Damage to the planet ‘is already inevitable’ – The Times online (UK). “Just eight years are left for the world’s carbon dioxide emissions to peak if there is any hope of limiting temperature rises to no more than 2C (3.6F) over the next century.” Not gonna happen, if the Deniers have there way. And that means: “The choice is now between a future with a damaged world and a future with a severely damaged world,” said Professor Martin Parry, of the Met Office.

EU to give poor nations at least ‚¬50 million to deal with climate change – International Herald Tribune. The article suggests that much of the money is for adaptation (i.e. “we’re sorry we screwed you”): “to help them cope with more frequent storms, floods and drought linked to man-made climate change.” On the other hand, some funds will go to “helping poor countries set up programs that could cash in on rich nations’ carbon offsets.” Now we’re talkin’! I wanna get me some of that offset money.

Effort to Get Companies to Disclose Climate Risk – New York Times. “Two environmental groups and the financial officers of 10 states and New York City are asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose the risks that climate change may pose to their bottom lines.”

Arctic summer ice thickness halves to 1 meter – Environmental News Network. “All of these areas have previously had two meters of ice.” More evidence the Arctic will be ice free by 2030.

My discussion with Mike Tidwell on the latest in climate change news is now online here. Even better for Climate Progress readers — who get more than their fill of me — is the first interview on the show with Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

If you want the latest on the stunning loss of ice in the Arctic from one of the country’s foremost authorities, that interview is a terrific place to start.

First the good news from the New York Times:

We have ended TimesSelect. All of our Op-Ed and news columns are now available free of charge. Additionally, The New York Times Archive is available free back to 1987.

Good for them. Interestingly, even though I had paid my money to get TimesSelect, I pretty much stopped reading the stuff behind the barrier because I couldn’t connect Climate Progress readers (i.e. you) to the material. The NYT had basically taken some of their best columnists out of the global discussion. Now they are back.

Friedman has a new piece titled “Doha and Dalian” — “Doha [top] is the capital of Qatar, a tiny state east of Saudi Arabia. Dalian [bottom] is in northeast China and is one of China’s Silicon Valley.” Their growth rates have surprised even itinerant Tom:

In Doha, since I was last there, a skyline that looks like a mini-Manhattan has sprouted from the desert. Whatever construction cranes are not in China must be in Doha today. This once sleepy harbor now has a profile of skyscrapers, thanks to a huge injection of oil and gas revenues. Dalian, with six million people, already had a mini-Manhattan when I was last here. It seems to have grown two more since — including a gleaming new convention complex built on a man-made peninsula.

What does this have to do with climate change? Friedman explains:

Read more

UPDATE: Greenspan is no polymath, to go by the discussions of energy and climate in his instant bestseller, The Age of Turbulence. During his nuclear power love-fest, he writes:

Nuclear power is not safe without a significant protective infrastructure. But then, neither is drinking water. (p. 453)

Wow! That’s an analogy I bet you never heard before. Greenspan is actually comparing drinking water infrastructure — which is needed mainly to protect the water from us (i.e. from human pollution) — with nuclear power’s infrastructure–which is needed to protect us from nuclear material, which (unlike water) is inherently dangerous. I guess this economic guru is the only person in the country who would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a reservoir.

Even more annoying:

For example, after the initial surge in the fuel efficiencies of our light motor vehicles during the 1980s, reflecting the earlier run-up in oil prices, improvements slowed to a trickle. (p. 446)

Seriously. This statement sums up everything that is wrong with conservative economists. Greenspan hates government mandates like fuel economy standards, so they can’t be the reason why fuel efficiency surged (as the law required) and then stopped (since we haven’t toughened the law in two decades).

Greenspan’s thoughts on global warming are equally annoying and confused, but that will have to wait until Part II. The reason I interrupted my multi-part thrashing of Lomborg is that Greenspan’s book is perhaps more damaging, since he is far, far more respected and this book will be read by many more people–it has already leaped to #1 on Amazon.

Greenspan does have more to say on the issue of oil and fuel economy a few paragraphs later. He notes parenthetically

Read more