I’ve collected a number of interesting climate and energy related news releases, stories, and opinion pieces in the past couple of weeks. In no particular order:
The only way we will take large-scale climate action is if there are appropriate price signals in markets – signals that reach individual actors and influence their activities. One step in the right direction was phasing out federal subsidies for high-risk coastal properties’ flood insurance policies, as Congress did in 2012. This had the expected effect of increasing premiums for policy holders. Unsurprisingly, people don’t want to pay more to live in their high-risk homes. So they complained to their representatives, who responded by passing new legislation … reinstating government subsidies. Taxpayers across the country are shoveling good money after bad for a select handful of wealthy people to build without mitigating risk to their homes or paying the true economic costs of their lifestyle decisions. We will pay for them to rebuild again and again (remember: sea levels will rise for centuries) unless we as a society decide to stop.
Tesla is entering the energy industry. This could be a game changer in terms of home solar energy and electric vehicles, no matter how Tesla comes out in the long-term.
20 years of IPCC effort and “achievement”. With no robust international climate agreement after 20 years’ of work, I have a hard time accepting the claim the IPCC has achieved much of anything except an excessive bureaucracy and huge reports that few people read.
News that’s not really news: Asia will be among those hardest hit by climate change. This isn’t a new result, but something that the IPCC’s WGII report will report on with increased confidence in 2014 versus 2007 (see above statement). The number of people living close to coasts in Asia dwarf the total population of countries who historically emitted the most greenhouse gases. That was true in 2007 and will be true in the future. It will take a generation or more before effects on developed nations generate widespread action.
New research (subs. req’d) indicates ice gains in Antarctica’s Ross Sea will reverse by 2050. Recent temperature and wind current patterns will shift from their current state to one that encourages rapid ice melt, similar to what the Arctic experienced in the past 20 years or so.
An El Nino might be developing in the tropical Pacific. The anomalous heat content traveling east via an Equatorial Kelvin Wave rivals that of the 1997-1998 El Nino, which was the strongest in recorded history. Earlier this month, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center issued an El Nino Watch, citing a 50% probability that an El Nino would develop in summer or fall 2014, based in part on projections such as Columbia University’s. El Nino is the warm phase of the ENSO phenomenon. Warm ocean waters move from the western to eastern Pacific, affecting global atmospheric circulations. Related to science policy, one result of Congress’ austerity approach to the economy is monitoring buoys’ degradation in the Pacific Ocean. NOAA helped deploy a widespread network of buoys following the 1982-1983 El Nino which helped track the progress of the 1997-1998 El Nino with greatly improved fidelity. That network is operating at less than 75% of its designed capacity, hampering observations. If we can’t observe these impactful events, we can’t forecast their effects. This negatively impacts business’ and peoples’ bottom line.
Finally, I want to make some observations regarding goings-on within the climate activist community. Vocal critics recently spent a lot of energy on hit pieces, this being only one example (poorly written with little on science, heavy on “he-saids”, with an overdose of personal insults and vindictive responses to anyone who didn’t agree with the piece, including my comments). These writings demonstrate something rather simple to me: if you do not agree with 100% of what the activist consensus is, you’re no better than people the activists label ‘deniers’. Additionally, the their argument is absurd: social scientists have no business analyzing climate data or commenting on activist’s claims. Why is this absurd? Because they simultaneously hold the contradictory belief that physical scientists should have exclusive input and decision-making power over climate policy (a social creation). Furthermore, implicit in their messaging is social scientists don’t have the right kind of expertise to participate in “serious” discussions. These efforts to deligitimize someone they don’t believe should participate (how very elitist of them) is reminiscent of efforts by many in the Republican party to deligitimize Barack Obama’s presidency simply because of his race. Nothing is gained and much is lost by these efforts. How does this advance the climate discussion to people not currently involved, which will need to happen if we are to ever take any kind of large-scale climate action?
Additional lack of critical thought is found in this post, mostly in this penultimate paragraph:
I’ve said before that I think people can believe what they want, as long as they don’t try to act on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others’ lives. When they deny the reality of global warming, and preach it to their flock, that’s exactly what they’re doing (incidentally, a large fraction of Americans believe to some extent the Bible is literally true).
The very same complaint is made by the people the author derides in this paragraph and post but in reverse and it’s one of the biggest reasons why we’ve taken so little climate action. The author’s condescension is plainly evident for those who don’t believe exactly as he does. Instead of trying to reach out to people with different beliefs (and underlying value systems), he takes the lazy route and spends time insulting them. Have you ever believed in something you didn’t previously after someone insulted you? No, it’s an absurd and self-defeating strategy. These basic problems underlie most climate change discussions and people retrench their positions instead of trying to step into other’s shoes. I’m not sure how much this has to change before we undertake more widespread and effective climate mitigation strategies.