Yale to greens: "abandon climate change, focus on energy"

Al Gore's latest book uses hurricanes to scare

This may be perhaps the first time I’ve embraced an article from the Yale Environment 360 forum, the opener reads:

Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.

Al Gore’s latest book where he had to photoshop in some hurricanes comes to mind.

The NCDC sponsored climate change report where they photoshopped in a flooded house also comes to mind.

And, yes even the snowstorms reportedly caused by global warming this winter are also reminders of how common this bogus linkage to weather is.

From:

THE  HILL

Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind

By Ben Geman

Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360,  [Titled: Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate] argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.

They write:

Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

The essay also suggests that climate advocacy and research have become too intertwined, with environmentalists seeking to represent the science as “apocalyptic, imminent, and certain.” The science has been harmed as a result, they argue, stating:

Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.

The Yale Environment 360 website has a comments section below the articles. Look for a lively response to their new piece.

===================
shared h/t to John Goetz and Dr. Leif Svalgaard, whose emails arrived almost simultaneously.
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John from MN

Have to agree Anthony, pretty level headed story. Sure wish more environmentalists were not so over the top and full of…………..HOT AIR
Sincerely,
John

Richard Sharpe
GeneDoc

Amen. Stop scaring the children!

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

There’s no reason for environmentalists to have any say on energy anyway, especially when they don’t know one thing about science and oppose nuclear. Our energy use has been decarbonising for generations as explained by many scientists and writers from Dr Patrick Moore to Michael Crichton.
Whenever environmentalists do get involved, it is to try to steal credit for what is happening anyway or to do the dirty work of western governments in persuading poor nations, especially black people, not to develop or to bribe the political elite of those nations to keep their people in a state of backwardness. They also purchase land for cheap in the name of conservation to prevent productive use of those lands, then after a while sell them on to favourable corporations.
Apart from Patrick Moore’s Greenspirit I can’t think of any environmental organisation which isn’t damn dirty.

Scott

I definitely agree. Energy conservation, sustainability, minimizing pollution, etc are good things, but the repeated tying of these things to global warming messes things up royally.
I was trying to explain how CAGW is, at best, a possible hypothesis that is doubtful and he countered with something like – well cutting back on fossil fuels is a good thing. Of course it is (my wife works in a lab working on alternative energy…I don’t know how he could think I didn’t realize this)! I tried to explain to him how the two are very different and shouldn’t be linked (CAGW demands immediate/crazy action, whereas sustainable solutions will likely creep slowly over decades), but I don’t know if he got it.
I’m glad more people are starting to discern between the two.
-Scott

Doug Badgero

I agree with the message of this particular essay. However, after reading the authors’ 2004 article, The Death Of Environmentalism, it appears they simply blow in the political winds. My kingdom for a progressive who is capable of critical thought.

George E. Smith

Well if it smells like a duck, and sheds feathers like a duck; it’s a duck !
So what’s with this LOW CARBON ENERGY GIMMIC; if it is supposed to be divorced from “Climate Science” or “Climate Change”.
The very words LOW CARBON mean they haven’t got the message.
It isn’t the carbon;IT’S THE WATER; STUPID !

Norman

So let me understand, they were using climate change nee’ global warming merely as a ploy to get an environmentalist agenda through? In other words, THEY are not even certain whether it’s true, they were using it only to get their agenda through.
What next, the threat of cute polar bears starving to death?
Oh wait, they already used that one.

Layne Blanchard

So, essentially: The fraud isn’t working, time to throw in the towel, and just admit the real motive..>…… an irrational hatred of hydrocarbon fuels…. oh, and a death wish to shut down all civilization.
… the first in a 12 step process?

DirkH

“George E. Smith (16:55:28) :
[…]
It isn’t the carbon;IT’S THE WATER; STUPID !”
Yeah. We need a low water economy. Dewaterize the economy! No Evian for you.

Layne Blanchard

must’ve been swallowed by the spam filter..

The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.

blastzilla

Interesting, they are going back to their original ‘green’ idea. But how will civilisation change to their will when there is no doom to avoid? Are these people a bunch of wingers that cannot accept that progress means destroying old ideas like the sun revolving around the earth or that the earth is flat. In order to make an omelette you must break some eggs – releasing a little bit of plant food into the atmosphere is a good thing 🙂

rbateman

Getting the most out of fossil fuels: Globlal Trade should mean exchange of goods for goods, not pure transfer of wealth at the greatest expenditure of energy.
Excessive importation is the epitomy of energy inefficiency. That stuff doesn’t travel on sailboats, it requires lots of bunker oil to get it here.
Internal transportation should rely most on rail, which is far more energy efficient than semi. It’s out-of-balance.

DirkH

“Poptech (17:13:02) :
The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.”
Actually, no. Energy companies would go for the cheapest energy, and that is hydrocarbons for at least the next 500 years or so (oil, coal, gas, and now huge amounts of shale gas becoming economical).
If you want clean, you have to regulate. (Personally, with clean i don’t mean CO2-free but other people have different ideas of clean; in both cases, the same applies: without regulation, no company will do it – it harms their competitiveness)

Evan Jones

If one notes trends, one will observe that expanding energy use correlates to HUGELY expanding energy reserves.
(This is one case where correlation may indeed equal causation.)

D. King

We now have a climate caste system. The enlightened
progressives and their fear mongering minions.
This is fun; more popcorn please!

Evan Jones

One might even ask if carbon-based energy use cannot be convincingly connected with AGW why there is a particularly pressing imperative to reduce use of carbon-based energy in the first place . . .

Jeff L

This is a major step in the right direction. I think the concept of the intertwining of advocacy & science has fired up many of the scientific types on this blog because the degradation of science in general was apparent. This is a good 1st step in separating politics & science & restoring the credibility of science.
To those who still seem offended by the term “low carbon” energy, it is perfectly acceptable to use that term & not imply a global warming link. The other way to interpret it is “high efficiency” energy (ie more work per btu is equivalent to more work per net carbon molecule). Higher efficiency is always better- both personally & societally – regardless of your personal politics.

George E. Smith

Well the trouble with that Yale site is they don’t have somebody like Chasmod who is awake at the switch.
When it comes to placing a comment on that site; their moderator process is about as slow as postal chess.
If they ever post my short comment; it will be into its second or third half life.
[Hey! ~dbs, mod]

James Sexton

Uhmm, subtext reads, “change tactic” not common goal. There’s nothing wrong with “carbon free” energy. Except that it won’t happen in my lifetime nor yours. Neither, is there anything wrong with carbon based energy. Yes, we’ll probably run out, eventually. But, again, not in my lifetime nor yours, nor your children’s. I would like to say that I don’t understand the obsession with carbon based energy, but it seems clear to me, that there are too many humanists hell bent on taking humanity out of the human race. Like it or not, human progress and standard of living can still be measured in terms of carbon emissions. Call me strange, but I see upward movement in both as a good thing. Further, I see that the laws of energy/physics/nature still apply to mankind. As far as I know, we still cannot create energy. Find the “perpetual motion machine”, and we should all be living in a utopia soon. Until then, there’s no need to rush efficiency, it’s man’s nature to strive for it. It continually happens regardless of the tactic employed.
My take anyway.

Don’t ethanol and biodiesel have carbon in them … how does their use equate with a low carbon economy? And if we are able to synthesise transport fuel from hydrogen (produced from off-peak nuclear generated electricy) and CO, produced by pyrolysis of biomass, would that count as part of a low carbon economy.
Methinks, if they want to focus on alternative fuel sources – good idea. But they need to forget this nonsense about carbon.

jorgekafkazar

Layne Blanchard (17:02:24) : “So, essentially: The fraud isn’t working, time to throw in the towel, and just admit the real motive..>…… an irrational hatred of hydrocarbon fuels…. oh, and a death wish to shut down all civilization. … the first in a 12 step process?”
Step 1: “Admitted we wanted the world to be powerless
—that we were trying to make everyone’s lives unmanageable….”

Frederick Michael

It’s a shame the environmental movement has been taken over by such a shoddy argument. There are plenty of real reasons to do many (not all) of the things the AGW preachers want us to do. If the whole environmental movement is discredited, bad things will result.
And then there’s this:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Don’t overreact; this doesn’t prove we’ll have a big recovery in the summer minimum, but it’s a nice start. The facts are “inconvenient” for the AGW faithful right now.
Predicting the end of the world always works well for a while. But when the world doesn’t end as predicted, the preacher’s following melts away.

jorgekafkazar

evanmjones (17:29:45) : “…if carbon-based energy use cannot be convincingly connected with AGW why there is a particularly pressing imperative to reduce use of carbon-based energy in the first place . . .”
Good question. Answer: The United States has the largest reserves of coal in the entire world. China covets these reserves and would like to buy them at 5 cents on the dollar. OPEC would like to increase our dependence on foreign oil and gas. By making coal illegal, our enemies can ruin the US in one fell swoop. US allies (if there are any) will be over-run. Obama will bow.

Tenuc

Looks like the ‘greens’ are going into retreat.
We have plenty of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and, if industry is left to it’s own devices, alternative sources of energy will be discovered and commercialised.
CAGW and ‘peak oil’ are both false memes.

DirkH

“evanmjones (17:27:09) :
If one notes trends, one will observe that expanding energy use correlates to HUGELY expanding energy reserves.
(This is one case where correlation may indeed equal causation.)”
It surely does. Expanding energy use leads to a fall in reserves expressed in yearly consumption. This triggers a price rise and an increase in exploration activities and development of new technologies, making previously unviable reserves economically viable.

So is it finally time to put into the dustbin of history one of my pet peeve expressions ” carbon footprint ” ?
I will be happy never to hear that term again!
Lets face it, the truth is finally now out there, and the population are getting it. We have been scammed.
Too many people get caught up in the hype, including scientists and other professional folks, including journalists.
Think about it, the planet is 70 % water , 25 % desert ,mountain, ranges, and ice covered poles..Which leaves 5 % of the planet for all civilization, the most of which live along the coastal regions of the planet, including people , animals , and other aspects of all civilization. Lets also not forget that all of the earths inhabitants could easily fit in the smallest state in the USA. ( tight squeeze albiet ) . Doesn’t matter, it is just an example of how small we are.
The point is, man is an inconsequential presence on this planet. We have zero impact on its climate, but we do inpact local environments with pollution etc. That is something we can affect.
The Global footprint expression parlayed by many in the green movement ( including Al Gore gag me ) always left me with a sick feeling in my gut…….I knew it was wrong, and now finally I am proved right. Its time to put that puppy into historys dustbin.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak my piece.
Ian

nathan

ya, this is coming from the guy who said he invited the internet……….i call B.S.
look AL i see were u are going but its just not going to happen, and if it does i will personally kiss your ass……seriously im that confident that your theory is not just flawed but totally wrong. oh btw that volcano in Iceland……..u might want to throw that into the equation.

pft

The other myth that has yet to be exposed, like AGW, is what our carbon based energy situation really is. Supposedly we are running out, while ridiculous alternatives like wind and solar are explored.
This is doubtful. Why?
First some background. The Oil industry is essentially a cartel. Opec is of course the visible face which is the producing cartel. However, they rely on the support and distrubution cartel (formerly called the 7 sisters, Exxon, BP, etc, otherwise known as Big Oil) to get their oil and gas from the ground to the consumer. In effect, the controlling cartel is not the producers, and they have a symbiotic relationship, and may be considered one and the same.
So all we know about reserves comes from this cartel. By claiming shortages, and dwindling reserves, and in effect ensuring supplies just meet demand, they ensure high prices (used to be 3 dollars a barrel 35 years ago) . There is interlocking directorships in Oil and Investment Banking (David Rockefeller says hi) so the financial arm helps drive market prices up with speculation in futures (they also make money shorting these futures when they bring prices down from unsustainable increases)
Big Oil (not using any specific company name) does not pay market price for oil, having entered into long term contracts with producers. However, their refineries pay market price. Profits get hidden in the tax havens (ever wonder why the tankers are registered in places like Pananama?). The off shore company where the tanker is registered buys the oil for say 50% of market price from the oil producer (who is dependent on them for hardware needed to get the oil from the ground, store it and ship it). Then sells it to the refinery in the US at somewhat less than market price (locking up the profits elsewhere, hence less tax in the US). US oil production is problematic in this regard.
In any event, 35 years ago we were supposed to be running out of oil globally, and today have reserves double what they were 35 years ago (of course consumption has also doubled).
One curious thing which proves my point that we have far more oil than Big Oil would like us to know is their obvious reluctance to search for oil in the US. Leased land goes undrilled. Some will mention environmental concerns inhibiting their ability to search for oil. Ask yourself this.
In the aftermath of 9/11, with Arab oil producing nations looked upon as a threat, and this country dependent on oil, not to mention our military which uses more oil than most countries, how could Bush and Cheney, Big Oils biggest buddies, not be able to open up the drilling, especially along the coast. Even if Congress would not go along (it was a Republican Congress), he could have used an Executive Order siting National Security concerns and he would have had the full support of most Americans. He didn’t. Why?
The answer is that Big Oil does not want to increase supplies. Things are doing very well as is thank you.
There is also Thomas Golds abiogenic theory of oil in the deep hot biosphere. He claims some oil wells thought to be depleted are being refilled (although not at the rate in which it was depleted), and that fossil fuels are not of biogenic orgins, but are upwelling from the deep earth, even in areas not thought to have oil do to the lack of sediments (just have to drill deeper). As an astro-physicist at NASA he claimed most planets have plenty of hydrocarbons, and that these compounds exist naturally throughout the universe from the beginning and did not require carbon based life to form them.
Obviously, nobody can prove this but Big Oil. The Russian scientists know, informing Thomas Gold that they developed this theory first, and have implemented their knowledge to increase Russian oil production despite having been thought to be running out of oil 20 years ago . They have no motivation to speak out publicly as this would depress oil prices, a commodity their economy depends on.
This takes us to nuclear energy. An accident at TMI that many say was sabotage cooled Americas interest in nuclear power. At the same time, double digit interest rates caused by the Fed, the banking industries lackey (remember the interlocking interests) made the financing cost for nuclear power plants so high the venture would be unprofitable. In addition, the US refusal to recycle spent nuclear power rods means waste is accumulating (recycle rates can be as high as 97% , and new generation power plants can use the spent power rods from older plants as is), and is used by environmentalists as the key argument against nuclear power.
Thus the biggest threat to Big Oil was removed. Since then, Big Oil through other companies and with the cooperation of the US and European nations and Australia have been acquiring land containing uranium oxide supplies and uranium enrichment plants. Once the cartel for this energy source is ready, there will be a push for nuclear power. Energy prices will of course be kept high since the supplier will be a cartel. In the meantime, those countries seeking to develop enrichment plants will meet with threats and sanctions.
The banking industry will be in a position to make a pile by loaning money to finance nuclear power plant development. This will probably happen when oil prices test 150 dollars a barrel again. Double digit inflation will likely be on the horizon, and the banks making such loans to these nations will need to be bailed out, and in return more resources from these nations will be promised to cover the loan in default. In the meantime, more loans will be available for them to buy oil if needed. Maybe at that time loans will be in the form of carbon credits and payments in carbon dollars.

Alan S. Blue

Richard North,
The claim is that ethanol and biodiesel cause less carbon emissions than the equivalent natural hydrocarbons. Or… that they might eventually. The “cleaner” argument is much stronger when it isn’t focused on the carbon emissions but other emissions – the sulfur content is dramatically lower.
There are a variety of problems with the ‘lower carbon emissions’ position, some crippling. But they keep getting included in the environmentalists lists because the do have the virtue of being “sustainable”. (Or… nearly sustainable. A breakthrough or three on enzymatic of catalytic formation methods would be quite helpful to their argument.)

OT, but related to the eco-zealots desires, our “beloved” (10% approval rating) Congress is emboldened by illegally passing an illegal law to work on passing another illegal law based on this “science”. Here is the link.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a28df5a6-3b71-11df-b622-00144feabdc0.html
This just shows that even with climategate, even with colder winters, even with the house of cards falling, and even with the discredited scientists, our Congress still doesn’t care about the true science, just political goals. You can write your representative 200 times a day and it won’t matter. It didn’t matter when people marched en masse at Washington. It didn’t matter when people called so often to their representative, the phone lines were overloaded. They still voted for a bill despite the will of their representatives. You should write anyway and tell them to back the truth by voting against any carbon tax. But it is clear how our Congress has become drunk with power. If carbon taxes passes, along with the implementation of the 2700+ page health care bill, this country will dream of having living conditions found in North Korea. (Obvious hyperbole.)
(By the way, federal health care controls are illegal because of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits the federal government from taking rights not specifically given to it in the Constitution. The idea is to concentrate power in the states. Managing health care or controlling CO2 emissions is not a power given to the federal government in the Constitution.)

Joe

Poptech (17:13:02) :
The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.
Have you seen the many tax incentives to suppress any new innovation by keeping the current inefficient crap going?
Free markets want to sell more junk energy technology than look at anything that could really make power as it sells more parts and turbines and keeps the price of power high.

So stop scary stories for kids and focus on getting more energy and energy independence. Sounds like the right approach for our country with the highest fossil fuel reserves on the planet.
No? What, that’s not what he means?

rickM

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the objectivity of an essay who’s intent is still to de-carbonize our economy, and that the revenues raised would be solely used to develop low carbon industry. It looks like the Precautionary Principle, only now done without a basis to do so.
Clean energy as they described it includes reducing carbon.

Too bad the Green’s ideas for energy are just as wrong as their ideas on the climate.
We had windmills. We got rid of them. Why? Because they suck as a power source.
Solar is just as bad, probably worse because it’s even more expensive than wind.

Monique

“Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind”
Wow. The first major crack from within.

P.S.
Here’s a link to a video showing an example of how truly God-awful the Green’s energy ideas are.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d24b56MmIts&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

James Sexton

pft (17:59:37) :
Look at the USGS surveys. By the U.S’ own reports, we have more and more recoverable oil and natural gas, seemingly, every year, in this nation. That verifies your assertions except that the real information is out there, but no one cares to look. Given man’s natural propensity for efficiency in all things. There is absolutely no reason for any concern for us running out. (Natural gas, the coal derivative, is NOT a finite resource, but then, I don’t believe oil is either.)
I digress, money makers will continue to make money. It’s their nature. Of course, they feign shortage. Policy makers usurp power. It’s their nature. Our nature should be to ensure they don’t get too carried away. Sadly, too many of our ‘brotherhood of man’ are only too eager to believe people shouldn’t make money and the policy makers have our interests at heart. Liberty and freedoms, apparently are passe ideas.

NickB.

Doug Badgero,
If “The Death of Environmentalism” is by the same guy I think it is – sorry I don’t have his name handy – he was the rising young star of the environmental movement when he wrote that… almost in a fit of rage about how unyielding, uncompromising, and ineffecive the Green Movement had become. He now works, of all places, with Wal Mart and is making potentially thousad of times more difference with them then he was “fighting the good fight”. If I recall I ran across him on an episode of Penn and Teller’s “BS” (real name of the show is Penn and Teller’s Bullshit but mods feel free to snip)
I was a Boy Scout when I was a kid and me favorite, albeit inconsistent, pastime is going to National Parks… hiking, and photographing nature. I cannot stand for the political advocacy and outright scam groups like the Sierra Club have become. I’d rather burn my money than let a cent of it go their way – they are not about nature, they are anti-humanity.
Kudos to these kids for realizing that reason trumps extremism, and that hitching their wagon to a f…. (not the four letter F-word but the five letter one) will only backfire in the end. I wish them all the best!

This article in this context is a health sign, but I find it confused in 2 ways.
Firstly, if we remove the (phoney) Climate Science argument for low-carbon economy, then why would we continue to work for low carbon economy? Their argument would make sense if it were saying that the CAGW argument should be abandoned as a way of persuade the public to embrace a shift to arenewable energy economy – and I would applaud that!
Secondly, they are too easy on the science advocates of catastrophic global warming when they say:

The result has been an ever-escalating set of demands on climate science, with greens and their allies often attempting to represent climate science as apocalyptic, imminent, and certain, in no small part so that they could characterize all resistance as corrupt, anti-scientific, short-sighted, or ignorant. Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige.

Having allowed the demands of advocacy efforts to wash back into the production of climate science

In 1981 Hansen was already telling the New York Times of 6 – 9F temp rises and 15-20 feet sea level rise in next century. As soon as the 1970s cooling was over, Schneider and Hansen pushed hard with the alarmism, against a background of disapproval from climate scientists still debating the net effect of human caused cooling (aerosol) and warming and all the complex uncertainties surrounding the assessment of these effects. In 1988 Hansen told congress he was 99% certain. These scientist alarmists only slowly won over the support of the environment movement during the course of the 1990s with alarmist rhetoric.
It was these scientists who used their apocalyptic senarios to capture the attention of the environmentalists, not the other way around. And it was these scientists who first characterize all resistance as corrupt (Big Oil), anti-scientific, short-sighted, or ignorant.

luv.soul.ja

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3163105453918493460&ei=JUqxS5_EDtir-AaG3aTaBg&q
ENDGAME by Alex Jones investigates & attempts to join the dots & explain the powerful agendas behind CLIMATEGATE. Greens & Climate Scientists don’t have the power to orchestrate the UN, National Governments, Corporations, Banksters, Media & Science. [SNIP. Aargh! Post the “truther” (and worse) conspiracy theories elsewhere. We don’t do those here! ~ Evan]
It is most recently being employed to demonise the truth & libertarian/tea party movements in the US.
Greens & Scientists were just the patsies for what our prime minister loves to refer to as the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Know your opponent. Join the dots. Take back your power. Love & Truth.

timetochooseagain

Translation-Let’s stop trying to justify inferior energy sources on their benefits to improving the weather, since they don’t, and start propounding their merits, which are non-existent.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.

DirkH

“rickM (18:29:51) :
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the objectivity of an essay who’s intent is still to de-carbonize our economy, and that the revenues raised would be solely used to develop low carbon industry. ”
Maybe they are Malthusians and see limited resources as a principal problem. As i said, we would have at least 500 years to solve it but some people, especially people paid for, just want to rush it. The German solar industry has a very well-oiled (oops!) lobby, for instance.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

evanmjones (17:29:45) :
One might even ask if carbon-based energy use cannot be convincingly connected with AGW why there is a particularly pressing imperative to reduce use of carbon-based energy in the first place . . .
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Class…….class……..I have an announcement:
today’s gold star for making the most sense goes to Evan M Jones.

Patrick Davis

DirkH (17:02:38) :
Yeah. We need a low water economy. Dewaterize the economy! No Evian for you.”
If you spell “Evian” backwards you get “naivE”. That’s what I consider environmentalists to be.

joe

“The irony of all this is if you understand economics there is nothing to focus on, free markets will take care of our energy needs. All government does is increase costs and delay technological innovation. If they want to see a transition to clean energy, then they need to get out of the way.”
Yeah but that does not help expand the government and destroy the middle class. No communism no deal.

Tucci


Hm. Problem is that when you “Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy,” there’s no reason to suffer the prohibitive costs of “low-carbon energy.”
The combustion of fossil and non-fossil hydrocarbons for the generation of energy obtains not because of collusion or conspiracy or corporate plotting, but because, ceteris paribus, it is the most cost-efficient way to power vehicles, drive railroad transport, fuel aircraft, and power commercial maritime and riverine shipping.
The “low-carbon energy” alternatives – except for light water moderated nuclear reactors in the generation of baseload electrical power – simply aren’t workable. Petrochemicals beat the hell out of everything else.
No global warming scare, no “low-carbon energy” requirement, and that leaves the ‘viros standing there in the street with their pudenda hanging out and no idea how to fumble their zippers up.

pat

reuters has a piece on this, but only MSM coverage is NYT Blog. quite a big story really given who the traders are:
30 March: NYT Blog: James Kanter: HSBC Ejects Carbon Traders From Index
The banking giant HSBC removed two companies involved in carbon trading from its Climate Change Index on Monday because they had lost too much value.
Analysts from HSBC said the cause was mainly that governments had failed to come up with a timetable for a global climate deal at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen in December.
“Carbon trading was the major loser from Copenhagen,” HSBC analysts said in their March 21010 Quarterly Index Review. “Cap and trade needs hard targets and binding rules – and Copenhagen delivered neither,” HSBC said.
The two companies ejected were Climate Exchange and Trading Emissions. Both companies are based in the Isle of Man and listed on the London Stock Exchange.
Climate Exchange owns the European Climate Exchange, the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange. The chairman of Trading Emissions, Neil Eckert, is also the chief executive of Climate Exchange….
the companies HSBC removed from the index had failed to reach the minimum market capitalization of $400 million..
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/hsbc-ejects-carbon-traders-from-index/

openunatedgirl

You better sit down for this one…
Alan S Blue,
The claim to bio fuel is not at all that they produced less carbon at the tailpipe, but rather that it “recycles” what is already out there.
Consider the lifecycle involved in producing a gallon of bio fuel. First it must grow. Canola oil, grown from rapeseed, is a feedstock for bio diesel. In order to grow rapeseed, CO2 is consumed from the air. It is stored in the plant as it grows. Also, by-products are produced from rapeseed, mainly the stock of the plant. This stock can be burned to create fuel to diminish the use of fossil fuel in the production of the fuel.
Now think about fossil fuel. When dealing with fossil fuel, carbon that has been isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years is released. IE You pull it out and burn it, releasing it into the atmosphere.
Bio-fuel at the tailpipe of a car or in an electrical generation system generates more equivalent CO2 emissions at virtually every step of the life cycle of a fuel (Feedstock extraction, land changes, feedstock transport, production, distribution, dispensing, operation of vehicle, vehicle assembly and decommissioning). Still bio fuel has approximately a fifth of the equivalent CO2 emissions due to Carbon in end use fuel from CO2 in air and emissions displayed by by-products.
That is not to say that bio-fuel does not come with challenges. Very few cars can run smoothly on 100% bio-fuel, as it is very viscous (thick) and does not perform well in extreme temperatures. There is also a humanitarian aspect to it; how can we justify using farm land to produce fuel to power our SUV’s and minivans, when that land could be used to grow corn for the millions of starving people in the world.
To address the overall tone of this message board, I would like to say that I am completely depressed by the majority of your comments. You really want to challenge that we are ruining our environment? Really? Talk to any one from New Orleans. True, global warming was not the culprit there, but the rather the destroying of wetlands for profit. (Note, historically, the wetlands surrounding New Orleans have protected the area from massive damage due to storms as they have acted to slow and minimize swells before they reached the in land areas. Not only that but the minerals provided by these regions have kept the soil rich and healthy, and now that the wetlands have been depleted, these minerals are being wash out to sea). While I do agree that Green Issues have become a political statement lately, this sudden push against all things green is equally political. As stated in this article, the green industry has been growing for the past 20 years. Why the recent push back? What has changed?
Being environmentally friendly is expensive. Green energy costs more and there is no way around it. When the economy was booming, politicians, industries and corporations were happy to have an enemy (global warming) to throw money at to increase their approval ratings. But now that they are counting every cent, don’t think for a second that they are not pressuring scientists to say “Oh we don’t need to worry about global warming, it was just a fad”.
I am not claiming to know all the facts, but I AM BEGGING YOU TO THINK CRITICALLY about what you are agreeing with here. Over the past hundred years we have changed our environment more rapidly than ever in the course of human history. Not to say that this is the fastest the world has ever changed, but you must agree that we are doing some serious damage. Historically, rapid changes have not bode well for the earth’s inhabitants of the time. If we continue down this swiftly accelerating path of change, I cannot help but draw the conclusion that we are heading for a similar fate.
* Note I am NOT an Environmentalist. I am an engineer in the Oil and Gas industry, which I would think would make me bias in the opposite direction of my opinions stated above.