Climate & Climate Change

Yes, secondary beer fridges in North American and Australian homes have a significant impact on domestic greenhouse gas emissions. So says a ‘study’ by Denise Young from the University of Alberta, Canada.

Joanna Yarrow, director of ‘Beyond Green,’ a ‘sustainable development’ consultancy in the UK. “Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people – let’s hope it has an effect.”

It certainly had an effect on me. My secondary fridge will need re-stocking with lager tomorrow.

Reported in New Scientist Environment: ‘Beer fridges’ present a gassy problem

Nigel Lawson gave an insightful address to the group who gathered for the Institute of Public Affair’s 2007 HV McKay Lecture in Sydney on Monday. He spoke on the politics and economics of climate change and commented:

“Is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature, which by some happy chance has recently been visited on us, from which small departures in either direction would spell disaster? Moreover, while a sudden change would indeed be disruptive, what is at issue here is the prospect of a very gradual change over a hundred years and more.

In any case, average world temperature is simply a statistical artefact. The actual experienced temperature varies
enormously in different parts of the globe; and man, whose greatest quality is his adaptability, has successfully colonized most of it.

Two countries at different ends of the earth, both of which are generally considered to be economic success stories, are Finland and Singapore. The average annual temperature in Helsinki is less than 5ºC. That in Singapore is in excess of 27ºC — a difference of more than 22ºC. If man can successfully cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3ºC, when he is given a hundred years in which to do so.”

The entire speech can be found and downloaded here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=695

A new Report produced by a coalition of over 40 prominent civil society organisations from 33 countries says that governments should reject calls for a post-Kyoto treaty (“Kyoto 2”) with binding limits on carbon emissions. The report says a better strategy would be to focus on removing barriers to adaptation, such as subsidies, taxes and regulations that hinder technological innovation and economic growth.

From 3-14 December, government officials will be in Bali, Indonesia, for climate talks. They are set to discuss the establishment of a new treaty, dubbed “Kyoto 2”, which would require all countries to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Civil Society Report on Climate Change concludes that such emissions caps would be counterproductive: they would undermine economic development, harm the poor, and would be unlikely to address the problem of climate change in a meaningful way.

It includes four chapters:

1) “Human Ecology and Human Behavior: Climate change and health in perspective” By Paul Reiter http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_22.pdf

2) “Death and Death Rates due to Extreme Weather Events: Global and U.S. Trends, 1990-2006” By Indur M. Goklany http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf

3) “Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture and Forestry: It can be done with free markets” By Douglas Southgate and Brent Sohngen http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_24.pdf

4) “The Political Economy of Global Warming, Rent Seeking and Freedom” By Wolfgang Kasper http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_25.pdf

“Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people, making energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty by retarding growth”, said Kendra Okonski, Environment Programme Director of International Policy Network, one of the 41 organisations who published the report.

“Given that nations are having trouble complying with the relatively small emissions cuts required under Kyoto, the economic and social consequences of a Kyoto 2 Treaty could be devastating”, added Ms Okonski.

The Civil Society Report argues that adaptation is the best way to enable people to deal with a changing climate. That means:

• Enabling people to utilise technologies capable of reducing the incidence of disease, such as clean water, sanitation, and medicines.

• Deploying technologies – e.g. flood defences, roads, sturdier houses, and early warning systems – that reduce the risk of death from weather-related disasters.

• Removing barriers to the use of modern agricultural technologies, which would better enable people to adapt to changing conditions.

• Eliminating subsidies, taxes, and regulations that undermine economic growth – thereby enabling people better to address current and future problems.

Other conclusions in the Civil Society Report on Climate Change include:

• Over the course of the past century, deaths and death rates from weather-related natural disasters have declined substantially. It appears that the main drivers of this reduction have been improvements in wealth and technology.

• Mortality from extreme weather events is far more strongly affected by the technologies deployed by humans – such as the construction of houses, roads, and dams – than by climate.

• Human ecology and human behaviour are the key determinants of the transmission of infectious disease. Obsessive emphasis on climate is unwarranted because, given suitable economic circumstances, straightforward strategies are available to ensure the public health.

• If adaptation is not unduly restricted, production of food and other agricultural products, as well as forestry products, will keep pace with growing human demands.

• Foreign aid is being used as a ‘carrot’ to induce poor countries to restrict their emissions. But aid has mostly been wasted or even counterproductive. While there is a case for refocusing aid on projects that have a stronger chance of providing net benefits, increasing aid would do more harm than good.

• Finally, the stick of trade sanctions have been threatened as a means of enforcing the global cap – yet such sanctions harm both parties; a clear lose – lose scenario.

————————————
The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, Produced by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, Published Tuesday 27 November 2007, ISBN 1-905041-15-2, 100 pp.

The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change seeks to educate the public about the science and economics of climate change in an impartial manner. It was established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for intervention and regulation. The coalition includes the Institute of Public Affairs.

I’ve mentioned before that the flawed ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction is used to reduce the role of the sun in climate change. Little pre-industrial temperature variability would help support the claim that 20th century warming is mainly anthropogenic in origin. Scafetta and West have recently published a continuation of their phenomenological approach to estimating the role of total solar irradiance (TSI) in climate change, which compares TSI reconstructions with temperature reconstructions.

Interestingly, Scafetta and West conclude that: “if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 years. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.”

I should point out that solar irradiance is only one potential solar effect on climate and the IPCC rate the ‘level of scientific understanding’ (LOSU) of ‘solar irradiance’ as ‘low.’ Even the contrived Lockwood and Frohlich (2007) paper pointed to the possibility of an unknown ‘solar amplifier’ and the expected fall in future solar activity. Furthermore, it is possible that equivalent solar forcing is ‘different’ to greenhouse gas forcing.

Anyway, the JGR paper entitled: ‘Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by N. Scafetta and B. J. West can be found here. It’s a good read, so enjoy!

“IT HAS been billed as the summit that could help save the planet, but the latest United Nations climate change conference on the paradise island of Bali has itself become a major contributor to global warming.

Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.”

Climate scientists such as Leo Di Caprio, Arnie Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore could be there. WWF, formerley known as the ‘World Wildlife Fund,’ are said to be sending at least 32 staff. Unfortunately Biggsy has a real and potentially useful job, in order to earn a living, so won’t be able to attend. However, UK taxpayers will be funding the £330 per night suites for the British delegation. UK Environment minister Hilary Benn (he’s a bloke) seems well qualified with a degree in Russian and East European Studies. Rumour has it that the next UN climate conference will take place on the moon, so that the delegates can observe the effects of humanity on the Earth. Be there, or be square.

Read the article in The Sunday Times: ‘UN climate circus rolls in on CO2 cloud’