Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Virginia’s Climate Change Agenda

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I’ve long been concerned that the “climate change” debate has morphed from a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry into an ideological movement that pits liberal world views vs. conservative, and that reasoned discourse has transmogrified into tribal, us-versus-them combat. I hope fervently that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s commission on climate change can avoid falling into that trap.

I find some cause for optimism after reviewing a work plan for the commission between now and November. This document, volunteered to me by Preston Bryant, secretary of natural resources, addresses many of the issues that I have raised in this blog, as well as many that I had not thought of, and it does so in a seemingly dispassionate manner.

Expected impact. How will climate change affect Virginia? Topics include rising sea levels and ocean acidification; impact on agriculture, Chesapeake Bay fisheries and natural systems such as forests, wetlands and wildlife; impact on the built environment such as transportation, utilities, ports, tourism, military installations and (as I interpret it) oceanfront development.

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Where do greenhouse gases originate in Virginia? How much comes from electric utilities and industry? What impact do development patterns have on transportation and automobile emissions? What contribution can “carbon sinks” (such as forest land, I presume, or perhaps carbon sequestration technologies) make to absorbing greenhouse gases?

Adapting to climate change. What options do Virginians have to cut emissions? What emerging technologies, such as wind farms and algal biofuels, can we turn to? What potential is there for conservation through building practices, energy use management, and building codes?

Cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost-benefit ratio of the various strategies proposed?

Overall, the approach seems reasoned and technocratic — but I am perturbed by one inherent bias in the work plan. The Kaine administration has boxed itself in by laying out a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared to what they would be otherwise. That goal is all fine and good, but Virginia could cut emissions to zero and we would have an infinitesimal impact on global trends. Conservation and renewable fuels are good, very good. But, if by focusing on those goals we neglect priorities such as adapting to adverse impacts, we’re doing ourselves a tremendous disservice.

Climate change will be whatever it will be, however much we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, however much hot air we vent in debate. If sea levels are going to rise, nothing that Virginians do can stop them. If Virginia is destined to experience droughts and higher temperatures, we cannot alter that fate. But we can adapt to those conditions. How we adapt is very much within our control. That, in my humble opinion, is where the Governor’s Commission should focus more of its attention. But we’ll see how the study unfolds before drawing any conclusions.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    While I certainly have my quibbles with Del. Vanderhye, I think this proposed legislation makes sense. As I understand it, the legislation would require that power companies inform their customers how they can buy renewable power. Some people would buy power from renewable sources even if it is more expensive. This bill would make that easier. Why not?

    http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2008/hb1228/

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    How would we adapt in Virginia if climate change resulted in us getting only 5 or 10 inches a rain a year for the next decade?

    or how would we adapt if we starting getting 80 inches of rain a year that turned the Chesapeake Bay into a huge waste-infested fresh-water lake as each and every storm pond routinely overflowed because they were sized for storm events 1/10 in size.

    I don’t think we can assume a static outcome – can we?

    It .._could_ be much, much worse that we are willing to conceive of… and mere money won’t fix it…

    Isn’t this sort of like trying to predict when you might get cancer if you smoke 3 packs a day (and there’s always some joker whose great granddad smoked 5 packs a day and died at 105 chasing down his latest romantic conquest?) 🙂

    or turn this around.. for those who have ever smoked but quit – a question for you –

    “did you quit thinking that if you did – that you’d never get cancer?”

    well.. of course not .. and that’s the problem here.. with Climate Change..

    1. – did we cause it?

    2. – even if we stop what we’re doing, will it stop the climate change from happening anyhow.

    ehh.. take a poll of ex-smokers and ask them if it is worth restrictions on greenhouse emissions?

    there are no guarantees .. but the evidence is compelling…

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ve received a number of mailings over the years from Dominion indicating where else I could purchase power including electricity generated from renewable sources. I suspect some people would buy the higher priced spread for principle, but most people are trying to get the best price bargain they can for everything.

    Where are the energy MCIs when we need them? People need to find ways to make renewable energy less costly, just as Bill McGowan did for long distance, etc.

    TMT

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    T.J. Rodgers could become the Bill McGowan of solar. See this interesting article:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/GadgetGuide/story?id=4293368&page=1

    LB

  5. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Picture a bone white fellow in the middle of July. He shows up at the community swimming pool for the first time one summer. The rest of the folks at the pool are tan, jumping in the water and are enjoying themselves. The white guy has been too busy to go to the pool with this family all summer long, but today he finally arrived.

    He’s bashful as he pull removes his white undershirt and his blue dress socks, but everyone else is too busy to take notice. As he enters the pool water for the first time, he hesitates and thinks to himself how freezing the water feels on his bony white legs. He clinches is body as cold water splashes on him from other pool goers who rush past him, kicking up water accidentally. He looks perturbed towards those who splashed him, but he suddenly realizes the once freezing water, now actually feels quite nice.

    February 21, 2008 National Electricity Delivery Forum, Washington, D.C.

    The first speaker of the first keynote panelists, Joseph Kelliher, U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner

    The notion that there are “two separate universes” — one for energy
    policymakers and another for environmental policymakers — may be “a tenable fiction in most areas, but it utterly fails, utterly collapses if you look at climate change,”

    The US likely needs “lower demand levels and higher prices for
    electricity if we are going to meet the climate challenge” than it would need to meet only challenges to supply security, Kelliher said. “I think we should accept that,” he added. “That is a reality.”

    http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/News/6778634.xml?p=Electric%20Power/News&sub=Electric%20Power

    New energy policy, which has a friendlier impact on our Earth, isn’t a bad thing. If we have the cooperation of the greatest minds from both sides of the spectrum, we can successfully achieve the goals we desire – maintain affordable and reliable energy without upsetting the economy, help free the nation from foreign fuel dependency, save ANWAR for another generation, and leave the planet in the best shape for our future generations to follow.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    For some, survival requires alternative energy

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-02-22-whisperingranch_N.htm?csp=34

    excerpts:

    WHISPERING RANCH, Ariz. — Tucked amid the cactus and coyotes, nearly 6 miles off paved roads and 60 miles from downtown Phoenix, is Gordon Briggs’ humble desert home.

    Three arrays of solar panels on the roof and ground reveal the extreme effort required to live off the power grid, in the desert.

    Some of the people appreciate the seclusion .. Others have been waiting years for power lines to arrive,

    For them, using compact-fluorescent light bulbs isn’t a political statement but a necessity.

    Briggs’ solar panels and small wind turbines spinning their 2-foot blades charge 12 golf-cart batteries that he says can store power to keep his 800 square feet of space lit for three days if necessary.

    He’s conscientious about using other appliances like the television. After finding a reliable satellite provider recently for high-speed Internet service, Briggs had to buy another solar panel because his e-mails required more electricity.

    The last time the Hudsons asked Arizona Public Service Co. about extending power a mile and a half from the existing grid to their house, the estimate was an out-of-reach $300,000.

    They spent more than $500 a month fueling the generator and learned to conserve.

    “Your small appliances take up incredible amounts of electricity,” she said. “With solar only, there’s no pulling out your blow dryer.”

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    History Channel has some specials they run on global warming, global freezing, the end of oil, etc. Today’s special considered the upside and downside of various proposed alternaiteves to oil.

    None of them are pretty.

    One topic they mentioned was that rising fuel prices would make it impossible for farmers to continue to raise food cheaply. Then they went on to show how that could lead to a global depression. World wide food lines and situations that government can’t control.

    I think Jim’s analysis is about right: we should do what we can do, and plan for the eventuality that others won’t. Other countries can sign up to international accords, but if they don’t follow through, where are the police?

    Larry suggests that the conceivable bad posibilities have such a huge downside that we can afford to spend any amount to prevent them. And of course, we cannot. An energy policy that has a friendlier impact on earth but causes starvation isn’t going to cut it.

    Some commentators on the history channel thought we are already too late, others took the pollyanna view that new technologies would allow us to have a soft landing. Others thought it was too late for that, but we might be able to achieve a hard landing.

    But, it was a fascinating overview because it showed that every option has costs and downsides. Significant ones.

    The Kaine administration may have boxed itself in by laying out a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared to what they would be otherwise. But that goal might still result in an increase in GHG, depending on what the economy and population does. Maybe 30% is too low or too high. Maybe it is not achievable.

    Whatever the case, we ought to have some idea of what the othere consequences will be, other than just lowering emissions. If we increase electric bills by thirty percent to cut usage, and the attendant greenhouse gasses, how many new wood stoves will be installed?

    We have become so wrapped up in the liberal vs conservative, us vs them backwash of this that we are losing sight of the real goals. In addition to eco-crazies, tree-huggers, eco-terrorists, the new moniker has become eco-socialists. This is bad PR and unhelpful at best. The only way I can see to counter it is to be far more realistic than we have been to date.

    It is fine to say that our goals are to maintain affordable and reliable energy without upsetting the economy, help free the nation from foreign fuel dependency, save ANWAR for another generation, and leave the planet in the best shape for our future generations to follow.

    Frankly, I don’t see any way to reconcile that with the idea that the US likely needs lower demand levels and higher prices. Those two things are going to cause many, many ripples and hardships. No one is taking a hard look at what they might actually be.

    Therefore we are committing to an off the cuff 30% reduction without understanding the true costs. maybe the Cost-benefit analysis portion of the bill will address some of this, but I submit the costs portion of it will be far higher than anyone is so far willing to admit.

    I hope I’m wrong. I hope somebody invents cold fusion tomorrow and we can all have unlimited energy for free. But if we are going to come in for a hard landing, then someone needs to be expaining how to assume the crash position, someone should be training and funding the emergency personnel, and someone should be setting up the triage tent.

    The options appear to be soft landing, hard landing, and catastrophe. If we have a 33% chance of a soft landing, you would hate to put ALL of your money on that bet.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Assuming emissions reduction or damage minimization are the goals, almost any rational decision maker would want to achieve that goal at least cost–at least that seems like a reasonable goal.

    For a given emissions target, emissions reductions should be targeted at the subsystem with the lowest marginal cost of abatement. It’s plausible that the reason certain subsystems are highest in emission is because they generate the most value from emissions as an input into production. Or, they may have the highest opportunity cost of abatement. In that case, policies to reduce emissions that target these subsystems will result in higher costs of reaching the emissions target than a least cost policy. In other words, resources will be wasted…”

    Environmental economic blog.

    RH

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Larry suggests that the conceivable bad posibilities have such a huge downside that we can afford to spend any amount to prevent them. And of course, we cannot. An energy policy that has a friendlier impact on earth but causes starvation isn’t going to cut it.”

    Actually, that is not my position at all.

    I’m opposed to two mindsets:

    1. – the same mindset that we have had with regard to previous threats to the environment that sought to minimize the harm even when the evidence was compelling

    2.- The binary, black-white mindset that ANYTHING that we do .. not 80%, not 60%… not even 20% with most of the reduction done with conservation and energy efficiency will directly harm our economy

    remember the folks who opposed the removal of lead from gasoline?

    it’s the same folks using the same arguments…

    and if we still allowed voluntary choice of lead or unleaded gasoline – these same folks would continue to use the leaded gasoline if it was cheaper.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Consumers, businesses, and industries do not “waste” energy. Nobody spends $2X on energy when their demands could be met equally well by spending $X. People don’t leave their cars running when they park them, for example. From an overall societal viewpoint, we may deem that we are using energy inefficiently if the price of energy does not reflect the “true” cost due to environmental, public health, and national security issues. Government may then institute taxes, fees, or other measures to try to ensure that the price of energy reflects the cost. Individual consumers ARE directly harmed, at least as they would perceive it. Perhaps they may buy a car smaller than they would like or spend money making their home more energy efficient that they would rather spend on something else. Or, they may keep their thermostat two degrees lower in winter than they would prefer. The trick for government is to find the point at which the net overall benefit to society, which may be difficult for individuals to perceive directly, is at least as great as the net additional costs to all consumers. In that case, the economy as a whole is not harmed by definition. Of course, this is much easier said than done (or measured accurately).

    LB

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ll be shorter in this comment. Can we attain find this “point” where benefits to society equal costs to consumers in regards to the global warming issues? If it takes an 80%-90% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 to avoid a scenario where average rainfall in Virginia is 5-10 inches per year by 2100 (or some other equally dramatic change), then we’re screwed!

    LB

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “remember the folks who opposed the removal of lead from gasoline?”

    Actually, no, I don’t recall much controversy over that one, but I can imagine there were such people.

    When the evidence really is compelling, I don’t think we get much argument.

    I don’t hanve the black-white mindset that ANYTHING that we do .. not 80%, not 60%… not even 20% with most of the reduction done with conservation and energy efficiency will directly harm our economy. But I do think we ought to at least look at the possibility before we jump blindly in.

    LB is right:

    “If it takes an 80%-90% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 to avoid a scenario where average rainfall in Virginia is 5-10 inches per year by 2100 (or some other equally dramatic change), then we’re screwed!”

    Or at least some of us are screwed.

    “The trick for government is to find the point at which the net overall benefit to society, which may be difficult for individuals to perceive directly, is at least as great as the net additional costs to all consumers. In that case, the economy as a whole is not harmed by definition. Of course, this is much easier said than done (or measured accurately).”

    The point of my argument is that we can measure such things. We just haven’t tried very hard. In this realm we are like the pre Romans without a certifed set of weights and measures, trade was very difficult.

    When it comes down to placing a value on a single statistical life, people are going to need to understand what that means and, horrors, have some public input.

    But as long as people continue to beleive that we can do such and such with no cost, they are not going to be very interested in the results.

    We know that energy costs are not very elastic. Raising the price of fuel by 10% reduces the use of fuel by 2%, or something like that.

    If you are the guy whose budget is marginal in the extreme, then for you, 10% is your personal tipping point. Even if the increase is good for society as a whole, you cannot say it comes without harm.

    Larry thinks we can cut 20% without damaging the economy. I might go along wiht 10 or 15%. But, I think it is a stopgap, because after you take that out, we are right back to square one, facing the same problems, seven years later.

    There is no point in pushing back the problem, if you can’t agree there is one. While that 10 or 15% might not harm the economy as a whole, it might be catastrophic for a few.

    A few big sharks will move in and feed on those stricken fish. I don’t think we can create rules that allow the big fish to feed on the little fish, and think it doesn’t change or harm the economy.

    I think that as environmentalists we have a better story to tell if we say, “Yes this policy will have the following effects, and here is how we deal with them…” than we will by saying “Hey, we are going to raise your costs by 20%, but don’t worry about it, it won’t make any difference to the economy.”

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The story goes about how Texans weaigh a cow. The put a long pole over a post so it is balanced and put a sling on both ends. The put the cow in one sling and hunt around until they find a big rock to put in the other sling that exactly balances the cow.

    Then they sit around and smoke stogies and drink beer, making bets on how much the rock weighs.

    That’s about where we are when it comes to evaluating environmental costs against social benefits, except we don’t know if the rock and cow balance.

    RH

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    no.. we cannot measure the benefits vs the impacts.

    In most situations like this, we cannot. If we could, the answers would be simple.

    We could not precisely measure the cost/benefit tradeoffs – in leaded gas, PCBs, DDT, Kepone, and even now – Mercury and Greenhouse gases.

    And so we are presented with something not too different than someone asking if they cut back from 3 packs a day to 3 cigarettes a day whether it will still put them at risk for cancer.

    and then logic along the lines of “well, if I’m still at risk, then why should I sacrifice?”

    If we could precisely measure the risks and cost/benefits associated with 80% vs 20%.

    We truly don’t know if 20% is achievable but if we implement smart meters, peak-hr pricing, more/wider efficiency standards, there is a high likelihood the following things will result:

    1. – we’ll use less electricity

    2. – we’ll have to build less coal-power power plants

    3. – we’ll put less mercury into the environment

    4. – the costs of reducing pollution will move the price of coal-powered electricity closer to the costs of wind/solar.

    5. – we’ll produce “green” jobs

    6. – In the process of 1 through 5 above, we’ll reduce greenhouse gases

    Why not do these simple things that we know will have multiple beneficial effects (that we could never precisely measure) and see how much we gain in reductions and monitor whatever harmful economic effects that might occur?

    The fall-back, plan b is back to where we are now.

    The arguments in opposition that we now have on the table – are not about the benefits -there about the potential for harm and essentially an argument along the lines of .. if we cannot “measure” the benefits and impacts ahead of time – that the status quo is the only logical path.

    and yes.. this is the same argument used by those who were opposed to unleaded gas, DDT, mercury, PCBs, CFCs, and Cigarettes to name but a few.

    The argument is always the same and it’s always about the status quo verses absolute irrefutable proof sufficient to satisfy the proponents of the status quo.

    No restrictive law is forever.

    Set the law to be sunset and give the opportunity to undo the law if it turns out to yield less benefits than harm.

    meanwhile the evidence mounts:

    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/23/pentagon-climate-change-report-alarming/

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually, in many cases we can and do measure impacts vs benefits. The answers are sometimes controversial, but with controversy we improve the products and eventually reach consesus. With Lead in gasoline and DDT the impacts are pretty clear, and readily measurable. With PCB’s the answer isn’t so clear. We can compare dirty cities with clean cities and get a pretty good statistcal measure for increased respiratory distress – asthma etc.

    Denying that these kind of things can be measured, or should be, is just a way of avoiding results we might not like. Like the green jobs claim: most leading envirionmental economists will tell you that the green jobs idea is a myth. You cannot count jobs created by some kind of government mandate as a benefit. Yet, environmentlists will continue to make the green jobs claim, and to anyone who knows better it will make them look like lunatics and liars. Better to drop the subject and move on to an argument that does hold water.

    Setting the law to sunset if it yields less benefit than harm does no good if you aren’t willing to make a good faith effort to find out the true facts.

    Frequently, you don’t need a precise answer to eliminate or modify a law. If you measure a benefit and get a plus/minus 20% kind of answer then that’s enough to put a plus/minus 20% kind of answer on the costs allowable to obtain it.

    We don’t know if 20% is achievable, but if we do then

    1. – we’ll use less electricity – for now.

    2. – we’ll have to build less coal-power power plants – for now

    3. – we’ll put less mercury into the environment – for now

    4. – the costs of reducing pollution will move the price of coal-powered electricity closer to the costs of wind/solar. – but it won’t make wind/solar any more reliable. And there are costs associated with wind/solar that will limit their application with or without coal plants as competition.

    5. – we’ll produce “green” jobs – BALONEY. You will replace some jobs with some other jobs, but you will still have a net loss overall and relocation costs to consider. One job isn’t equal to another job when it is YOUR job.

    6. – In the process of 1 through 5 above, we’ll reduce greenhouse gases – And we will make energy less expensive for others who may not give a crap. Net result – no reduction in greenhouse gases. If it comes out of the ground, someone is going to burn it. If they are global competitors, then they will have jobs and we won’t.

    Basically 1 through six are a nice story, but with no basis in reality. Yes, we can buy a little time. At the end of that time we will be right back where we are now, with the same questions, and no answers, and not even the option for conservation: we will have played that hand.

    As EMR points out, if we don’t use the resources we have now to solve the correct problems, then we won’t be able to solve the problems when we have no resources.

    I’m not about arguing in favor of the status quo. I think we should make changes where necessary. I don’t think we should make too much change. Too much change mean we impose costs that are greater than the benefits, and that is a waste of resources, which is bad for the economy – and the environment.

    ————————-

    Recently, the cost benefit arm of the EPA and officials from China did an evaluation of several pollution reduction options in China. They found that the benefits outweighed the costs by 5 to one.

    I have no doubt they are correct. But, having done that, they have driven a stake in the ground. I don’t know what the numbers were, but for the sake of argument, say we are talking about reducing the easiest and least expensive sources of pollution by 10%. That has a cost benefit ratio of 5 to one, certified by the officials.

    Usually, these things are quadratic. So the next 10% has a cost benefit ratio of 2.5 to one, the next ten percent 1.25 to one, and the next ten percent has a cost benefit ration of 0.625 to one: it isn’t worth while.

    So, having made that analysis, the EPA has put one boundary on the problem.

    It’s a start.

    But now, when they come back and argue that reducing the same pollutants someplace else, where substantial efforts have already been made, where the economy is different, ALSO has a cost benefit ratio of 5 to 1, then they may have painted themselves into a corner.

    In fact, if we are REALLY interested in reducing greenhous gasses, then we might very well spend our money much better overseas. There we can get much more effect for the same money. And, if you choose to believe this creates jobs, then you can convince yourself that creating jobs overseas reduces our immigration problem, and creates more overseas consumers for our products manufactured here, under conditions that are still more “green”.

    Then, you have a win/win situation: we get more reduction and greater cost benefit for our GHG dollars, and it improves our economy.

    Of course, you have to be willing to “subsidize” foreigners to do it.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One way we measure things is by cost of travel. We can make some assumptions about how much a park is “worth” by how much people are willing to travel to get there and enjoy it.

    On that basis, Central Park is worth more than Yellowstone. It doesn’t cost the people who go there very much to arrive, but there are millions of them.

    In Fauquier county, there are thousands of acres of conservation easement land: private parks, some members of PEC have called them. since they are private, almost no one pays to visit them, but they are supported with private funds, not public.

    Now, if you talk about the cost/benefit ratio in terms of public funds, then it is very high. But if you talk about the cost/benefit ratio in absolute terms, then it is a little harder.

    All I’m suggesting is that you draw very general boundaries around the problems: boundaries that anyone can agree to.

    Then you start tightening the boundaries.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “No restrictive law is forever.”

    But most are. Jefferson predicted we would be the first nation to legislate ourselves into totalitarianism.

    Prohibition and abortion aside, how many resrictive laws can you list that have lapsed?

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just think that if we are serious about fixing the problems we think we have, then every option should be on the table. Every obection to the options should be on the table, and carry equal weight.

    If you don’t think they should carry equal weight, then you are fundamentally denying the prospect that over-reacting has just as bad a consequence as unde-reacting.

    You have joined the ranks of profit seeking special interests.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Grovetons views of the Free Market.

    I pretty much agree with the caveat that there are subsidies present that distort the market.

    The two major ones are:

    1. – The mortgage subsidy which drives people to seek single family dwellings that serve as both housing and an investment – subsidized by folks who rent.

    2. – Transportation – expansion of roads that are over capacity at rush hour are paid for by people who do not use those roads much less use them at rush hour.

    If you ..

    1. – removed the mortgage subsidy

    2. – did not widen roads for rush hour OR did so but allocated those costs to the folks who need the rush hour capacity.

    You would then have a true free market of sorts – at least more so than we currently have.

    What we have right now is not a free market .. and folks who believe the status quo IS a free market and therefore the way that housing “works” IS the free market.

    I’ll admit that any true “free market” is already on a slippery slope in terms of absolute purity but I don’t buy the mantra that what we have right now is a free market that should be left alone.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m not sure where the post just prior to this one came from.. but ignore it for this thread.

    For THIS THREAD – when we characterize those who are opposed to the release of deadly chemicals into the environment that potentially permanently damage the climate of the earth – as “special interests” – I’m simply AGOG. but I should not be surprised as this thought pattern has been consistent if nothing else.

    We’ve learned the “hard” way with virtually every harmful substance, to include mercury, PCBs, DDT, agent orange, kepone, lead, fire retardants, etc – a litany of harmful substances banned only AFTER widespread harm became so apparent that it could no longer be ignored; and now, we have harmful chemicals loose in our environment and indeed in our bloodstreams – a direct result of the folks who demanded absolute proof before we banned the substances.

    and we are paying billions of tax dollars to clean up the worst cases and not cleaning up the stuff that we simply cannot afford to clean up – like mercury in fish. Instead, we tell folks to not eat the fish.

    By the way, anyone who thinks the jury is still out on PCBs needs a little more education.

    http://en.wikipedia.org
    /wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl

    I find this lack of knowledge to go hand in hand with folks who poo poo the idea of harmful substances getting loose in the environment.

    Once they “know” and can no longer deny then they switch to the “it’s too late and too expensive to clean it up argument”.

    When it came to CFC’s it was realized that if we waited for that irrefutable “proof of harm” – it might well be too late to undo the harm – even though the same folks who demanded absolute proof were .. still demanding absolute proof – saner folks FINALLY prevailed.

    In other words – there might be a point where after which – cutting back would not alter events set in motion by reaching the tipping point.

    And that’s the problem with greenhouse gases.

    If we wait – until there is irrefutable proof – will the harm done be irreversible – and IF that is the case -what is the prudent course of action?

    Should we use the same approach that we have with DDTs, PCBS, lead, agent orange, etc to make a decision about greenhouse gases or should we take the CFC approach?

    So.. forgive me.. but I’m not about to believe the same folks who typically poo-poo the harm that resulted from PCBs ,etc.

    They lack credibility no matter what their arguments are because they’ve demonstrated conclusively that they have exceptionally poor judgment that will get the earth destroyed if we follow their failed approach to “measuring” cost/benefits before we react.

    the last guy I’m going to take advice from when it comes to “measuring” the potential of catastrophe is the guy who was a proven track record of being wrong, not once or twice – but over and over – habitually underestimating the potential harm

    But the thing about greenhouse gases is that they are directly related to energy consumption and inefficiency – two things that if we reduce – they’ll have other benefits in addition to the reduction of substances we THINK MIGHT be harmful but we don’t have absolute proof – yet.

    But just like some “die-hard” cigarette smokers won’t believe that the nexus with cancer has been “scientifically” proven, we have similar skeptics with global warming.

    Both have a track record of chronic dumbness for lack of a better word.

    The last person that I want to be making judgments about potential catastrophic failure is the guy who has demonstrated over and over that he cannot “get it right”.

    ….because… if we are wrong and as a result, the Earth get’s terminal cancer all the talk about the economy and “green” jobs becomes irrelevant…

    We will be in a “lose-lose” proposition of an end game of certain catastrophe that we cannot stop.

    and here’s the really dumb part:

    In the case of the US – where we use almost twice as much greenhouse-gas-producing energy as our industrialized country counterparts – we ALREADY DO KNOW how much we can cut back without “measuring” because it has already been done by other countries – whose economies are as strong as our and whose standards of living actually exceed ours.. they have lower infant deaths and a longer life expectancy.

    So.. no.. they do not die and freeze to death because they use less energy… AND because they do use less energy – they emit LESS greenhouse gases per capita than we do.

    Our goal could be – to merely match the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the rest of the industrialized world – as a reasonable start.

    We can accomplish this by decoupling electricity and by utilizing existing and PROVEN demand management strategies to move from a system that essentially subsidizes proliferate consumption to one that assigns and allocated costs based on consumption.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…we have harmful chemicals loose in our environment and indeed in our bloodstreams – a direct result of the folks who demanded absolute proof before we banned the substances.”

    I actually agree with this statement, and we can add cigarettes to the list.

    As for PCB’s I worked for several years in PCB remediation projects, doing analyses, handling, and destroying PCB’s and PCB byproducts. Most of the various kinds of PCB’s are more than ten thousand times less toxic than 2378-TCDD (Dioxin). PCB’s are dangerous, but you would hate to put their destruction/prevention on the same level of priority or expenditure as the destruction/prevention of dioxin.

    ————————

    “if we are wrong and as a result, the Earth get’s terminal cancer all the talk about the economy and “green” jobs becomes irrelevant…

    We will be in a “lose-lose” proposition of an end game of certain catastrophe that we cannot stop.”

    This is the kind of thing that says to me that you believe we can afford any expenditure to prevent some things that may have catastrophic consequences.

    An infinite expenditure is also a lose-lose proposition. I’m not suggesting that we need perfect evidence that something is harmful. In fact, you need only a low probability of a very expensive event to make mitigation worth while. But even then, you cannot afford an infinite expense.

    You need to have an idea of what you are willing to spend, and what the consequences will be.

    At some point, you may have to move on to plan B. Simply ignoring that fact is a big mistake.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Our goal could be – to merely match the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the rest of the industrialized world – as a reasonable start.”

    Maybe. I’m not yet convinced it is actually a reasonable start. Our country is a lot different and a lot larger than Germany or France.

    When we are willing to sign up to their level of taxation, growth, and underemployment, then maybe we decide it is a reasonable start.

    “…to move from a system that essentially subsidizes proliferate consumption to one that assigns and allocated costs based on consumption.”

    So, you think you can reduce consumption by charging more for it without hurting the individual or the economy.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if we are wrong and as a result, the Earth get’s terminal cancer all the talk about the economy and “green” jobs becomes irrelevant… “

    Otherwise known as Pascals Wager.

    Pascal proposes that it is always better to beleive in God than not because the expected value of believing is greater than the expected value of not believing.

    The idea is that even a small probability times infinity is worth more than nothing.

    “In essence, Pascal’s wager assumes that the potential costs are only on one side of the wager, while the benefits on the other side are infinite. Neither holds true for ‘global warming’.

    Pascals Wager is bipolar : God exists or does not, but that isn’t true for global warming.

    We cannot determine whether god exists or not, but we can determine a grat deal about global warming, even if we cannot know all…..

    believing in ‘global warming’ may burden you with more costs than not doing so, and believing that you know how to respond to ‘global warming’ may prove false, even if ‘global warming’ were to exist. “

    “Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices.”

    Professor Emeritus, Phillip Scott

    http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/D857449D-F28A-47AD-B5BF-14EA098C5401.html

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    no.. I don’t think ANY cost is justified at all but I DO THINK that NO RESPONSE at all is ignorant when the consequences might be catastrophic.

    Our basic policy with regard to this is to assert our right to be – benignly ignorant.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As recently as 1970 we were concerned about a little ice age. Some people actually suggested warming the oceans to prevent it.

    An ignorant response can be just as catastrophic as no response.

    So, here we sit: no response – catastrophe. Ignorant, wrongheaded response – catastrophe. Insufficient response in the direction we currently think is correct – catastrophe. Cutting the use of energy by 80% – catastrophe.

    Maybe the right response is to plan for catastrophe.
    See if we can figure out a way to muddle our way through with something less disruptive than the black plague or global war over resources.

    Either that or maybe we need a less strident sales pitch. At the rate we are going, a lot of people will give up and say WTF. Why should I do without to save someone else money?

    If we can’t pitch a strategy of hope where everybody wins, then we are pitching a woeful strategy of advantage and divisiveness, and THAT will be a catastrophe.

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “An ignorant response can be just as catastrophic as no response.”

    no – ignorance is advocating that nothing be done while there is an ever-growing ozone hole and justifying no response by saying “An ignorant response can be just as catastrophic as no response.”

    if we had no changes in the environment – no increase in greenhouse gases and no evidence that such gases could effect climate in potentially devastating ways, then your statement might be true

    but your statement in the face of obvious ongoing changes is ignorance – personified.

    The consequences of being wrong are so high and potentially irreversible – that to assert that reducing energy consumption as an initial safeguarding measure could be catastrophic is dumb on it’s face…IMHO.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “If we can’t pitch a strategy of hope where everybody wins, then we are pitching a woeful strategy of advantage and divisiveness, and THAT will be a catastrophe.”

    how about pitching a strategy of “we ALL lose if we stand by and do nothing”?

    This is like a guy standing in front of a speeding locomotive saying ” if you make it worth my while – I’ll jump off the tracks”.

    or a guy dumping oil into a river says “if you pay me enough, I’ll stop doing this” except we extend the concept to civilization in general…..

    weird logic RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “how about pitching a strategy of “we ALL lose if we stand by and do nothing”?”

    You assume we all lose equally (totally), that what we do is the right thing, and that it is successful. That’s a lot of assumptions. I think you have a better chance at selling hope than fear, so you need a better sales pitch than that one.

    This month’s Smithsonian has an article about a woman who has spent her lifetime trying to save the cheetahs. She went to Africa and studied how farmers protected their cattle, then she showed them cheaper methods that worked better. She never demonized the ranchers, but taught them how to co-exist with their enemies (the cheetahs) so that they could both benefit: the cheetahs through surviving, and the ranchers through ecotourism and ranching.

    It is a real win/win story. Until you find out that through a genetic accident cheetahs have almost no immune system and almost no genetic diversity. The cheetahs may be doomed no matter what we do, short of genetic engineering to change them to something else. Saving the habitat won’t save the cheetahs: they have too many other problems.

    The problem with the argument that global warming is THE impending disaster is that it sucks up all the money from everything else. Like the cheetahs, humans have a lot of other problems.

    The idea that we ALL lose if we stand by and do nothing, ignores the fact that you may still lose from some other problem you ignored while working on global warming. It ignores the fact that people will work (and probably fight) to lose less than their neighbors.

    And it asumes that we ALL lose, instead of 90% or so. Some people will prefer to be in the 10% that doesn’t lose rather than in the 90% that does. Some will prefer taking that chance to being in the 100% that lose 80% of everything. Some will prefer taking the chance of slow suffocation from global warming to instant incineration from global war, fighting over the prospect.

    An argument that promotes “this or nothing” isn’t one you can really win. When you beat people into submission or drive them in a corner it tends to generate desperate, unthinking responses.

    What you want, is something people can agree to, that they can see is to their benefit. If you really think this is an impending catastrophe, then you need a) a plan to prevent it, and b) a plan deal with it if a) fails.

    Assuming only one option is a very bad idea.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if you pay me enough, I’ll stop doing this” except we extend the concept to civilization in general…..”

    In this case, we don’t have someone dumping in the river to demonize. We are ALL doing the dumping.

    If you don’t think we can afford to pay ourselves enough to do this (extended to the general civilization), then what you are really saying is that the result isn’t worth the effort. You are arguing against the cost you say makes this worthwhile.

    The same thing is true of the demonized guy dumping in the river. We can “force” him to stop doing that, but the price we pay is that we give up whatever he was producing. We can require that he clean up his act, and add the cost to his product. Either way, we pay.

    It might be worth the price or might not. When the Avtex plant closed in Front Royal they had to re-open it under an emergency basis until another supplier could be created for a critical military component.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What if global warming doesn’t exist or if it does, what if we’re giving us mere humans way too much credit for causing it?

    Many a climatologist has stated that CO2 levels have been 10X higher in other periods of time than they are now and guess what: we’re still here living quite comfortably.

    I certainly don’t advocate for intentionally polluting our environment, but for the love of God, environmentalists must be practical.

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “In this case, we don’t have someone dumping in the river to demonize. We are ALL doing the dumping.

    If you don’t think we can afford to pay ourselves enough to do this (extended to the general civilization), then what you are really saying is that the result isn’t worth the effort. You are arguing against the cost you say makes this worthwhile.”

    we are all dumping – but not equally and a large number are concerned that we should all cut back – conserve and be more efficient – just to be on the safe side – because the consequences of being wrong – may well be irreversible.

    we have others who are saying that it is their “right” to dump and that unless we pay them to stop, they won’t stop.

    We’ve been through this.. with pesticides, leaded gas, dioxin, PCBS, Kepone, even oil dumped in streams…

    the claim: we all do it

    besides.. if we could do it before, it now constitutes a “right” that others owe us money for if they want us to stop….

    this is your continuing theme .. only the type of pollution changes but the basic argument is the same.

    it was allowed before

    if it was allowed before, it is now a right

    you can’t take that “right” away unless you have absolute, incontrovertible proof and even then you gotta pay me to stop.

    same argument.. just a different pollutant…

    in this case – all that is being advocated to use PRACTICAL efficiency and conservation to REDUCE – not outlaw – pollutants that also happen to be, in addition to being pollutants – greenhouse gases.

    to more directly align actual costs with consumption

    and the response has been that people who currently use twice as much energy as others will go broke then freeze and die…

    and.. that environmentalists .. demonize and not practical…

    keep wiggling…

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we are all dumping – but not equally and a large number are concerned that we should all cut back “

    Now we are arguing about who is dumping the least. First its a major impending catastrophe, and now it is weak minded quibbling over who gets more pie.

    If it is such a large number that is concerned, then why haven’t they cut back?

    If a large number has cut back, how is it that we can’t see the difference?

    If we only cut back a practical and reasonable amount, will that be enough?

    What is a practical and reasonable amount? I’ve seen numbers anywhwere from 20 to 80%.

    If we can’t figure out what the fair and most economical costs are, how is it that we can figure to within a firkin per fortnight who is dumping more and who ought to cut back? Why would I believe any answer anyone gives? As BAcon Points out, its a huge political football, and you can’t beleive anyone because of all the hidden motives.

    Is it ONLY the people that use more that should cut back so that we can ALL survive? What do you do about CHINA and INDIA which have low emissions per person now But which are growing like gangbusters?

    So maybe all of us don’t freeze in the dark even if some do. Where will the practical meeting point be on Standard of living under the new regime? Will it be like China and India? Or more like Peru, Afghanistan, or Chechnya?

    Suppose we reduce usage by 20%, then we find out that it moves the eventual suffocation back from 200 yeras to 500 years. Is that enough?

    You can plot CO2 against GDP. Some countries are more CO2 efficient than others, but there is a clear trend line that shows increasing CO2 with increasing GDP. Are you going to make only those above the trend line reduce their usage? Who is going to be the police? Do you cut back oly those above the trendline, or everbody who is 15% or more above the elowest usage levels?

    Suppose someone claims that still isn’t low enough. Do we keep playing the environmental limbo dance till the whole world falls on its back in an orgy of being greener than thou?

    You say this is reasonable, but you are unwilling to go measure and set uniform standards for reasonableness. The Bolsheviks thought it was reasonable to just kill people who used too much. Mob rule is still mob rule, even if it is environmental mob rule.

    I agree that doing nothing is stupid, but I am a long way from convinced that the present plans aren’t ALSO at least as stupid. I don’t think we neeed absolute proof that something should be done. But, before we go off and do it, we should set a standard where we can agree that the approach failed, so we will know when to quit and try something else.

    —————————–

    We are not talking about dioxins and PCB’s anymore. Now we are talking about keeping warm, breathing, going to work, cooking, and manufacturing things to make a living.

    Anytime you think you can make a popular political movement out of eliminating or substantially reducing those things as if they are dioxins, knock yourself out.

    And before you go off and argue that we should be like the other industrialied countries:

    The GDP per capita of EU as a whole is 34% lower than the U.S. Of the five largest European countries it is 17% lower. the per capita GDP in Europe is growing at a rate that is 0.2% less than ours per year.

    On the (smaller proportion of that GDP ) money they take home they pay about 60% more in taxes.

    And yes, GDP per capita and CO2 emissions are related. The major industrialized countries of Europe do have about half the per capita CO2 emissions we have, But they also have 2/3rds the per capita GDP. And their CO2 production per capita is going up, while ours is going down.

    And, there is another little hidden fact. EU gets more of its refined petroleum from the mid east. US gets oil from (mostly) in this hemisphere and refines it at home. Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain have the highest CO2 emissions. EU has effectively exported much of its CO2 emissions.

    I don’t know if any of this maks any difference or not. But before we go around blabbing that “they” live just as well and a whole lot greener than we, maybe we should take a little closer look. An awful lot of green isn’t nearly as green as it is made out to be. And maybe instead of taking a look designed to support a pre-existing conclusion we should back off our special interest position, and demand that investigations explicitly consider both sides of a problem, in order to propose a solution that is least cost and maximum benefit for all, not just those of a certain persuasion.

    —————————-

    “Many a climatologist has stated that CO2 levels have been 10X higher in other periods of time than they are now and guess what: we’re still here living quite comfortably. “

    Anonymous is probably wrong. Yes, we are living here comfortably now (at least SOME of us.) But we might not have lived very comfortably then. In fact, some scientists beleive the oil we are burning now is the result of massive dieoffs caused by poisonous CO2 levels at some earlier time.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “One of the most problematic aspects of pollution in general, and carbon emissions in particular, is that there’s not much room for “personal virtue” (to quote the Vice President). What I mean buy this is that what really matters is the total stock of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from. If I cut my carbon footprint in half, but Evan doubles his, I essentially sacrificed for naught (or perhaps, for Evan). However, climate policy is most likely going to take the form of some sort of national carbon cap, which all involved parties will be aware of, and will be stringent enough, one presumes, to be binding.”

    From the common tragedies blog.

    But here is the problem. Those superconsumers have a different utility value that Larry and I. they wiell continue to light up their huge homes with exterior vanity lights – and pay the extra price asociated with the carbon cap.

    Larry and I will have sacrificed for nothing: We will still have the CO2 from superconsumer. And we will also pay more for our (smaller) share of the carbon cap.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How do we know we are doing the right thing dept.

    “But in temperate forests, the concept has not held up well to scientific analysis. Forests do take carbon out of the atmosphere temporarily, but they don’t remove it from the active carbon pool, because their carbon is released when they rot or burn. Cambridge botanist Oliver Rackham, author of a history of Britain’s forests, has said that telling people to plant trees to stop global warming is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels. … “

    Ecological Economics.

  35. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    How Green is Solar? Very! 89% worth

    Solar power generated by photovoltaic cells is among the greenest of energy options. The cells just sit there, basking in the sun and emitting nothing but electrons.

    But cells are manufactured, and the manufacturing process is not benign. Over the life cycle of solar cells — from the mining of raw materials to the finished product — just how green are they?

    Vasilis M. Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory and colleagues have the latest analysis, to be published in Environmental Science and Technology. The short answer is that photovoltaic cells are still very green.

    The researchers looked at emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants like nitrogen oxide gases and heavy metals from the manufacture of four types of cells. Most of the emissions are results of the electricity used, and the amounts depend in part on the mix of electricity in the grid, or how much comes from coal plants, hydroelectric, nuclear and the like.

    The researchers found that thin-film cadmium telluride cells were the greenest, although the differences among the four types were slight. All told, the researchers say, replacing electrical power from the grid with electricity generated by solar cells results in at least an 89 percent reduction in greenhouse gases and pollutants.

    http://nytimes.com/2008/02/26/science/26obsola.html

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The Energy Challenge

    Move Over, Oil, There’s Money in Texas Wind

    SWEETWATER, Tex. — The wind turbines that recently went up on Louis Brooks’s ranch are twice as high as the Statue of Liberty, with blades that span as wide as the wingspan of a jumbo jet. More important from his point of view, he is paid $500 a month EACH to permit 78 of them on his land, with 76 more on the way.

    “That’s just money you’re hearing,” he said as they hummed in a brisk breeze recently.

    Texas, once the oil capital of North America, is rapidly turning into the capital of wind power. After breakneck growth the last three years, Texas has reached the point that more than 3 percent of its electricity, enough to supply power to one million homes, comes from wind turbines.

    Texans are even turning tapped-out oil fields into wind farms, and no less an oilman than Boone Pickens is getting into alternative energy.

    “I have the same feelings about wind,” Mr. Pickens said in an interview, “as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” He is planning to build the biggest wind farm in the world, a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself.

    Wind turbines were once a marginal form of electrical generation. But amid rising concern about greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants, wind power is booming. Installed wind capacity in the United States grew 45 percent last year, albeit from a small base, and a comparable increase is expected this year.

    At growth rates like that, experts said, wind power could eventually make an important contribution to the nation’s electrical supply. It already supplies about 1 percent of American electricity, powering the equivalent of 4.5 million homes. Environmental advocates contend it could eventually hit 20 percent, as has already happened in Denmark. Energy consultants say that 5 to 7 percent is a more realistic goal in this country.

    The United States recently overtook Spain as the world’s second-largest wind power market, after Germany, with $9 billion invested last year. A recent study by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., projected $65 billion in investment from 2007 to 2015.

    see the rest of the article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23wind.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=3ede15dc922971a4&ei=5087

  37. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    now.. tell me again what we don’t know about what is practical and feasible and that green jobs are baloney…

    and you know what.. if we SUBSIDIZE Green energy… if we ALL subsidize it then we’ll ALL benefit from it also.

    and if we do that – it’s also ‘user pays”

    what more could you want?

    🙂

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Installed wind capacity in the United States grew 45 percent last year, albeit from a small base, and a comparable increase is expected this year.’…Environmental advocates contend it could eventually hit 20 percent, as has already happened in Denmark. Energy consultants say that 5 to 7 percent is a more realistic goal in this country.”

    And that is the crux of my argument. Pointing out a 45% growth rate without mentioning the small base is fundamentally dishonest, yet this article which does so, is the exception rather than the rule.

    Environmentalists are claiming we can get to 20% (which I don’t dowbt in the least). It’s just a question of cost, whcih is why the professions think it is more like 5 to 7%.

    That’s a 300 to 400% difference in forecasts, and I think it buys the environmentalists less than nothing to oversell their position.

    But, If we can show it really works wheter it is 5% or 20%, I’m in favor. All I ask for is reasonable accounting standards and oversight by disinterested third parties, instead of hand waving and pixie dust sprinkled about by special intersts.

    And don’t count on the jobs, or count them as a benefit. Reputable economists have explained over and over agien why this isn’t so, and not just in the environmental business.

    Don’t try to sell a lie. It hurts your credibility.

    Germany has recently proposed a plan to convert entirely to renewable energy by 2050. I wish them luck. But, knowing how they go about things, we can expect detailed plans, good cost analysis, with a means to pay for it, and a quality product in the end.

    That, I can get behind.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if we SUBSIDIZE Green energy… if we ALL subsidize it then we’ll ALL benefit from it also.”

    It is only true if the benefits are worth more than the subsidy costs.

    And then, there is the issue of how we subsidize it. Some users seem to want this more than others. How do you describe “user pays” in this case?

    Do we just segregate production from transmission and let those that want green power buy it voluntarily? Do we require those that don’t use power, or use much less to subsidize at the same rate? What other priorities do we cut short to meet this goal? or do we require the biggest users to buy more expensive green power first, so that they can subsidize less expensive electricity for the rest of us.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile – the list goes on and on.

    No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

    … The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C – a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anonymous 1:51,

    OK finding but one year does not a trend make because of El Nino and La Nina.

    I did locate the data you mentioned but on a rightwing website.

    I think Jim Bacon had it right. “Reasoned debate has transmorgrified into tribal combat”.

    If this cooling period holds up, does that mean we get the “Ice Age” after all ?

Leave a Reply

Read More