Now big business urges G8 action 10 June 05

Scientists campaigning and big business “getting it”.

Frustrating, isn’t it, when you “got it” years ago on GW/CC. I only really “got it” a year ago as a result of reading your book. And Mark, I thank you for that.

I think you are a bit hard on the scientists. They do science and are not necessarily political animals. Some of them are however truly alarmed by what they are discovering on GW/CC. And of course in their role as concerned citizens they are starting to voice their fears. They are doing it in a considered and co-ordinated way to avoid being jumped on by the array of “lobbyists” just waiting in the wings for an opportunity to purvey their malign nonsense. I’ve heard then in the last few days. Fred Singer (for goodness sake) on the Radio 4 Today programme and Christopher Horner (google him) on Channel 4 news giving a pretty full on performance. Jon Snow could hardly get a word in.

In more detail if you read the statement and the related press releases from the Royal Society you’ll find Lord May referring to the need for “urgent” action. Further he says “Make no mistake we have to act now”. This is pretty strong stuff and in part it is aimed at people like Blair who fully understand the difference between “prompt” and “urgent”. Coded messages and all that.

We need urgent action but we also need effective action. And there are a range of lobbying and campaigning activities which can push things in the right direction. Maybe I’m showing my age but jumping up and down Bellamy style doesn’t impress.

And more research yes please! Not to stall and prevaricate Bush style but to continue to refine the analysis and of course pursue solutions (sequestration, for example). And at the risk of getting pedantic if you read footnote 5 attached to the RS statement it explains that in “Launch(ing) an international study … (we are) … Recognising and building on the IPCC’s ongoing work on emissions scenarios.” And doesn’t this help deflect criticism that we are “biased” and have come to an unwarranted conclusion. Tactics?

You mention the Contraction and Convergence proposal. Here is an (edited) piece I posted on the Open Democracy site.

“Aubrey Meyer (AM) has come up with a brilliant idea. Contraction and Convergence (C&C), in proposing a convergence to equal per capita rights to put reduced total levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, is underpinned by a strong egalitarian argument. It is not just a policy but is also very political. AM is clearly disappointed at the failure, so far, of C&C to be adopted at Kyoto level.

Having a brilliant idea is not enough though. However logical the idea is and however often he uses the “by definition” exhortation realpolitik has to be taken into account. Claiming that the US has “always accepted the science” is stretching it just a bit. Some analysts may have “got it” some years ago but there have been huge efforts by Big Oil to sow doubts and the media coverage has been lamentable with the pursuit of “balance” resulting in bias in the reporting of GW especially in the US. And when was equality or egalitarianism on the White House agenda?

But C&C is inspirational and has much support. It is an idea which is now very much in the public domain. It will inevitably be tweaked. (See Clive Bates ideas in another OD thread.) And of course there is some cause for hope from the US as Jim DiPeso outlines in his “America faces reality on climate change (slowly)” article.” At OD.

And there is more. I’m inclined to think that some “radical” cap-and-trade policies are a route to something akin to C&C. For interesting explorations see http://www.euractiv.com – a site worth visiting. There you will find a paper from The Australia Institute http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/DP_Files/DP75.pdf titled “Climate Change Policy Beyond Kyoto” and another from the UK’s IPPR http://ippr.nvisage.uk.com/ecomm/files/Catalysing%20commitment.pdf titled “Catalysing Commitment on Climate Change” This is not sexy or headline grabbing stuff. It’s detailed, hard work and makes my head hurt. But we have to do this stuff.

There are many difficulties in successfully campaigning on GW/CC. I was particularly struck by some observations from Chris Rose in his “Why campaigning on climate is difficult” piece http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/climate_difficulty.html He points out that “Scientists (initially) defined the issue … Governments ran off with the issue … Governments (subsequently) soft pedalled on the issue … There is no common proposition”. Maybe with big business increasingly “getting it” there is a better chance of a “common proposition” emerging.

We’re all in this together, we are all party to producing at least some CO2 and we can all do something to help. I’ll be watching the outcomes of the G8 meeting with interest and it will be as important to read between the lines as to read the headlines.

Douglas Coker

PS And in today’s Guardian Robin Cook is clearly not sitting on the fence. “ … make Global Warming History … ” at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1503331,00.html

It’s encouraging to see business calling for action on climate change. It’s not surprising though, as it’s clearly in their best interests.

At the moment big business is in an uncomfortable limbo state. The growing scientific certainty across the world over anthropogenic climate change means that one day – maybe not today, probably not tomorrow, but one day – there IS going to be some concerted global effort to reduce emissions. A lot might need to change by then, not least in the corridors of Washington. But it will happen.

What form this global policy takes is still up for grabs, however. Discussed above are excellent ideas about C&C, etc; Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask campaign calls for legally binding 3 per cent year on year cuts in emissions up until 2050. Businesses without their heads in the sand will want to try and ensure that whatever policies or actions emerge will not damage their bottom line. They’ll call for emissions trading to be used, for taxation to be revenue-neutral, for regulation to be fair and achieveable. Their involvement with the debate at this early stage, and the conciliatory and progressive manner in which they’re stating the need for action, will only help their chances of getting what they want later on.

Also, given that regulation will happen at some point, business will want clear long-term signals about what’s going to happen. If action is put off until it suddenly becomes apparent that it’s urgently needed – by which point we may have gone over the 2 degree warming threshold which effectively marks the limit of what we can reasonably hope to continue ‘business as usual’ within – then regulations will be strict, they’ll probably be perceived to be unfair, and it will be much harder for businesses to invest internally in ways to avoid the regulations hitting the bottom line too much. Long-term policy signals and commitments that show business exactly what’s going to be expected of them over the next 20-50-100 years mean they can start internal processes, investment and restructuring now. This is in everyone’s interests, not just business.

Here is the NRDC website to join your name to the virtual march on Washington, & you don’t even have to emit a lot of CO2 to join!

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/partner/nrdc/

I understand Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Sen. McCain,Gen. Wesley Clark, & other notables have joined…

We have to keep marching, despite the fact that the problem with Pres. Bush might be his personality – stubborn arrogance. That’s a tougher nut to crack than vested economic interests.

shows that a group of credible scientists has begun questioning the predictions of dire consequences of a warmer climate. I think that these more optimistic predictions will prove to be closer to the warmer future than the predictions of catastrophic calamity that are so in vogue these days.

” . . .Yet, just as the clamour for action grows in anticipation of next month’s G8 meeting in Scotland, another group of academics has begun fighting to have its voice heard. It includes experts in fields ranging from agriculture to medicine, and most of them agree that something strange is happening to the Earth’s climate.

Where they part company with Lord May is in their assessment of the threat it poses. After studying the likely consequences for everything from crop yields to human health, their results are anything but apocalyptic. They have found that a hotter planet brings with it many benefits, and that humans can adapt perfectly well to it.

Indeed, far from joining the calls for action, some now warn that trying to prevent climate change could prove far more catastrophic than learning to live with it. Nor is this cheery vision based solely on questionable computer models. Analysis of past episodes of dramatic – but entirely natural – climate change repeatedly shows the benefits of a warmer world.”

Have you become totally annonymous now, or are you about to metamorphose into a different contrarian character? Interesting you choose to quote from the Telegraph.

Going back a few months to when we had an exchange over the Edinburgh congestion charge issue; now that the UK government is investigating country-wide road pricing, do you have any thoughts yet on road congestion control methods to reduce the waste of time, energy and investment?

Hope you’re well anyway

regards

Colin

Here we have a post which extracts a few paragraphs from a Daily Telegraph article by Robert Matthews. There is no indication as to who has posted this stuff. The quote is prefaced by a paragraph which refers to “a group of credible scientists”. We are given no hint, in the post, as to who these scientists might be.

In the article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/12/nwarm12.xml there is a reference to (Prof) Phillip Stott who Lobby Watch (.org) say is “an IEA intimate, though not a formal member, who shares its anti-environmental agenda – (with) the journalist Richard D North). Ahh – now where have I heard that name before? Another name referred to in the article is a certain Professor Bjorn Lomborg! BTW read the whole article if you want but it is pretty tedious stuff.

The post does not convince and the full article does not convince. If the article had been written 15 years ago there might have been some excuse. But it is all too transparent and flaky to work in 2005. Resorting to selective quoting, claiming warming is good, asserting humans can adapt, repeating hoary old myths, dismissing warnings about global warning as scare stories and claiming that dealing with global warming is too expensive will not wash. And trying to rubbish Lord May, the Royal Society, sundry eminent scientists who understand the scientific method and, in addition, misrepresent the IPCC is appallingly poor journalism.

So has Robert Matthews just had an off day? I don’t think so. He’s published the following recently in the Telegraph.

1. Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’ By Robert Matthews (Filed: 01/05/2005) Two of the world’s leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming. A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds. (See http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2510.jsp for an informed debate on this issue – it’s the Benny Peiser story.)

2. Apocalypse now (again) By Robert Matthews (Filed: 13/03/2005) Matthews implying that all “scare stories” can safely be dismissed.

3. Dial M for myth (Filed: 16/01/2005) Matthews consulting his crystal ball and assuring us that youngsters using mobile phones are not at risk. “Certainly most of the 55 million people who own one in Britain seem unconcerned: sales have doubled in four years”. Ahh very scientific!

4. Early warning system would be little help (Filed: 02/01/2005) This story is in extremely bad taste. 250,000 or maybe 300,000 lost their lives in the Boxing Day tsunami. Complacency and cynicism are hardly an appropriate response.

I’ve posted recently and said US citizens are badly served by their media. But here in the UK we have our problems too! This journalist and the Telegraph really should be ashamed of themselves. Science reporting is difficult. Only responsible journalists who can do justice to the issues should be employed.

And as for the person who posted this. Do you really think you are going to convince anyone with this stuff?

Douglas Coker

and did not realize that the site rules have changed. It seems that the name and date stamp is no longer automatic.

The Telegraph article cited more scientists than those that you chose to denigrate. The article contained quotes from agronomists, foresters and others who provided data contradictory to the notion that increased warmth will be disastrous. You chose to cite an opinion paper from contributors to the Real Climate blog to contradict selected portions of the Telegraph article. Your source is no more credible than the sources cited in the article. You apparently chose to believe those who agree with your preconceived conclusion.

Mere labeling of Professor Stott and the IEA as “anti-environmental” does not disprove the points that they make. Nor does the label that you applied to the Telegraph article, “tedious”, prove that the article is without merit. The article provides information that leads to a conclusion that a warmer climate may have more benefits than costs. For example, the article points out that far more humans die of hypothermia than of hyperthermia. Anyone who wishes to hold a respectable opinion should try to understand the arguments of those who disagree with his point of view. To dismiss out of hand the arguments of those who disagree is not the way to create an informed opinion; it is the way to reinforce prejudices.

Your third comment indicates that you believe that cell phones can somehow have adverse health effects. I have two questions for you. The frequency of cell phone radiation is on the order of 1,000 mega hertz. The frequency of the longest wavelength that can split chemical bonds (ultraviolet light) is approximately 100 million times faster. Given that the energy in a photon of radiation is equal to its frequency multiplied by Planck’s constant, what plausible physical mechanism exists that could explain how such weak radiation can affect human health? Much more energetic radiation i.e. visible light and infrared radiation do not affect our health those have approximately 50 million and 10 million times more energy respectively than does cell phone radiation.

Given that two billion humans use cell phones every day, where are the bodies?

I have the impression that you take to heart every specious scare story that the activist groups generate.

Norbertzangox

14 June 05

PS. I still do not understand the new site rules. I posted this response somewhere a few moments ago, but I don’t know where it went.

Ah-ha.

I wasn’t aware I was replying to you “norbert”. Maybe you were having an off day because that was a pretty poor post even by your standards (the DT cut and paste).

Actually I guess the anonimity was a strange quirk with the site which can be fixed (Will?). Because if I recall I decided not to reply to your posts some time ago. You are just too predictable! Going round and round and round in your own little loop.

So it’s goodbye from me.

Douglas Coker

I signed the petition. Good to hear positive news from your side of the pond. The quicker Bush and his Big Oil buddies are cornered the better for all.

Can you or others in the US point me (and others) to a good news source which is tracking the build up of pressure on Bush. The scientists are speaking up, the Mayors are organising, there are some good media outlets (Mother Jones) and so on. Someone must be covering this and printing or posting.

Cheers

Douglas Coker

A PS for “norbert”. In case you’re tempted “norbert” don’t go to the Mother Jones site. You really won’t like it.

A couple of snippets to indicate that many in Big Business are waking up the the Climate Challenge.

Solvay are looking to develop a solar powered plane!

http://www.solvay.com/services/newsfrompo/0,,29775-2-0,00.htm

“Solar Impulse has set itself the goal of circumnavigating the globe in stages by 2010, in an aeroplane to be powered solely by solar energy, to the exclusion of any other source, and producing no environmentally harmful emissions.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1506553,00.html

Lord Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell, wants urgent action!

No ‘rules’ have changed.

During the last round of ‘improvements’ i introduced a bug into the discussion mechanism that mean users replying to a message appeared to be editing themselves (which you have always been able to do). So people ended up with strange names and messages disappeared apparently at random. Very bad.

It’s all fixed now, or should be. Sorry about the bother.

will

Of course, norb doesn’t link to the article. Was that because you read it in JunkScience? And Stott as credible scientist? Would you call a person who had a blog that disagreed with your ideology ‘credible’? I think we’ve seen the answer, oh, here.

Anyway, buried at the end of the article is this little gem:

[ ” ]

According to Prof Adams, the real problems lie in distributing the food that is grown – and ensuring that developing nations have the means to develop new crops.

[ ” ]

Ahhh…yes, new crops: climate change may change the way crops are grown. It will be too hot for some crops, and new ones will have to be grown. Many graminaceous crops are grown at the upper end of their tolerance range. Rice too. Phillippines spends a lot of money on this issue – growing rice in hotter climates.

There were no studies cited in the article comparing costs of re-tooling to purported benefits.

Huh.

Anyway, we don’t give money to poor countries now. Why would we give more in times of upheaval? I wonder what that cost will be? Let’s see if it’s in the article…hmmm…hmmm…uh, no.

Golly.

D