Solar’s Day In The Sun – Businessweek. Good article on the other solar power, one Climate Progress is a big fan of. “It seems there is a pathway to very low-cost concentrating solar power,” says Andrew Kinross at Navigant Consulting Inc. “This opportunity is finally taking hold.” Let’s hope so!
Britain Ends Consultation on New Nuclear Power – Reuters. “The British government’s legally forced public consultation on whether it should give the green light to a new fleet of nuclear power stations to fight global warming ends on Wednesday with the process deep in controversy. By coincidence, Wednesday is also the 50th anniversary of Britain’s worst nuclear accident when the reactor core at the Windscale plant in north western England caught fire sending a plume of radioactive material across the country.” Irony can be so ironic.
Global warming warnings anything but new – Mercury (Australia). A good piece on the coal industry and government that could apply as in the U.S. as much as in Australia: “Unfortunately, the Australian coal industry story of denial, delay and diversion is being repeated everywhere we look. ”
The China syndrome – San Francisco Chronicle. A good overview of the China-global warming problem, with some proposed solutions.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Okay, you deleted those two. How about this one? Want to review, debunk, or comment?
http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=2707
“Because American adults in general are not buying into the rhetoric and demands for a command economy being presented by the global warming lobby, they are now targeting our kids,” asserts Holly Fretwell, a mother of two and author of the new kids book The Sky’s Not Falling: Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming (Kids Ahead Publishing, ISBN 0976726947, paperback, for ages 8-12, September 2007). In fact, Sky wasenvisionedas an antidote to just this type of deplorable behavior. Continues Fretwell, “One need only read the local paper or go online to see countless examples of children terrified of what their futures hold.”
Fretwell asserts that it’s shocking to see papers like the Wall Street Journal obediently buying the party line that “the sky is falling” when there’s so much evidence out there to the contrary. Yet a recent WSJ article highlighted how children are pressuring their parents to buy costly cars and solar panels. “Kids are being encouraged to browbeat their parents into making such decisions, while lecturing them on ‘the facts’ about global warming, many of which are specious,” Fretwell notes. Children whose parents don’t fall into line are sometimes ostracized.
“There’ s so much that we have yet to learn about global warming,” asserts the author of The Sky’s Not Falling, who contends that the jury remains very much out with regards to how much humans contribute to the phenomenon — and what can be done about it, no matter how many tax dollars are thrown at it. “With so many gaps in the climate change story, it’s scary to think that people whose primary knowledge of the topic comes from Al Gore’s faux-documentary are educating our kids on the subject. Not only are they diverting attention from genuine environmental problems, they are fostering an attitude of contempt towards parents who disagree.”
That’s what makes The Sky’s Not Falling! Why It’s OK To Chill About Global Warming such a breath of fresh air. In Sky, natural resources policy expert and college instructor Holly Fretwell shows kids 8-12 that it’s human ingenuity and adaptability – and not a mindless fear of change – that are most likely to guarantee the Earth a healthy future. Parents who’ve comforted children upset by pictures that presumably show stranded animals and fake claims that “the end is near” will embrace this smartly-written book.
“The topic of global warming is no longer about science and honest differences in opinion and interpretation,” Fretwell continues. “It’s now entered the realm of politics and indoctrination.” When child psychologists claim that global warming is the #1 fear of children, and when kids are encouraged to berate their parents about their livelihoods and how they put food on the table, things have gone too far.
“In The Sky’s Not Falling, I give kids numerous examples of the environmental and health issues we have the technology to solve right now. Then, I encourage them to decide for themselves whether too much of the environmental debate is focused on global warming, instead of on the sorts of concrete, cost-effective actions that we could take immediately to improve the health and living conditions of people all around the world.” It’s that forthright approach, enhanced by an engaging writing style, that makes Sky a lively and thought-provoking read for both children and adults.
As opposed to kids books written by wealthy Hollywood dilettantes, Holly brings genuine educational credentials and practical experience to the environmental debate, giving kids the straight scoop about global warming — and the potentially devastating human and economic consequences of politically motivated responses to it. The Sky’s Not Falling: Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming is a balanced look at a complex issue, offering a refreshing, accessible combination of science and economics that enlightens while it entertains.
About Kids Ahead:
Kids Ahead is an imprint of World Ahead Media. To learn more, visit. http://www.worldahead.com
To interview Holly Fretwell:
Contact Judy at (310) 961-4170 or marketing@worldahead.com
Joe,
Make it 3. We don’t need any paid political announcements from the fossil-fuel Denier Disinformation Campaign.
Ron,
While I’m in some agreement with you on the “settled” nature of climate science, I don’t understand your continued efforts to convince Joe that he’s wrong. This really isn’t the place to argue global warming. Joe is interested in moving as quickly as possible to non carbon based energy production. I think that is a good goal even if AGW theory is dead wrong. Do you think it is a good goal?
Okay. Let’s say it’s a good goal. Carbon-based energy production is dirty. Besides that, we may run out of oil and coal one of these days, so developing alternatives would be good.
But I’m one of those curmudgeons who simply doesn’t agree that the end justifies the means. If the AGW hypothesis is wrong, then it’s wrong to frighten and browbeat people into going along with your agenda. And if the agenda involves taxing people and taking more control over industry and the economy, then it’s more wrong still.
It’s wrong from a practical standpoint because trying to exert control over the economy or industry just doesn’t work well; there’s a million examples from history that show such efforts result in all sorts of unintended consequences, almost always negative.
It’s also wrong simply because it’s morally wrong to rob people or to exert control over how people use their time, talents, and treasure. The only way you can justify taking or controlling people’s private property is if you don’t really believe they have a right to private property. Saying, “well, there’s always been taxation; that’s the way the world works,” doesn’t make it right.
Government is basically the old ‘protection racket’, institutionalized and made legal (through power) – but it doesn’t make taxation morally acceptable.
Then if you look at all the lies and disinformation – propaganda – the use of words like Denier (almost always capitalized), and the inability or unwillingness to discuss or defend the basic science behind what they call ‘fact’ or ‘theory’ – it all starts to smack of some new kind of religion almost.
Then finally, factor in that the main movers behind this hysteria have said publicly that their aims are to cause the collapse of the industrialized nations and radically reduce the world’s population, and I’m forced to view them as my enemies.
Since you don’t view them that way, maybe you can explain why.
And I think you may agree with me that the science is far from settled, but why doesn’t Joe Romm or James Hansen or Al gore want to take the time to defend the science? That makes me suspicious. The conclusion I have come to is that they can’t, and they know it, which brings us back to the question of their motives.
And even if their motives were pure – perhaps they genuinely want to save the world – again I must say that the end does not justify the means.
Ivan,
You have no idea how much I wish I really was a paid Denier! I have three kids and one income. I’d have an epiphany and blog for Climate Progress for the right money, to be quite frank. I could probably justify it to myself somehow.
If anybody knows how I could break into this business, pro, con, or disinformation on either side, please let me know. I used to make a living with my writing, but I got lazy and went into manufacturing.
“I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.” – Hillary Clinton
At least she’s smart enough to know it would be unwise to bleed the cows completely dry …..
Ron,
There are politically extreme elements on all sides of the AGW issue. We live in a world of exaggeration. I don’t think they control the agenda. Taxation may be theft, but tariffs, user fees and lotteries didn’t raise enough money. While the fear of catastrophe is greater here than even in the IPCC, Joe’s proposals do not involve onerously higher taxation and spending.
As to why Joe Romm or James Hansen or Al Gore don’t want to take the time to defend the science, they have their reasons. Joe has looked at the science, agrees with it, doesn’t think it goes far enough. He leaves it up to others to defend it. His purpose is to advocate a specific set of policies to reduce atmospheric CO2. Hansen has a full time government job. We should resist the temptation to demonize those with differing viewpoints. Despite his recent screeds about court jesters and usufruct, Hansen seems to have however reluctantly taken criticisms of Climate Audit in particular into consideration. He was recently quoted with some decidedly unalarmist AGW statements. Al Gore is not a scientist, never was one, doesn’t play one on TV. Climate science has evolved since his Inconvenient Truth power point presentation was developed. The science there is outdated, for example the Mann algorithm error and the reinterpretation of the 650,000 year ice core record that says C02 increases follow warming rather than precede it. Neither disproves AGW but does show climatology is still experiencing growing pains.
It is not wrong or immoral for a society to limit its pollutants. I don’t how much of AGW theory is correct – it’s somewhere between 0 and 100% and the law of unintended consequences hangs over every action. I’m interested in replacing carbon for reasons other than global warming.
Until a few months ago I had only a passing knowledge of or opinion on climate change. When I stumbled onto Joe’s site, I was taken by his approach. The science, which is available all over the web, is interesting, but it is the policy that is more important. So far, I like Joe’s policies and anxiously await his prioritized list of actions.
Paul — you write:
“Climate science has evolved since his Inconvenient Truth power point presentation was developed. The science there is outdated, for example the Mann algorithm error and the reinterpretation of the 650,000 year ice core record that says C02 increases follow warming rather than precede it. Neither disproves AGW but does show climatology is still experiencing growing pains.”
The science is NOT out-dated. Gore knows what he is talking about. See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Also, Mann has been vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://climateprogress.org/2006/09/26/stop-obsessing-over-hockey-sticks-they-will-be-obsolete-soon-enough/
Joe,
I wonder if Ron noticed you “defending the science” in your reply to me.
I have a bunch of questions. What is the current status of CO2 abatement in the US? What technologies, efficiencies, policies, regulations, taxes and expenditures directly impact CO2 reduction. If the goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to a percentage below today’s level over the next 40 – 50 years, what can we reasonably achieve in the next two? As I understand it, if we reduce our output below the natural absorption rate, levels will go down over time. It is a fact that US CO2 was less in 2006 than in 2005. Was it the economy? It grew at 3.3%. Was it mild weather? Maybe the sum total of all the individual, collective and public actions are already having an effect.
Not wanting to be redundant, I’ll simply repeat myself from other posts.
What costs more, a thousand dollars in taxes of Income, Property, Sales, Social Security or Carbon taxes?
Tax Trade. Our economy taxes at the local, state and federal levels 4 trillion dollars in a 13 trillion dollar economy. Very little of that is specific carbon taxes. If we were to trade maybe 500 billion of that from those other taxes mentioned to carbon taxes, the overall economy would remain much the same, but people and businesses would have incentives to use less fossil fuel energy. If you are going to tax, at least tax something you may get a benefit from using less of.
command economy? really? Gosh, I suppose if human slavery is not allowed that would be a command economy as well? How about laws and rules about injuries and safety on the job, that’s a command economy? Or any of the other laws that provide some protections?
There’s a bunch of fear mongering going on. Who’s doing it. It might be those who think that sometime in the future we will be regretful of all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we are putting in the atmosphere. And scaring kids should not be something to do. But it is also those people who think that a change in how we use carbon energy will destoy our economy. It is not anymore of a command economy to tax carbon as it is to tax Incomes, Sales, Property or Social Security.
We have a multidecade problem that requires changes and for alot of people change will be hard, especially if a person makes money selling carbon. But it will be worse for future generations if we don’t.
Joe,
Usually when I read some article about the basic science behind the CO2 causes global warming hypothesis, I find somewhere near the beginning the statement that ‘CO2 causes warming’ or some such. It’s always treated pretty much like a point of faith. But let me throw you a bone here and give you an opportunity to try to convince me.
A line in one of your links above intrigued me:
“In itself I dont think the positive feedback can be disputed as it is just based on the effect of CO2 on solar radiation coming in and radiation from the earth going back out. Never mind the historic record – a simple lab experiment can prove the feedback effect.”
Tell me about this simple lab experiment. It muct have been performed many times, right? Give me info and links. Thanks.
Paul,
You didn’t answer some of my more important questions, but let me address some of what you said, line by line:
“There are politically extreme elements on all sides of the AGW issue. We live in a world of exaggeration. I don’t think they control the agenda.”
Well, ‘they’ may not control the agenda, especially since this issue has entered pop culture status (thank you propaganda), but let’s take Maurice Strong for example. He’s the guy who wants to destroy the industrialized nations of the world. He’s the guy who pretty much WROTE the Kyoto protocol. He’s the guy who started this hysteria. Look him up.
“Joe’s proposals do not involve onerously higher taxation and spending.”
How do you define ‘onerous’?
“Taxation may be theft, but tariffs, user fees and lotteries didn’t raise enough money. ”
Okay, so you don’t really believe in private property? It’s okay to rob people if you have a really good plan for what to do with the spoils. Is that what you’re saying?
“It is not wrong or immoral for a society to limit its pollutants.”
How do you define ‘society’? What are the ‘rights’ of society? How does ‘society’s rights’ trump those of the individual?
Ronald,
Yes, it’s the very definition of a command economy. And in many ways we already have a command economy. Why make it worse?
Here’s a little game to try for yourself: Define these political terms and try to differentiate them clearly – communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism.
Joe,
Give the DDDenier a seat at the table & he’ll dance upon it like a stage. Ron seeks only to foist his command agenda of Denial & Delay Disinfo & Distraction upon the rest of your famished guests.
Ronald,
Would you consider taxes on gasoline, heating oil and natural gas specific carbon taxes? What you are looking for is a tax structure that creates a market mechanism to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Such a tax structure is not designed to bring revenue to the government. In fact a market creating structure at peak CO2 reducing efficiency would collect no taxes at all.
Ron,
I love private property. I think the strength of America is our constitutional emphasis on the individual rather than the group. Can anyone prove to you catastrophic AGW theory is correct? No. We will, however, over the next fifteen to twenty years get a clearer understanding of the predictive powers of climate science. My opinion after three months of study is that some climatology assumptions will change with greater information and refined techniques.
Paul,
You are either just paying lip service to the concept of private property or you are just not looking at some of the issues involved here. And that’s too bad, my friend, for you are probably the smartest person frequenting this blog.
IANVS,
I think you misrepresent Ron. He doesn’t deny global warming. He denies the power of the government to tax, regulate, spend or take any action that infringes on his inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is purity of essence.
Ron,
The function of the state and our deviation from first principles could fill several blogs. The de facto control of property through taxation and regulation, however abhorrent, results from our acceptance of the social contract.
Joe,
I’ve noticed some blog front pages have links to active threads. Could this be included in the redesign?
Paul,
You’re right, I don’t deny global warming. I know that the planet heats and cools cyclically, and I’m willing to consider that Man’s activities could unwittingly affect it. But I deny the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ hypothesis, because the hypothesis just doesn’t hold up under testing. There may be something there, but it’s yet to be proven.
And much of the hysteria around the ‘we gotta do something!’ movement is rather disgusting and makes me wonder about folks’ motives:
http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/06/did-climate-change-contribute-to-the-minneapolis-bridge-collapse/
And look at Al Gore. He said today, “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
Well, if he can take the issue away from science and politics and position it as a religious-esque issue, then there’s certainly nothing wrong with me trying to bring the argument back to first principles. I’m one of those people who values human beings, not considering them as ‘a virus upon the Earth!’ or something.
And tell me about this ‘social contract’ of which you speak. I don’t see any such thing. I certainly don’t see any reason to abandon principle; I see plenty of evidence to see that abandoning principle is a bad thing, in fact.
And as far as Ivan goes, you have to understand that he’s actually on my side.
Huh? you ask.
He’s crafting disinformation; has cast himself in the role of the semi-deranged Believer. His little rants are supposed to embarrass the real Believers.
Thanks anyway, Ivan. I can take it from here.
Joe,
Why did you delete those two posts? That was too funny for words and doesn’t hurt your position at all, I should think. Just very funny.
What is government? From George Washington, ” Govenment is force.” Some years ago I would have considered myself a libertarian. I still think that it is an ideal to be strived for. But economies, business, societies and everything that makes up life and living is much messeir than simple ideals can solve.
If we can describe 2 ways of thinking in the world, it’s Religious and Freethinker. Religious comes from the ancient word, relio, which means to tie or bind. And that’s how many libertarians are, just religious when it comes to the world. Ideas such as better, or good, or friendly, or helpful have nothing to do with political stucture, just religious about liberty. I consider myself a Freethinker, not assuming one idea trumps all others forever and always, but consider the arguments made on the different sides of issues.
There are many examples of this, like the Federal Reserve. Complain about specific problems, but it is many times better having knowledgable people at the helm of money supply rather than a gold market.
The United States Declaration of Independance gives us some guidence when it uses the phrase, “Promote the General Welfare.” Some can interprete that to mean ‘specific welfare’, which we may have to much of, but that is another discussion. But in this specific case, we should “Promote the General Welfare” by reducing greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
Sure wasn’t the Declaration of Ind. that ‘Promote the General Welfare” came from. that would be the Constitution.
As I said above, “Government is basically the old ‘protection racket’, institutionalized and made legal (through power) – but it doesn’t make taxation morally acceptable”.
Whether it’s the general welfare of ‘society’, or the general welfare of the neighborhood; whether you pay the tax man once a year (and with every purchase), or you pay Vinnie & Jake when they knock on the back door – the principle is the same. There is no ‘societal right’ being exercised here. It’s only power, and power corrupts as we know.
The Constitution isn’t perfect. The men who wrote it did not have the purest of intentions, perhaps. But it doesn’t change the fact of what is right and what is wrong.
No matter how good your intentions are otherwise, it’s wrong to rob people.
If you really want to change the world, you must find a way to do it without abandoning principle. The end does not justify the means. Exercising power over others leads inexorably to corruption; anything begun that way is doomed to failure.
Oh, the horrors and corruption of paying taxes.
come on, it this messed up world we live in, that is not the worst of corruptions of the world. Do you really think that if we didn’t pay taxes, there would be no corruption? It wouldn’t be corruption of government that we would be talking about but many other things, most of which you don’t have because they are lessened from government who ‘listens’ somewhat to what people want with elections.
So your disagreement is with all taxes, not just those to lesson global warming. And you want to live purely. Do you live in the United States? Then you are living on land that was stolen from the native peoples. We are just participating and benefiting from an exchange of stolen goods. You can’t live in an uncorrupt world, you can only live in a world of lessor corruptions.
There are many people around the world who would love to live in a country where the worst things for them is taxes. I’ll save you the list of countries that would benefit from a strong government which can provide for government sevices, including safety. There are worse corruptions than govenment taxes.
But my argument is taxes to reduce global warming is less bad than other taxes. I think that we should reduce the amount of property taxes that people pay on a small residence in sparcely populated areas to zero. Property taxes in all areas could be reduced and substituted with fossil fuel taxes.
Taxation may not be the WORST corruption, but in a very real way it’s the FIRST corruption. When the game is based on taxation, the system starts out corrupted and gets worse.
The turning point for the United States came in 1794 when George Washington declared martial law and raised (and personally led) a 13,000-man army to enforce a tax on whiskey – The Whiskey Rebellion. Several thousand people were killed, and the government has never been the same since.
That is what the system is based upon. Yes, Ronald, taxation is a corruption and a horror. You may find my little rants about taxation to be quaint and easily disregarded, but I find the attitude of ‘well, it’s wrong, but there are worse things to put with’ to be rather horrifying in itself.
Once you decide that taxation is okay, that government power trumps individual property rights, it’s just a short hop to decide that ‘society’s rights’ even trump the right to life of individuals. When you decide that it’s okay to regard people as a resource to be mined for cash, it’s just a short hop to disposing of those people if they stand in your way.
If Joe is correct – that the carbon-free technologies to save the world already exist – then what do we need more government intervention for? Why would we want more layers of bureaucracy? Filtering your money through layers of laws and committees would be a collossal waste, and giving government more control over energy and the economy would be counter-productive, at best.
I’m deadly serious guys: Using government to force your bright ideas on people is just plain inefficient and morally wrong. If you really want to change the world; not just make points in blogs or sell books; you really need to pursue a course of action that is NOT business-as-usual.
The fantasies of libertarian utopias.
Smell the air. If you were in a city it would smell a lot worse without government laws against pollution. The government put a price on pollution. Do you think it would smell better voluntarily? Read books about all the human manure in cities in the 1880’s and how the government had to force toilets and sewers to be put in. Manure was springing up everywhere and when it rained, oh that was pretty. People didn’t do it voluntarily, it was forced on them.
Everything that happens and every idea is on a slippery slope to something. Less government security is a slippery slope to the chaos of Iraq.
If you are still upset about something that happened in 1794, do you see how the wars in the middle east never get solved, or in eastern Europe. They don’t have the idea of compromise for the better good.
It’s wasted on you though.