Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

American Meteorologists Launch Weblog on Climate Policy

By

Meteorologists know a lot about climate, or at least they should. But are they the best group to be promoting policy responses to say ‘climate change’? Once upon a time scientists mostly just provided quality information, and then those with, for example, expertise in economics, looked for best potential policy solutions?

Anyway, I have just received** this information from the American Meteorological Society explaining that they more-or-less have the science of climate change sorted, and now want to mediate a very open and very public discussion on potential policy responses:

“The American Meteorological Society, the nation’s leading professional society for those in the atmospheric and related sciences, recently launched a new weblog (blog) to address the challenging policy issues related to climate change. The goal is to help decision makers at all levels make sound policy based on the
best available information.”

“From a policy standpoint, the important scientific questions about human caused climate change are largely settled. Society faces serious risks and complex choices about how to handle them. We need to confront the most contentious policy issues as openly and straightforwardly as possible. That way we may be able to overcome
the stumbling blocks that keep preventing us from dealing with climate change. AMS wants to help by making sure that it is knowledge and understanding that drive our policy choices.

“ClimatePolicy.org will encourage exchanges among experts, policy-makers, journalists, and the broader society. The blog will build on the knowledge of some of the world’s leading climate experts who come from the United States’ most renowned institutions. The core contributors include Joe Aldy (Resources for the Future), Scott Barrett (Johns Hopkins University), Dan Kammen (University of California, Berkeley), Mike MacCracken (Climate Institute), Mike Mastrandrea (Stanford University), and Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton University). With this broad range of expertise, ClimatePolicy.org will explore and analyze society’s options for reducing climate risks while also increasing economic opportunities and incorporating ethical values. These expert contributors, along with reader input from around the world, will help encourage a full assessment of potential responses to the threats posed by climate change.” [End of quote]

As I see it there are two options: mitigation and/or adaptation.

In order to mitigate, countries like Australia are looking at reducing emissions through the introduction of carbon trading or alternatively a carbon tax. There is always the option to do nothing, what a friend described to me the other day as “the third way”.

——————
** Information received via David, thanks.

San Francisco Bans Plastic Bags? Not Really

By

The headline gives the impression San Francisco has banned plastic shopping bags. Indeed the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that the San Franciso Board of Supervisors approved groundbreaking legislation on Tuesday to “outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets in about six months and large chain pharmacies in about a year”.

It is apparently the first such law in any city in the United States.

“Fifty years ago, plastic bags — starting first with the sandwich bag — were seen in the United States as a more sanitary and environmentally friendly alternative to the deforesting paper bag. Now an estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space,” according to the same article in the newspaper.

The newspaper article continues, “Two years ago, San Francisco officials considered imposing a 17-cent tax on petroleum-based plastic bags before reaching a deal with the California Grocers Association. The agreement called for large supermarkets to reduce by 10 million the number of bags given to shoppers in 2006. The grocers association said it cut back by 7.6 million, but city officials called that figure unreliable and unverifiable due to poor data supplied by markets.”

The dispute has led to the outlawing of the standard plastic bag but only for large supermarkets and large chain pharmacies. The 95,000 small businesses in San Francisco will be able to continue to use plastic bags.

Greenpeace Prevented from Docking in Tokyo Harbour: Media Release from Japan Whaling Association

By

“The Japan Whaling Association today congratulated the All Japan Seamen’s Union (AJSU) in their support for the safety of martime workers at sea by protesting the arrival of Greenpeace vessel Esperanza and preventing it from docking in Tokyo harbour.

That’s according to a media release from the Japan Whaling Association. The media release continues:

“Over years, Greenpeace has committed illegal and dangerous activities at sea, including in the Southern Ocean against Japan’s Antarctic research program. Their violent actions have consequences and Greenpeace is now experiencing one of those consequences,” the President of the Japan Whaling Association, Keiichi Nakajima said today.

Greenpeace is an eco-terrorist organization who last year illegally used the bow of the Arctic Sunrise to ram the Japanese research vessel Nisshin Maru midway along the starboard side. As a result of direct contact with the ultra-violent Sea Shepherd group, Greenpeace were able to find the Antarctic fleet this year. Not only did Sea Shepherd deliberately ram the Kaiko Maru this year as well, they also threw acid at Japanese sailors and shattered glass bottles on the Nisshin Maru deck, resulting in injuries to two Japanese crew.

“Greenpeace actions over the years have put Japanese sailors’ lives at risk and the AJSU has sent a clear message to the world that they can’t support such violence. You cannot conduct close quarters harassment on the high seas, ram vessels and prevent others from going about their lawful work and claim it is non-violent activity,” Mr Nakajima said.

Greenpeace Japan in the past has been embarrassed by the organization’s responses to Japan’s research whaling. In a handwritten faxed letter intimidating the skipper of the Nisshin Maru which made an emergency call to Noumea after a fire in 1998, Greenpeace wrote:

“To the vessel’s captain: We have fastened tightly the propeller of this vessel with chains. Our diver is now in the water. You cannot start the ship’s engine. Signed: GREENPEACE ”

Embarassed by the fax, the then Secretary of Greenpeace Japan, Sanae Shida, wrote to the skipper saying, “I hereby profoundly apologize for a handwritten letter of inappropriate content addressed to the vessel’s captain that was sent by Greenpeace today.”

“We applaud the seamen’s union and encourage others around the world to protect maritime workers’ safety by condemning dangerous actions by Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and other eco-terrorist organizations,” Mr Nakajima said.” [End of media release]

Strong words from the Japanese.

So is Greenpeace an eco-terrorist organisation?

Tasmanian Pulp Mill at Crossroads: A Note from Cinders

By

Hi Jennifer,

For a second time since the late 1980’s a pulp mill in Tasmania has been delayed by green campaigning. This week we will see if another pulp mill – a value adding, downstream processing, job-creating factory – will also be thrown on the political scrap heap.

If the pulp mill assessment Bill is not approved by Tasmania’s Upper House, it is likely the project will be ‘dead in the water’. If this occurs, will Tasmania’s economy suffer again from the ‘Green Disease’ as described in a 1999 Institute of Public Affairs article by senior Press Gallery journalist David Barnett describing the politics leading to the scrapping of the Wesley Vale Mill.

Since the Wesley Vale Mill’s debacle, a lot has happened in Tasmanian forestry. The Commonwealth and State Governments have negotiated a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) on the sustainable management of our forests and the Commonwealth published Environmental Guidelines for a Bleached Kraft Pulp mill. Technology has also moved on and improved and the bleaching of the pulp is no longer done by elemental chlorine which previously raised concerns about pollution. Today ECF and TCF are the standard.

In 2002, the 5 year review of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement confirmed that we have a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, ecological sustainable forest management and opportunities exist for industry development.

In 2003, the Tasmanian Government tasked the ‘Resource Planning and Development Commission’ (RPDC) to update the Commonwealth emission guidelines for pulp mills, this saw new guidelines approved in October 2004.

In December 2004, Gunns proposed a Pulp mill that was declared a Project of State Significance (POSS).

In terms of the small Tasmanian economy it certainly is significant, potentially adding $6.7 billion (+2.5%) to the economy, including an additional $894 million in extra tax revenue between 2008-2030, 3,400 more jobs in the state than if the mill were not constructed and once operational, an average 1,617 more Tasmanian jobs.

However, the assessment process has come to a crisis point following two directions hearings held by the RPDC. These hearings were held after almost two years. There was one year to develop guidelines for an “Integrated Impact Statement”, and another year for the developer to write such an impact statement, time for the public to provide written comment and for the RPDC consultants to undertake independent peer review.

At the first directions hearings the Greens challenged a panel member, Dr Raverty, because he was an employee of a joint venture with CSIRO. They challenged the CSIRO’s TAPM (the air pollution model) and other CSIRO activities including the fact sheet by ENSIS.

This legal challenge resulted in Dr Raverty resigning, leading to the Panel Chairman also resigning, a new panel being appointed and a second directions hearing being held.

At the conclusion of that 2nd preliminary hearing in February no definite date had been given for future optional hearings, and no detailed time line given, only a time span, may be November, maybe next year!

Gunns Limited, the developer, withdrew from the RPDC stating that the assessment process was too long, and was too opened to enable due and proper project management in terms of accessing capital and ordering equipment. They considered that each additional month of delay was costing $10 million.

In order to salvage the project the Tasmanian Government has introduced a Bill that will see the assessment process finalized by an expert consultant, with a definite time table of assessment. The consultant’s report will be submitted to Parliament by 31 August 2006. Then both Houses of Parliament must consider the report and approve/ reject the project.

The Bill requires the project to be assessed against the emission guidelines approved in 2004.

A casual glance at Tasmanian media will confirm that this situation has created literally hundreds of news stories in Tasmania with private conversations being reported, speculation of conspiracy, cherry picking reports and documents, and so called independent experts offering their opinions.

The Lower House approved the Bill with 21 of the 25 members supporting it. Today it is debated in the State’s Upper House, the Legislative Council.

Cheers, Cinders

————————-
Cinders also provided me with a link to a letter from Rodney Stagg, Retired bushman and log truck owner, sent to the RPDC on 30th August, click here: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/69061/11_Rodney_Stagg.pdf

A Re-Evaluation of the Historical Literature on Atmospheric C02 Levels: A Paper by Ernst-Georg Beck

By

Hi Jen,

I don’t know if you have seen this new paper in the journal ‘Energy and Environment’ by Ernest-Georg Beck, entitled ‘180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by Chemical Methods’, now available online here with supporting data.

The absract follows:

“More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.

Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection. [end of quote]

Regards,
Paul Biggs

—————————————
A note to potential Commentators, I suggest you read the paper before posting a comment below, try and limit comments to 2-3 posts per 24 hour period, and try and stay polite and on-topic. Cheers, Jennifer.

Global Swindles: More on that BBC ITV Doco

By

It seems everyone is watching the new BBC ITV channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.

It is being describes as out and out propaganda by many establishment climate scientists. I was sent a link to this blog post which includes a short critique by a well known contributor to the IPCC, William Connolley:

“There has been a vast amount of back and forth about the recent propaganda film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Two things have distressed me: that Channel 4 clearly have no interest in whether they broadcast truth or not; and the number of people prepared to fall for this tripe.

It’s possible to go through and analyse why just about everything they said was wrong or misleading, and I’ll try that in a moment. But if you find that going right over your head, then it may be more convincing to point out that:

1. They have faked some of their graphs,
2. One of the most respected scientists interviewed, Carl Wunsch, has since denounced the programme as “an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community.” [end of quote]

Connelley then goes on to justify the approach Al Gore took in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

“Comparisons to Al Gores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ may be instructive. A defence of TGGWS that I’ve seen is “it may be propaganda, but so was AIT”. While I have some quibbles with AIT, the science is fundamentally correct (though I wasn’t impressed with the images of Manhattan flooding, or the bits about spread of disease). Gore, as far as I can tell, hasn’t faked any of his graphs or mislead any of his interviewees. He ignored the tempertaure /CO2 lag stuff, which is probably fair enough as it does little except confuse people. [end of quote]

So it seems Al Gore got a fair bit wrong: the likely extent of flooding, the spread of malaria not to mention misrepresenting the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the ice-core data.

Connelley’s approach to the two movie’s seems a bit partisan to me.

Read the complete blog post here including accusations of faking graphs: http://elleeseymour.com/2007/03/14/who-swindled-who/