If only they were

Standing beside a windswept junction near Germany’s Baltic coast, Thea Funk points at a stretch of land to the north.

“They want to build 12 turbines up there, each one 240 metres high. And down there there are plans to put up more, somewhere between six and eight,” she explains, gesturing to a field across the road. “We’re going to be encircled.”

Behind her, 30-odd people line the road holding signs bearing anti-wind energy slogans. Residents of the Friedland Moor in northeast Germany, they are convinced their landscape is about to be destroyed for the gain of landowners and energy magnets.

The actual problem with the windmills of course being how little energy they attract.

Blimey

Greta Thunberg was born on 3 January 2003.[7] Her mother is Swedish opera singer Malena Ernman and her father is actor Svante Thunberg.[8] Her grandfather is actor and director Olof Thunberg.[9]

In November 2018, Thunberg mentioned having been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.[10][11] To lower her family’s carbon footprint, she insisted they become vegan and give up flying,[12] as she did herself.[13]

Erm, yes. So, extremely privileged young woman. But it’s the other stuff that worries. By definition Aspies, OCD etc are social inadequates. So we’re to run the world according to the demands of a social inadequate? Why not just hand it all over to the incels? Or doesn’t that work as they’re the wrong kind of inadequates?

So, err, Greta, how you arriving then?

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old founder of the school strikes for action against climate change, has said she hopes to join the Extinction Rebellion protests when she visits London next week.

Right.

Her arrival on Sunday

Super.

She had previously arranged to be in London after Easter

Great.

During her Easter holidays, she has been on a European speaking tour and has, so far, met Pope Francis and addressed the European parliament.

Tip top.

So, what method of transport you using to wander around Europe in your Easter hols then? And what are the emissions from your doing so?

Your emissions being unicorn farts of course, not damaging to the environment at all….

Gaaah!

Cretinous nonsense:

Studies show that average global incomes could be significantly reduced, perhaps by as much as
one-quarter by the end of the century, if limited or no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

That’s from the Bank of England and they at least should know better.

The actual worry is that incomes could be reduced by 25% from where they would be without climate change. We do also expect incomes to be some 3 to 5 times higher then than now. It’s the reduction in their being 3 or 5 times higher, not reductions from incomes now.

Jason Hickel is weird

Climate breakdown is coming. The UK needs a Greener New Deal
Jason Hickel
Global economic growth is outstripping our green efforts. A cap must be put on consumption before is it cripples us

If you asked Jason Hickel whether cap and trade would be a decent response to emissions he’d tell you no. Because.

But to really make it work, we need to get straight to the heart of the issue: put a cap on annual material use and tighten it year on year, down to 8 tonnes per capita by the middle of the century.

But cap and trade on everything will work. Go figure….

Well, yes, super then

A central task for any campaign is to develop a narrative: a short, simple story explaining where we are, how we got here and where we need to go. Using the narrative structure common to almost all successful political and religious transformations, the restoration story, it might go something like this. “The world has been thrown into climate chaos, caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought. But we, the young heroes, will confront these oligarchs, using our moral authority to create a movement so big and politically dangerous that our governments are forced to shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.”

Super, now, the details of who we do this.

You favour Nordhaus or Stern here? You’ve grasped the Dasgupta point have you? Yes, Marty Weizman has a good worry so how much attention do we have to pay to it?

Hmm, what’s that? You’ve no idea what I’m talking about? That is, you’re going to try and solve climate change without having the slightest clue of the science of solving climate change?

Good luck with that really.

This is actually possible

The “Little Ice Age” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was triggered by the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas by European settlers, new research shows.

Scientists have long wondered what caused the drop in temperatures so severe it sometimes caused the River Thames to freeze over.

Now, new analysis by University College London (UCL) argues that so many people were slaughtered or died of disease that the amount of agricultural land dramatically reduced, in turn sucking carbon dioxide (CO²) from the atmosphere.

Known as the “Great Dying”, the upheavals following the first contact with Europeans in 1492 is thought to have slashed the population of 60 million living across the…

Whether it’s true or not is another matter. Can’t say I’m entirely sold on it. For I’m pretty sure that we generally start it off, the little ice age, before 1492.

However, entirely willing to believe it contributed…..

A problem with battery powered civilisation

There’s one thing we’d dearly like to know, one thing that doesn’t even get discussed here:

Ion age: why the future will be battery powered

The variable nature of wind and solar power means storing energy is a huge part of the fight to mitigate climate change

Our iiportant question being, what’s the total CO2-e emissions from the entire lifecycle when we’ve a renewables and battery powered system? Are those emissions lower or higher than a coal fired system? Than a natural gas one?

It would be reasonable enough to conclude less than coal I’d guess. But than natural gas? Do recall that the Severn Barrage didn’t quite manage that….

Umm, why?

Parliament must “seriously consider” levying a tax on meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help to render the farming industry carbon neutral, the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, is urging.

She will say on Friday that a meat tax in the UK could be offset for more sustainable meat producers, such as organic livestock farmers, through more money for sustainable agriculture schemes.

Don’t organic cows burp just as much?

Ghastly, horrible, nonsense

I have changed what I eat because of the now overwhelming evidence of global environmental damage caused by meat and dairy production. It produces more climate-warming emissions than all cars, trains, ships and planes combined. If the world’s diet doesn’t change, we simply can’t beat climate change.

Sigh.

This is an invention of those who would change our diets anyway. Look back to the basic emissions pathways underlying everything. Standard technological advance and economic growth – the A1T scenario – leave climate change as a trivial problem to be ignored. We really don’t need radical anything – and we’ve already done more than enough to bump technology over to this pathway anyway.

They’re lying obviously

A report based on science from the Met Office and around the world sets out a range of climate scenarios over the next century to help homes and businesses plan for the future.

Even in the lowest-emission scenario, average annual temperatures are expected to be up to 2.3 degrees Celsius (36.14°F) higher by the end of the century.

In the highest-emissions scenario, summer temperatures could be up to 5.4C (41.72°F) higher by 2070 and winters up to 4.2C (39.56°F) higher.

36 oF? I think not.

But also that higher estimate depends upon the idea that RCP 8.5 will happen. Which it won’t. For we really do know this one thing about climate change, that RCP 8.5 will not happen. We’ve already done the work to make sure that it won’t.

Yes, I know, you’ll tell me that I shouldn’t be taking any of it seriously. But still, it does annoy that people continue to alarm us with something we know, absolutely, isn’t going to happen.

Yes, a carbon tax

Efficiency isn’t just some economists’, or accountants’, insistence on doing things cheaply. As Stern himself notes, if we do this inefficiently then we’ll avert less of that warming. The more resources we devote to growing mushrooms the fewer we’ll be able to expend upon the real problem. The more you worry about global warming the more you should be pushing for the most efficient solution — market forces properly incentivised — and the further you’d like politicians from the subject.

That, unfortunately, is not how things have worked out. The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that those most insistent that something must be done are those most insistent that the wrong something is done. That isn’t quite the way we’d hope to deal with the greatest threat to our civilisation. Or even the manner we’d like to deal with any problem at all.

Now that we’ve made the mistake of trying those centralised plans, can we get on with solving that climate change problem? Stick on the carbon tax and allow market forces to chew through the problem? As Hayek would have told us to, as Stern actually did insist, as the manner we’ve splashed the cash so far tells us we should have done.

Well, not really Larry, no

The biggest beneficiaries of Saudi output curbs today would be solar and wind producers. The unit cost of renewables has already fallen sharply as a result of technological advances, and each ratcheting up of oil prices will make solar and wind more competitive.

Sure, all three are methods of producing power. But we don’t actually use oil – less than 1% of UK supply last I looked – to produce electricity. The electric car fleet’s not large enough to make any difference as yet and transport is where we use near all the oil. Plastics are largely natural gas these days. So is heating, cooking. Or electric. And as Gazprom has found out gas prices don’t mimic oil any more.

Sure, in the long term they’re all substitutes for each other. But only over decades. A change in the oil price isn’t going to move the dial on wind or solar in anything measured in single digit years.

The more difficult they say it is the less we should do it

It is likely to be the most critical and controversial report on climate change in recent years.

Leading scientists are meeting in South Korea this week to see if global temperatures can be kept from rising by more than 1.5C this century.

The world has already passed one degree of warming as carbon emissions have ballooned since the 1850s.

Many low-lying countries say they may disappear under the sea if the 1.5C limit is breached.

After a week of deliberations in the city of Incheon, the researchers’ new report is likely to say that keeping below this limit will require urgent and dramatic action from governments and individuals alike.

The more expensive it is to meet the 1.5 target the less we should try to meet the 1.5 target. Sadly, the Stern Review is entirely clear upon this and every other bugger has entirely forgotten it.

All a bit Brezhnevite

The prime minister of Samoa has called climate change an “existential threat … for all our Pacific family” and said that any world leader who denied climate change’s existence should be taken to a mental hospital.

In a searing speech delivered on Thursday night during a visit to Sydney, Tuilaepa Sailele berated leaders who fail to take climate change seriously, singling out Australia, as well as India, China and the US, which he said were the “three countries that are responsible for all this disaster”.

“Any leader of those countries who believes that there is no climate change I think he ought to be taken to mental confinement, he is utter[ly] stupid and I say the same thing for any leader here who says there is no climate change.”

If you don’t believe that we’re building True Communism and that we’ll get there then you’re mad and must be sectioned.

Be interesting to see what happens

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.

Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate. When there is an article on smoking, newspapers and broadcasters no longer include lobbyists claiming there are no links to cancer. When there’s a round-the-world yacht race we don’t hear flat-earthers given airtime: “This is madness; they’ll sail off the edge!”

There’s a workable model for covering fringe views – which is to treat them as such. They don’t need to be ridiculed, just expected to challenge the evidence with better evidence, and otherwise ignored. As campaigners and thinkers who are led by science and the precautionary principle, and who wish to debate the real and vital issues arising from human-triggered climate change, we will not assist in creating the impression that climate denial should be taken seriously by lending credence to its proponents, by entertaining ideas that lack any basis in fact. Therefore we will no longer debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. There are plenty of vital debates to be had around climate chaos and what to do about it; this is simply no longer one of them. We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.

OK.

1) What’s their working definition of climate change denial? Do I qualify for example?

2) Are they going to complain when the phone stops ringing for their opinions if that’s the way the broadcasters decide to go?