A couple of regular commenters on PT, whenever I post on climate change, usually add something like this:
Now that the global warming message has been proven wrong, some climate change folks still believe it is a relevant message ….
Another adds a video to debunk the fraud:
In recent presentations – notably in Auckland – I’ve argued that we are now in the post-sustainability era. If sustainability as a strategy had hoped to mitigate climate change in order to avoid “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” well, it’s too late.
And given the political impasse or inability of our leaders to act – notably in countries that benefit from resource extraction like Canada and Australia – we will now wait for nature to decide the issue, to present us with a series of catastrophes sufficient to make denial irrelevant and the demand for response imperative.
So to whom will we turn?
My argument is that we will turn to those who must respond, who are pragmatic about assessing risk, will innovate under crisis conditions, command large budgets, sometimes unlimited, and operate ‘beyond’ politics.
In other words, the military … who will be listened to more seriously by the conservative right, I expect, than the environmental left, whom conservatives dismiss with group-think contempt.
.
So, then, may I suggest this video:
Retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley discusses how he went from “a pretty hard-core skeptic about climate change” to labeling it “one of the pre-eminent challenges of our century.”
.
Here’s more from Andrew Sullivan in The Dish:
Last month, in an op-ed for Fox News, retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley made a national security-based case for worrying about climate change. Eric Holthaus interviews Titley about his belief that the changing climate will be a main driving force for conflict in the 21st century:
Q. What’s the worst-case scenario, in your view?
A. … You could imagine a scenario in which both Russia and China have prolonged droughts. China decides to exert rights on foreign contracts and gets assertive in Africa. If you start getting instability in large powers with nuclear weapons, that’s not a good day.
Here’s another one: We basically do nothing on emissions. Sea level keeps rising, three to six feet by the end of the century. Then, you get a series of super-typhoons into Shanghai and millions of people die. Does the population there lose faith in Chinese government? Does China start to fissure? I’d prefer to deal with a rising, dominant China any day.
Titley thinks it’s time for conservatives to start grappling with the problem:
Where are the free-market, conservative ideas? The science is settled. Instead, we should have a legitimate policy debate between the center-right and the center-left on what to do about climate change. If you’re a conservative – half of America – why would you take yourself out of the debate? C’mon, don’t be stupid. Conservative people want to conserve things. Preserving the climate should be high on that list.
One great challenge for environmentalists is finding a way to frame the issue in terms real conservatives intuitively grasp. To wit: If you love this land, why would you want to see it changed irreparably by our behavior? If you believe, as Christians do, that conserving the planet is our sacred duty, why would you treat the earth as disposable? Should we behave like Noah and conserve the earth – or ransack it for material ends? …
The trouble, of course, is that these deep conservative themes have been displaced on the right by know-nothing hatred of anything defined as “liberal”. And so you get outright mockery of concerns for the planet and too-clever-by-half attempts to deny the reality and moral challenge of climate change.
In the end, that is a crisis for conservatism, as much as environmentalism.
.
UPDATE: Another post from The Dish – Science, Climate And Skepticism – that explores “the decline of conservative thinking in the US … to the overwhelming data behind carbon and climate change.”
Same response as your Auckland Conversation……….uncomfortable silence. No one wants to talk about the future of climate change. Under the rug.
If man made global warming was true, a big if, and if the alarmists truly lived to their beliefs, or convictions, then they ought to not drive a car, not have a government job ( as it is government funded which is from oil tax revenue ) not eat or use any imported goods as they get here by boat or truck, powered by diesel fuels, never travel anywhere except by bike and not eat anything but vegetables as meat uses too much energy.
Do they ? Do you ?
Yes.
And I grow a lot of my own fruit and veg here in the city, can in season for winter eating, buy clothes from Value Village, grow and process the flax for my linen textiles and source local fleece for spinning into sweaters/socks/jackets. All the equipment for local cloth/clothing production and the people willing to teach you how to do it (free) are at the Urban Weaver in MacLean Park field house.
Though I think you should do some research before coming out with your simplistic metrics about imported produce. Strawberries (among other things) from California have much lower CO2 production than local grown ones.
awesome!
Interesting. Why is that ( strawberries I mean, with lower co2) ?
Er, because the problems facing the planet aren’t the choices of individuals, but societies. To address the issue requires systemic changes, not tokenism.
Systemic changes such as ?
And the results of these changes on taxes, unemployment, debt levels, energy costs, competitiveness are ?
Proposals to transition away from a carbon-based economy are well known.
And the results of these changes on taxes, unemployment, debt levels, energy costs, competitiveness are
Conversely, how many millions of lives lost to famine and flood in the year’s ahead is Thomas Beyer willing to accept in order to keep his tax bill of today low? How many trillions of dollars in damages does he find acceptable, as long as it is born by others.
Collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet now irreversible, concludes two groups of scientists in today’s NYT – a development “causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.”
Militaries and insurance companies take this seriously. Only a sizeable portion of the world’s conservatives do not.
Oh, Thomas. A classic sign that you have no real arguments left is to start building straw men.
Huh ? Strawman ? I am just asking questions.
Many alarmists have been proven false over the last few decades ( Club of Rome, limits to growth, peak oil, Y2K, ozone hole, acid rain, global warming, new ice age, overpopulation, not enough food … ).
The latest one appears to be climate change, as many scientists now have abandoned the ” consensus ” that it is manly man-made, catastrophic and predictable.
For example:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus
um, what? The ozone hole exists and is the reason why Aussies have much higher rates of skin cancer than the rest of the world. Global warming is hardly proven wrong. Peak oil is impacting us today. A new “ice age” was never a serious prediction. Acid rain? Are you kidding me? “Overpopulation” depends on who’s talking and we live in a world where millions of people die of malnutrition every year, so how about that food.
Yeah…You don’t seem to be the most reliable source for scientific facts.
Most of my travel is by foot, bike or transit. I drive as a last resort. I used to bus/skytrain to work, now I bike – even in inclement weather. I walk to the grocery store with the $29.95 shopping cart I bought from Canadian Tire over 10 years ago, and I walk to the shopping district about 1km from my home for most of my needs. I’ve flown only once in the last 20 years. I’m certainly not perfect in terms of minimizing my carbon emissions, but I do care and I do what I can.
I can’t help observing that people who refuse to change their habits in the face of the huge and mounting tide of evidence are acting like spoiled kids who are afraid to contemplate any inconvenience. It’s that selfish mindset that’s getting us mired deeper and deeper into this mess.
I believe this will be the defining issue of my lifetime. Unfortunately there seems to be only so much individual action can do about this problem. We need concerted, collective action, anything else is just like swimming upstream past hydro-dam, and right now that sort of style of policy is looked down upon by the well-to-dos.
I have a feeling environmental terrorism is going to become a bigger issue before governments start to act, too. That can be added to the list of the Rear Admiral’s “worst-case scenarios.”
So what do we do? I don’t see many happy options here. And worst because the debate is still too focused on dealing with the monied interests fighting the acceptance of climate change as fact rather than dealing with the consequences of that fact. It’s going to take a long time.
Let’s make oil illegal and watch the wold collapse. Is this the goal here ?
Or just to reduce humanity down to 4B from 8B as half the people consume half the resources ?
Or to force everyone into a minimalistic life style, with no air travel, no cars, no imported goods nor any heat in their homes ? Or just heat between 6 and 10 pm, and from 6 am to 8am, government mandated like in communist countries ?
Or is it just to force everyone to pay higher prices for energy and thus, force behaviour change ? Higher energy prices is just another form of taxation, and I would actually support it if tax relief is granted elsewhere, say on GST or income taxes. Government already takes a far too large share of people’s incomes.
The ONLY way to make people do less of s.th. that is negative (like burning oil or excessive consumption) is to make it illegal or tax it more.
Global warming and climate change fear mongering is utterly irrational, a new religion really: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/07/global-warming-irrational/
The goal is to prevent climate change related natural disasters which kill, impoverish and displace people, to prevent climate change related droughts which kill, impoverish and displace people, to prevent climate change related flooding which kill, impoverish and displace people, etc.
And no, it’s not to build strawmen out of your irrational fears. It’s not that hard to change, if we change as a group. And yes, oil companies and users of oil should have to pay for all the costs and pollution they produce – that is pretty natural, just as I should have to pay if I dump pollutants on your land. When all the negatives costs of an activity are paid for by the users instead of society as a whole, then that cost will be uneconomical. Right now, however, things like driving and oil and gas extraction are heavily subsidized.
You can continue living in your magical world where human actions have no consequences. I live in the real world, and as part of a younger generation, will be left to clean up the real mess your generation is leaving us with.
Well said.
And what is the wonder fuel instead of oil ?
I trust you are aware that oil is used in almost everything we use today, from food to bikes to computers to clothing to housing, either directly or indirectly through transportation ?
I am totally ok making oil consumption more expensive, but that is akin to another tax. Everything will be more expensive. As such other taxes ought to be lowered. Which ones ? GST ? PST ? Income taxes ? Assuming that is not happening it is a tax on the poor primarily, as a larger portion of their income is used for housing, clothing, transportation and food. Thus, higher poverty levels. Higher tuition fees. Higher bus pass prices. Higher costs to fill cars. More expensive, or in many cases, no more vacations in Mexico, Hawaii or Vancouver Island. Less mobility. Far higher food prices. Far higher costs to heat your home in Canada except BC which is primarily hydro.
Well off folks can buy more expensive e-cars and can afford the more expensive food. An even more uneven wealth distribution. Is this the intent of folks who state ” tax oil ” ? Or worse, making our oil more expensive by taxing the “evil tar sands” yet allow cheap Arab oil to continue, ie continued human rights abuses and less rights for women in those states ? As that is the other consequence, too.
There is no free lunch by just taxing oil higher. Think of the consequences.
The climate will continue to change as it has for 100,000 of years … Maybe 0.04 degrees less .. Or maybe not ..
What “collective actions” do you propose ? What are its consequences, intended or unintended ?
What lack of action do you propose? What are the consequences of lack of action, intended or unintended?
I propose to raise gasoline prices $2 a liter and at the same time reduce GST and income taxes so it is revenue neutral. I also propose a 30% reduction in civil servants salaries as this is the gap they have, roughly, compared to comparable private sector jobs when counting hours worked, benefits, vacations and especially pensions.
I heard the news today,
There’s nothing good I’d say,
My home, my home it slips away,
Who will here my cries when all is lost?
What will survive our self made holocaust?
You might enjoy this climate related blog hosted by a very respected American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Prof. Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/
Conversely you might enjoy Judith Curry critiqued.
If you take a ride on the International Space Station you will see a continuous seamless biosphere covering the surface of our planet. Our energy requirements can easily be met by developing energy generation based on the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the moon, the mass of our planet and the shower of energy coming from the Sun. We do not need to burn up our home in order to meet our energy demands. There is more than enough wind energy, tidal energy, solar energy, and gravitational energy available for hydro generation. What is needed is an organized development effort.
Not sure if “easily” is the right word here as otherwise we would have done it already.
Every energy source has its costs and drawbacks: wind turbines kills birds, are noisy, look ugly, work only when it is windy, lower nearby property values and deteriorate after 15-20 years, for example. Solar costs money to produce, takes up space, needs huge transmission lines, and works only when the sun shines which it not always does. Nuclear has storage issues and radiation risk, etc.
Of course we ought to develop solar or other energy sources such as waves, ocean currents or geothermal. What are the costs though ? Fuel (based on oil) has very high energy density, about 20-50 times that of electric car batteries, and as such it makes an excellent transportation fuel.
Are people willing to pay $400 to fill up their car or $1000/month to heat their home and pay more in taxes overall to subsidize other energy sources ??
Solar makes total sense in sunny climates such as Hawaii, California, Mediterranean .. and that is why you see it there on roofs and in their deserts. Not all energy is electric though, such as transportation over vast distances such as boats, planes or trains. OK for short inner-city distances though and that is where we will see it first, such as LA or BayArea or Hawaii.
Germany is one of the cloudiest countries in the world and yet produces immense amounts of solar energy because, gasp, solar power works even when it’s cloudy (just not as well). The problem, of course, is that your precious addiction to gasoline and natural gas is also subsidized, through subsidies for exploration, tax breaks for oil companies (especially for “hard-to-reach sources”) as well as subsidies on car usage, not to mention a complete lack of accountability when it comes to paying for all the pollution caused.
Aside from that, oil needs billions worth of transportation pipelines, destroys huge swaths of Earth, pollutes rivers and the air, explodes on trains, is spilled into marine ecosystems, heavily disrupting those ecosystems and is a major cause of global warming.
But of course none of that matters to you. Even the red herrings you’re pulling out don’t actually matter to you. You don’t believe in the science. You clearly haven’t actually read the science. I’m not talking about some blog or newspaper post, I’m talking about actual studies, peer-reviewed studies, that look at how climate works. You don’t care about that – you’re only throwing up red herrings and drawing out a debate that is long since exhausted.
Germany also happens to have electric energy costs that are five to sevenfold of Canada’s.
What is the alternative to oil and gasoline ? What is the impact if electricity costs 40 cents and not six, or gas $3 a liter and not $1.20 ?
Climate change is not only human made. Most is natural and that is why it is colder in the winter and that is why the earth has been warming for 10,000+ years since the last ice age. It is not all human made, and likely not even most of it. It is big government’s ( like the UN or Obama or Liberals) attempt to extract even more taxes from its citizens. I am all for higher tax on polluting emissions , but where is the corresponding tax relief ?
Gasoline has 10-50 times higher energy density than the same volume of car battery and as such makes it the ideal transportation fuel, especially for long distances on planes, boats or trains. E-cars work wel only in cities with short distances. Without cheap oil this world as we know it would collapse into anarchy, high debt, food wars and class warfare. Think it through: a world at $5/liter or $10 !
What is the proposed alternative ? What is the impact ?
Thomas, just want to check. Are you posting as Thomas B, Thomas, Thomas Beyer, and ClimateChangeSkeptic, all at the same time? The user names include your personal Facebook link, so it appears so.
“Climate change is not only human made. Most is natural and that is why it is colder in the winter and that is why the earth has been warming for 10,000+ years since the last ice age.”
Yes. Thank God you pointed that out. Because scientists must have overlooked the fact that climate can change naturally. They clearly haven’t taken this into account in their modelling and the fact that no scientist has been able to naturally explain the current warming trend must mean that they have simply overlooked this possibility entirely.
Aside from that, you’ve addressed nothing in my point re: subsidies. You’re clearly not debating facts, just using talking points and scare tactics, as I’ve seen these very same paragraphs in previous comments.
And, in the future, please use a single alias, as having multiple aliases is confusing and could be construed to be deliberately misleading.
This is how you shut down “the debate” around climate change
http://www.defendourclimate.ca/2014/05/no-debate-on-climate-change/
Good clip.
Looking forward to the day we can have a real debate, about what to do about it.
Why don’t we ?
For example: raise gasoline prices by $2 over 10 years, 20 cents a year, and implement road tolls for trucks and cars on key roads so we can maintain those roads, tunnels and bridges and invest in public transit where warranted.
This would result in more fuel efficient car use, somewhat less cars overall and less congested cities.
In parallel, lower civil servants’ salaries by 30% (to accommodate for their far higher benefits and pensions and low risk of layoffs) and lower income taxes by 10% to make the increased gasoline taxes revenue neutral.
Raise GST to 10%, from 5%, so we also tax imports far more than today and then lower income taxes again by another 5-8%. i.e. tax consumption, not wages.
Eliminate all corporate subsidies. Slim down governments on all levels by about 20-25%.
“Why don’t we?”
IMO, because some are still denying that there is any reason to act, and are talking just about the cost of doing something, without acknowledging the cost of doing nothing.
There is something that we can do about it.
We can demonstrate that an industrial-agricultural- transportation sector based on electrical design is viable and far more sustainable than mining the Tar Sands in Alberta.
British Columbia can do this in the Peace River Region. We can build the City of the Future, with a re-tooled mining, construction and manufacturing base powered by electricity not fossil fuels. Factories would produce electrical consumer products for export. We can create a model of development that is transferable to any place on earth. We can do this.
We can export our intelligence.
So why is it not done ? Because electric tractors do not work well nor electric trucks nor electric trains hauling 100+ cars over 2000km .. it is sheer physics.
Yes, some more electric small farming probably makes sense, say for expensive organic foods, ie niche applications.
Harming the “tar” sands just appeases the mullahs and their human right abuses. Is this the intent ? Do you prefer less rights for women as is common in most of the Middle East oil exporting nations ?
Actually, practically all locomotives are already electric. All that varies is how the electrical energy gets to the traction motors.
Canada is a resource extracting nation with vast land. It is not Europe with tiny roads, relatively short distances, 2000 years of history, socialist / high tax governments and high energy prices. Europe will always have a lead on efficiencies or innovations such as solar, wind or expensive energy projects.
Canada has to exploit what it is good at, where it has a natural advantage: harbours, exports, food production & its export, resource extraction and associated shipment and export: oil, gas, coal, wood, petrochemical products, and goods production such as cars due to low energy prices (now being destroyed by the Liberals in Ontario).
Low energy prices are also North America’s advantage, especially Canada’s.
Electric trains are not viable in Canada due to the deterioration of energy if the line is not high voltage, like 100,000 or 1M volts. That is why they use diesel fuels. Electric trains make sense on short distances like cities or if there is repeater stations like we see in European trains with a vast network of cities.
So, specifically: what would you do / what do you suggest we do that actually makes a difference ?
“So, specifically: what would you do / what do you suggest we do that actually makes a difference ?”
Start by individually working to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Each example of a personal reduction in car dependency is one less car on the road, as an example.
Support alternate forms of transportation to the private car. Walking, cycling, transit. Car share (all just as examples). Don’t eliminate private vehicles, just provide attractive alternatives.
Support municipal planning efforts that reduce the need for private car dependency.
Support groups that are leading the discussion, from “if it was real…” to more of “what are we doing about it”
Work to get he issue on the political agenda. Support candidates who are willing to have the discussion, and not those who make it a partisan issue.
Dismiss those arguments framed as “if you do x you are part of the problem so nothing you say matters”. Creating straw men doesn’t help. And while we are at it, let’s stop looking for scapegoats.
Review building codes.
Support the development of natural gas as a bridging fuel, for our own use. Drop the idea of global export of LNG, but develop smaller scale LNG plants to produce LNG for our own transportation uses (including rail).
Revisit the carbon tax. Figure out how to make it matter more.
Lots there to discuss.