Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Global Heating: great crises are difficult and complex. Activi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Global Heating: great crises are difficult and complex. Activists need to recognise that
David Attenborough, like the Queen, is immortal and infallible and therefore the closest thing we have to a living god. Unfortunately, gods have little interest in the practical business of politics (or at least, only among themselves), which is where the problem lies with Attenborough’s call for action on global heating.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v1
....We fitted a transmission model to reported case information up to 21 January to estimate key epidemiological measures, and to predict the possible course of the epidemic, as the potential impact of travel restrictions into and from Wuhan. We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing. We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year. Should the epidemic continue unabated in Wuhan, we predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China...
It’s not clear what the incubation period might be for the new bug.
KS 1.4
RLB 5.5
LN 9.6
World leaders are never going to agree things that make themselves uncompetitive or reduce size of their own economy, what they should be doing though is incentivising invention and early adoption of new technology - which is something that the UK in particular has been very good at in the past few years.
Given the massive increases in life expectancy and decreases in infant mortality over the past few decades, it would also make sense to invest in education of women, especially in developing countries, making them aware that two or three children are enough, there is no need for them to have seven or eight in order to safeguard their own retirement.
I think people also switch off to alarmist rhetoric, especially when those going on about a 'crisis' or 'emergency' seem remarkably unwilling to change their own middle-class lifestyles in response. I'll believe there's a crisis when a climate change conference is done over a video link, rather than as part of a week-long jolly involving private planes and five star reports on expenses.
My view is that it's a 100-150 year global programme to decarbonise, and we'll have to mitigate, adapt and take it on the chin in the meantime. Because stopping all emissions tomorrow is a pipe dream: it can't and won't happen.
Broadly, Europe decarbonise by 2050-2060, and then other Western nations about 10-15 years later. China/India and the other emerging global powers by about 2100.
We're then at broad neutrality in about 80 years. The first half of the 22nd century is then about pulling out or sinking back whatever carbon we can, accepting some permanent damage might have already been done by then, and stabilising the global climate. Unfortunately I expect by then we'll have warmed by 2.5-3C, which is pretty significant I'm afraid.
However, the human race will definitely do more than survive (it would ultimately thrive) and i think that's realistic, credible and achievable without mass social unrest but it will require the big nations to engage and play ball.
Technology, not ideology, will be key.
(Speaking as someone currently living in one of the most likely places for an epidemic to break out, given it's a small place with millions of travellers going through).
The good news is that being an open democracy we don't suppress truth or information and I think our health and disaster contingency planning at national level is very good. So we'll be good at quarantining and containing it.
Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.
Emissions from developing countries will rise rapidly because so many sources of emissions (travel, electric power, infrastructure that requires carbon emission to build) are the very things people buy more & more of as they become more & more prosperous.
David makes this point very clearly: "China is committed to massive increases in carbon emissions". Where China goes, other developing countries follow.
People won't freeze in the dark for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct one. People won't stop taking planes for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct one.
And certainly, people won't freeze in the dark and stop taking planes just because they are lectured to by someone who lives in a warm house and has caused himself and accompanying television crews & equipment to globe-trot the world on planes making good (but hardly very vital) TV programs.
Global warming is real and much of it is anthropogenic. Nothing serious whatsoever will be done about it.
Far more likely, we will have to adapt to a warmer Earth. It is better to take steps now to think what that might entail.
This Conservative Government has grasped it and will solve the UK by 2050, bringing our carbon down to zero. It was also a landslide Conservative parliament that led rearmament in the late 1930s, and provided the PM and most of the cabinet during WWII.
Away with you. Go back and play with your little red bag.
Complacency on this is not an adequate response.
Germany is closing nuclear and building gas power stations, and importing most of that gas from Russia.
The more interesting question is whether the climate issue will be a key driver and shaper of the political climate over coming decades.
1. Flight shaming will become a popular pastime for the middle-classes.
2. The obtuse will use it as a convenient political cosh for their opponents.
(E.g., Labour in Wales want the flight tax to be devolved so they can cut it, so Labour seem to have much the same struggles that the Conservatives have).
So that timeline is best my estimate of what's credible and realistic.
If there's going to be a flight tax, it should be based on the efficiency of the plane type and the flight length, not the number of passengers. This would incentivise operators to invest in newer, more efficient aircraft, and to make sure they fly full.
Also, build that bloody runway at LHR, and do it yesterday. There's millions of tonnes of carbon emitted from all the planes flying around in circles at low level waiting for a slot to land .
What would happen is airlines 'tankering' fuel, that is buying too much where it's cheaper, and as little as possible where it's more expensive. Airlines do this to some extent already, and have teams of accountants and algorithms working out the cost of flying a heavier aircraft against the price of fuel at various airports.
Imagine, for example, Emirates filling their A380 to the brim in Dubai, and flying it from there to London and back without refuelling in London.
The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.
Try again.
Better for all of us, and beneath you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/
However, two years ago (actually after that article had been written) it did an about turn and started building new plants and reopening old ones.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity
So bear in mind things are not static.
Discussion can be interesting. (I paid close attention to David Herdson's article today.) It can also be futile, boring, repetitive, contradictory. It can fail to advance arguments, solutions or deal with the realities of power. Just because an issue might destroy us all is not a reason for paying attention to every axe grinder.
By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?
For myself I believe, FWIW, that if the doomsters are right then we are in fact doomed. The best chance of the doomsters being wrong is:
(1) that they are in fact wrong
or
(2) that predict, provide, develop new technologies, adapt will work.
What I think will not be the case is that by natural means we will become carbon neutral.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
The risk of accident is however probably higher than ever, given the age and state of many nuclear facilities military and non-military around the world.
The sermonising is tiresome.
They're opening lots of new power stations. They're also closing lots of old ones, IIUC partly over CO2 emissions but more importantly for air quality. Not sure what the net effect is.
Pretty radical policy though.
But, what they absolutely won't do is anything that stops eternal economic growth because the regime believes that's the only real thing that keeps them in office.
However I never said you had to listen to every axe grinder. That is somewhat different to going 'La, la, la. Can't hear what you are saying, going to ignore it all'. I think you are putting me at the other extreme of the post I was responding to. I am not.
The desire to 'be green' has led to deforestation of pristine rainforest in Indonesia so that palm oil plantations could be created to serve the desire amongst guilt-ridden Westerners for biofuel.
Many of the measures, probably most, proposed by warming enthusiasts make sense even without the doom-mongering (more energy efficient devices, expansion of solar and geothermal energy, etc). But the zealotry and desire for imposition of far left policies (meat taxes and bans, taxing flight to dissuade the peasant class from flitting about, rushing to try and stop all carbon dioxide-emitting power plants when a phased shift to gas then nuclear makes far more sense, and so on) leave me more than unimpressed.
I'm not convinced by the blind belief. When there was a plateau in temperatures for a decade-ish from 2000, who of the warming enthusiasts changed their mind? When it rains, it's global warming. When it snows, it's global warming. When the temperature rises, it's global warming. When it doesn't, it's global warming.
The climate has always changed and will always change. I'm not persuaded we're driving the current change, and don't subscribe to the religion. They can look for prayers and tithes elsewhere.
The probability of one popping off by accident or for spite must be approaching 1.0.
What would have solved all our problems (or more of them than anything else) would be going wholeheartedly to nuclear power in the 60s and 70s. The Gretas said no.
I hope that none of your own children, or those of your friends and family, ever suffer that.
Here’s some detail:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019
In a sense, you are both right, as Chinese policy is a mix of a dash for growth irrespective of carbon targets, coupled with very strong incentives for renewables - for instance:
The first batch of 250 subsidy-free grid-parity wind and solar projects, with a total capacity of nearly 21 gigawatts (GW) in 16 provinces, got approved in May this year. These projects will be given priority access to the grid and long-term (at least 20 years) contracts at the benchmark price of coal-fired power...
2. There is a very sharp increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beginning around 1800 and increasing to 2000 (measured from trapped ice cores till 1977, then directly from atmospheric data). You would have to be a very dull person indeed not to look at the graph of carbon dioxide concentration versus time and think "Wow. Something really, really significant happened around 1800".
So, you are partly correct that there are other mechanisms warming the planet.
But, that is NOT enough to explain the data. You also have to find something that happened around 1800 that changed the behaviour of the graph THEN. What could it be?
Clue for the Historically Challenged: James Watt patented the steam engine in 1769.
Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.
How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?
Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.
The typical Chinese solution - they moved an entire neurological intensive care unit from the Beijing hospital to a local clinic close to the track, overnight and to the satisfaction of the F1 medical team.
I have changed my views over time. In the past one of the solutions was the removal of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. I thought that was a barking idea. It is looking more and more likely that will be a necessary technology.
I also thought the population issue was going to sort itself out with reductions in birth rate in the 3rd world as poverty was reduced (I think Sandpit made this point yesterday) and that the 1st world countries would go into negative growth by the birth rate dropping to under 2. It seems whenever this happens in 1st world countries they take the easy way out of the economic consequences by encouraging birth rate with financial incentives.
Population of course is not just an issue of climate change, but food, water, biodiversity, etc.
Yesterday I made a flippant comment really along the lines of 'I wouldn't start here' re population numbers. I enjoyed the funny responses eg 'Hi Adolf', 'Volunteers'. Although one person seemed to take this somewhat more seriously. As hopefully I made clear all I propose is making progress on eliminating poverty, removing financial incentives to reproduce and think more creatively re how to handle the change in the balance of demographics and economic growth. I noticed Nigelb responded to a post accordingly. Thank you.
If you demand action, then be specific about the policies you want. If you're talking about net-zero by 2030, then you need to be looking at things like:
- Banning new sales of petrol / diesel vehicles within 5 years;
- fuel costs being taxed up to £3/ltr+ quickly;
- A 100% tax on air travel tickets;
- A 100% tax on electricity generated from fossil fuels.
Certainly, there would need to be an awful lot of carrot as well as stick but let's not pretend the 'action' you're demanding is the reintroduction of Home Information Packs. And let's not pretend that there wouldn't be a political backlash to those kind of policies.
(And while we're at it, Labour stood in the 1935 election on a manifesto of disarmament and putting the abolition of the RAF on the negotiating table)
Brexit can't be an excuse forever. The "blue wall" is built on sand.
Although this is titled as an interview, in reality he's treated to the indulgence of a monologue. There's no serious questioning, never mind challenge.
If you can't play the video then this Guardian article summarises it.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/17/david-attenborough-calls-australias-bushfires-the-moment-of-crisis-to-address-climate-change
We don't know the affect of man on climate. But we can make some informed theories. And on the back of those, we can take a safety-first approach; man MIGHT be changing the climate, to the general detriment of swathes of the planet. So let's take some action. If we are wrong, then we are likely making no difference to the natural course of events (save for perhaps making the next ice-age a tad colder).
But it is up to science to take the lead. Our politicians should be granting great incentives - tax breaks, subsidies, prizes - to those implementing such scientific advances.
(We could also all use central heating far, far less. People in pass-out "toasty" warm houses bemoaning the loss of the polar bear when they have 37 different unworn jumpers in their wardrobe may not be a small part of the problem.)
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
Anyone with a functioning brain who looks at the graph would think, "Something happened around 1800"
You have to explain not just the rise (that could be caused by other effects), but why the rise started around 1800.
China is an interesting case because its leaders have less to worry about in terms of reelection by the public. In that sense it is a test case of what untrammelled leaders truly believe about the science and the policies to adopt. We can assume they care very much about the survival (and prosperity) of themselves and their families. Even in the case of elites this depends on the welfare of the planet. We should watch this with interest. Their policy and practice will reveal their genuine beliefs.
In the more democratic world there is an interesting gulf. Activism is cheap and easy. Elites do it by private jet. The folks do it by tube and bus and foot, but it is all easy. It does not require deciding and implementing the detail and reality of actual policy and sticking around to take the consequence. Nothing in our world prevents the activists, by the power of persuasion and the truth of their project, being the the politicians, the power brokers and the policy implementers, but mostly they decide not to be.
In the west the call to address climate change has been made for years, and continues. The call to arms has become genuinely boring. The actuality of policy detail and implementation is much more valuable. The activists need to up their game.
Sales of tinned soup are anti-correlated with drownings. No-one buys tinned soup in the hot weather.
Correlations here are correctly pointing to a causation.
That doesn't explain how global warming theory tallies with temperatures plateauing, contrary to all its adherents' expectations, around 2000 for a decade or so. It doesn't explain why grand claims of snowfall becoming a thing of the past proved such false prophecies.
When a theory predicts things and the opposite happens it doesn't reinforce confidence in that theory, if one is applying a scientific and sceptical view of it.
(Thanks, incidentally, for actually engaging in a debate on this).
David might find him insufferable, but contributions from the likes of Attenborough (and FWIW Thunberg) likely have a small net positive effect.
With mild warming of 1degree or so this is clearly nothing of the sort. Hardly anyone could identify this on a daily basis and as current crop reports have shown, highly beneficial to food production.
The media have lied,manipulated and continue to whip up frenzy on the basis of weather events that have happened in the past (eg Oz fires 1974) and falsehoods (eg more extreme weather) that have been shown inaccurate(IPCC agreed no evidence of increasing severe weather).
People have not done their homework...the likes of the Guardian etc are proven liars and the BBC truly compromised.I implore everyone to check the historical records for themselves or read independent blogs(eg.WUWT,Paul Homewood and Tony Heller) and come back here and still say they believe this extremist nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/MtJYmYFONq/finland_carbon_neutral_in_15_years
2035 is probably a stretch, but it ought to enable 2040 when they overshoot. Which is what is needed here, too.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20265/national-climate-change-policy-index-scores/
So here he's saying, "Hey China, you can take a lead on this issue, and everyone will look up to you and follow you". That's something the Chinese leadership want, and he's someone people in China respect. This is an unbelievably great way to get pressure for change out of a sentence in a BBC interview.
Karma.....?
Glass half empty or glass half full view of the world.
A Starmer led Labour Party offering a return to the single market would have more chance winning Tory Remainers in London and the South than Labour Leavers who voted Tory at the last general election in the North, Wales and the Midlands
Most scientists' reaction is, "The standard model is basically correct, it has made many successful predictions and it is well-grounded in physics, but there are some things we still don't really understand."
The Morris_Dancer reaction is, "The whole fecking theory must be wrong, because it can't explain the magnetic moment of the muon"
When it comes to the debate though, I think a lot of activist's politics tend to be of the kind that think that artificial structures are needed to police everything humans do, and that left untamed, humans are destructive, so they naturally believe that humans are more responsible for the damage than they possibly are
The gross investment in terms of worldwide GDP would likely be somewhere around 3-5% over the next twenty to twenty five years. As you’d end up replacing your entire energy system (for one with much lower marginal costs), the net cost to the economy is far less than that.
Anyway, in all the talk about infrastructure spending here, why are we not doing much much more to build charging points for electric cars all over the country. I have done quite a lot to my house to make it a bit greener (more insulation, water butts, solar panels etc) and the property I will be moving into will be very green indeed.
But I still have and need to use a car (petrol not diesel) and would like to have an electric car. But they are (a) so expensive; (b) their range is limited; and (c) critically fast charging points are nowhere near sufficient. Little point banning petrol/diesel cars if there is not alternative.
Only one small example I know. But in all the raging about China etc there is still quite a lot more that we could be doing here which would make some difference and which, if intelligently done, would not meet the sort of political resistance @David talks about.