Energy represents. Or will he again keep his silence. I predict the latter. Right there, is the moral malaise at the heart of the Labour Party.

    Why did Labour do so badly in the elections? Because they are moral cowards, with not the guts to come out hard either one way on this (actually on any government retrograde policy). On the issue of climate change arguably the biggest moral issue of all time, the Labour Party are silent.

    As for the Nats they are open scabs!

    In an open slap in the face to the global divestment movement, the second policy that the government announced last week was a $10 million fund to make investing in oil and gas exploration easier.

    Will The Standard Oil authors be making any comments on this issue either. I doubt it.

    Why did so many people vote National?

    If the red meat policies of the Right are so good why settle for second best?

    As John Key said, ‘Why have lamb chop when you can have steak?

    For not coming out and challenging the government over their record on climate change and for their rabid right wing support for new coal mines and deep sea oil drilling and for their sectarian attituede to the Greens and the wider Left the Labour Party deserve their drubbing. I predict, that over this next three year term, as the Labour Party further reveal themselves as pale imitations of the the government, the Green Party will emerge as the leader of the opposition.

    James Hansen explains Climate Change and the Solution
    “The problem would be solvable If we would phase out coal emissions, which are almost entirely at power plants, and if we would leave the unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. Because the amount of conventional oil and gas is finite and of course if you keep going after it in the deepest ocean and the Arctic and the Antarctic and things you could cause a problem. But if we would not do that, the problem would be solvable. But it would require phasing out coal and no unconventional fossil fuels. That’s not happening. On the contrary we are doing exactly the opposite. We are allowing and encouraging and subsidising fossil fuel companies to go after every fossil fuel they can find. Including the unconventional ones.”

    @ 34:00 minutes

    labour National “close” on mining

    Labour’s finance spokesman, David Parker, says his party’s policies on oil, gas and mineral extraction are close to those of the Government.

    “I don’t think we are much different from National,” Parker said.
    NZ Herald, Friday, July 27, 2012

    Greens: “No New Coal Mines”

    “When it comes to coal mining, our policy is no new mines”

    Russell Norman
    The Vote @ 23:30 minutes

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    22 September 2014 at 5:08 pm

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a good thing. It’s good because we know and control the things we do that cause average global surface temperatures to rise. So all we need to do is stop doing those things. Pretty damned simple then.

    Did you just say that stopping corporate capitalism, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc. was “pretty damned simple”?

  5. Distilled essence of NZ 5
    22 September 2014 at 6:30 pm

    I think I’ll start making my Mad-Max dune buggy now.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      22 September 2014 at 6:38 pm

      get to know your neighbours, learn good practical skills, keep fit and healthy, get your mind and your attitude on the ball

  6. weka 6
    22 September 2014 at 6:40 pm

    Good post Bill. I think CC and S, and negative carbon need a bit of clarity for people not familier with the ins and outs.

    But, back to a 2 degrees C target. If we throw away any idea of fairness, and coerce or convince China, India and Africa to just stop any attempts to develop, then our 50/50 chance of avoiding “extremely dangerous” levels of global warming entails no household appliances, no cars, no ships or planes, no street lighting or industry – in short, nothing anywhere in the world, running on any energy related to fossil fuels by 2040.

    Now, given that emissions are currently going up, and given that it’s unlikely non-Annex 1 countries will simply agree to forego development, it doesn’t seem feasible to suggest the world will achieve zero emissions from all energy sources in that time frame.

    I’m not sure that non-Annex 1 countries agreeing to forego development is any less feasible than the West giving up industrial society. In fact I’d say there is more chance of the former.

    My mother grew up without a fridge and the family had no car. My grandmother had no electricity. They weren’t deprived. I don’t agree that it’s unfair to expect non-Annex 1 countries to not develop to the point of greed and stupidity that we have and then reduce consumption and emissions. Less developed countries have a better chance of transitioning than we do if they start from where they are now. Dmitiri Orlov’s essay on how rural Russians survived the collapse of the Soviet Union relatively unscathed compared to urban Russians is the classic example.

    • Bill 6.1
      22 September 2014 at 8:36 pm

      Basics of Carbon Capture and Storage is that it cannot be used in terms of limiting warming in the short/medium term. It may be of some limited use in 30, 40 or 50 years from now. But the bottom line is that it can’t be used with regards fossil fuels because we have to get to zero carbon from fossil fuel, and no CCS technology can ever be 100% efficient.

      So putting aside fossil fuels, we run into problems with sourcing bio-fuels, and of finding suitable places to store any sequestrated carbon if the technology ever works on the scale envisaged by numerous (so-called) scientific reports.

      On the development front, our government was among those who signed the Copenhagen Accord and promised to limit warming below 2 degrees on the basis of equity. But as I wrote in the post, even with non-Annex one countries foregoing any laying in of infrastructure and what not (development), the entire world would have to be 100% free of emissions from fossil fuels by 2040 to have just a 50/50 chance of avoiding “extremely dangerous” levels of warming (ie, 2 degrees C).

      edit – also, and I’ll go into this in another post, the bulk of the populations in poorer parts of the world simply aren’t responsible for global warming – their contribution is 5/8ths of nothing, and we’d be cooked long before they could ever hope to achieve the levels of consumption we have here in ‘the west’ given their present economic growth, high as it is in the likes of China and India.

  7. adam 7
    22 September 2014 at 8:55 pm

    Bill, An interesting interview on RT with the New York protesters before global warming protest.

  8. Jenny 8
    22 September 2014 at 9:14 pm

    ‘

    Climate Party launched

    A new party has been launched ahead of the election next month.

    The Climate Party says it aims to make addressing climate change a high priority.

    It believes that the Government has not been taking the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions seriously enough.

    The Party also says New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme has degenerated into a farce, saying that the current emissions charges are far too low to address the steadily climbing emissions levels or to cover the damage these emissions are causing.

    “New Zealand has enormous potential to replace fossil fuels with energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydro and bio-fuels,” party spokesperson Peter Whitmore says.

    “This would be a win-win solution. Not only would it knock back our emissions but we could also start saving on the over $7 billion a year we currently spend on imported fossil fuels.”

    ONE News, Sunday, August 10, 2014

    Who knows, maybe if the bigger parties keep up their inadequate response to climate change, then this small start up party may have some legs.

    After all, over 60 thousand signed up to the Greenpeace led Climate Voter campaign.

  9. Richard 9
    22 September 2014 at 9:33 pm

    No one cares about climate change to make the bee all and end all of their election decision making unless they are avid enviromentalists. Most kiwi’s who work like me are to busy juggling bills and being underpaid when the price of everything is rising faster than we can keep up with it, too care.

    It’s not going to get anyone elected. Do something but don’t make it a big issue.

    The Greens have it that’s their thing. They are the party for people who care that much about it. Not saying labour be climate ignorant and mine and drill everything. I’m saying give it the attention due, for the type of party. One would expect a good government to just do the right thing. Plus carbon tax is a joke. It’s perceived rightly or wrongly as a tax. Started by some weirdo idealist in another country, does little to solve the problem. Perhaps all that should be done is offer a prize of some reasonable financial amount to the inventor who can solve the issue of carbon. Say a carbon scrubber that makes a big enough difference. That’s it.

    • Bill 9.1
      22 September 2014 at 10:00 pm

      Hows about, instead of making it a ‘big thing’, we measure any policy announcements against the scientific reality of global warming and it’s projected effects? So you know, when Labour says it wants to raise the retirement age to 67 by 2030 (or whatever it is) we insist they explain that policy in relation to what science reckons the world will be like given current emissions growth?

      If the World Bank, The IEA, Pricewaterhouse Cooper and any scientific report that doesn’t sprinkle the fairy dust of Carbon Capture and Storage throughout its reporting, is seeing something like 3 degrees by then, then what’s the prospect for retirement? Further, what’s the prospect in a world of +3 degrees C, of having a highly functioning society with the relevant infrastucture in order to provide market driven jobs, market driven production and market driven consumption?

      These fuckers, the politicians of both the left and the right, need to absolutely justify what they are proposing when it makes no sense in the face of what science tells us. And then they have to justify their not heeding the science of AGW in a broader or more general sense.

      • weka 9.1.1
        22 September 2014 at 10:42 pm

        ” suggest that 4 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial global temperatures could be experienced by as early as 2040-2050. ( p1 para 4 and 5)”

        I thought that might wake a few people up. Once the crunch time gets place firmly within our lifetimes rather than being some vague thing in the future, I suspect some people will more easily shift out of cognitive dissonance and into saving their butt mode.

  10. tricle up 10
    23 September 2014 at 1:53 am

    Weka it is natural that we should care about a u turn but one wonders how slow it will be and how much of the social fabric will be ripped under the strain of a economy that hasn’t set aside moneys aside and developed a sustainable plan. A temp above 4 c is shocking, climate change is a global weather forecast that we are creating, can we not see as the ice slides into sea the sub atomic world is now abuzz with more events as the fields waves and vibrations manifest or express themselves with higher extremes under the pressure of temperature .. Not enough carbon oops i have just left the freezer door open .. do we see any sustainability plans in the print media? ,i have read one from England on build up population densities high rise and cities within cities and food security and a host of other topic s .. we reap the rewards in the moment the risk is projected into the future..

  11. Sable 11
    23 September 2014 at 9:55 am

    300,000+ turn out in New York. Its a good start but there is a need to do a hell of a lot more. Don’t expect much from NZ for the next 3 years with Nero and co running the show however. Just lyre playing as Rome burns….

    As to the talking heads in the MSM. Its dim witted business as usual. They offer no answers to anything and never will. Time people woke up to what a total joke they are.

  12. Pat O'Dea 12
    25 September 2014 at 7:20 pm

    ‘

    Drink The Rich

    Climate change is no respecter of class. But while the poor struggle to find water to drink, the priority of the wealthy is the struggle to keep their pools full and their lawns watered.

    Town Runs Dry

    The California drought now looks set to be a permanent climatic change for the region, and as such, California is now becoming a laboratory of how humanity may react to climate change on a global scale.

  13. Brigid 13
    28 September 2014 at 6:00 am

    We don’t have time to continue to discuss it. Or wait for governments to do something. How many read The Standard who want to make change? Surely there’s enough to buy bulk supplies of solar water heaters and PV systems. (or build them here) and then surely there’s an entrepreneurial engineer or too amoungst us who could set up an electric car industry. Home made electric cars are not so difficult to make. My son should have his going in a few months.
    This is why we can’t wait for governments to do something.

Links to post