Analysis: What the World Needs Now is a Lot Less Poverty

What is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.”?

In a News & Analysis item recently published in Science, Kintisch (2014) discusses the most recent IPCC report, noting it “is meant to be a practical guide to action,” especially in regard to what the report identifies as eight major climate risks: coastal flooding, inland flooding, extreme weather, extreme heat, food insecurity, water shortages, loss of marine ecosystems and loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems.

Interestingly, however, all eight of these threats already occur at various times and places throughout the world; and trying to prevent the harm they cause by mandating policies designed to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the height of folly, as spending the trillions of dollars that would be needed to only maybe make an impact on these weather phenomena is far, far worse than doing nothing at all. And why is that?

A hint is provided when Kintisch rhetorically inquires just what is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.” In response to himself, he writes the most recent IPCC report says it is “poverty.” And in this case, the IPCC is absolutely correct; for the spending of ungodly sums of money to try to alter the planet’s climate will only lessen the well-being of the great bulk of humanity, which is to say it will drive us even further into poverty.

Consider, for example, the recent words of Peabody Energy’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gregory H. Boyce, who in a recent Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Interview (www.peabodyenergy.com/Investor-News-Release-Details.aspx?nr=818) was quoted as reminding us that “energy inequality is the blight of energy poverty, limiting access to basic needs like food, water and medicine; stunting education and cutting lives short.” In addition, he notes “every one of the U.N. Millennium Development goals depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge.”

Boyce also noted at the 2014 ECO:nomics conference that was recently held in Santa Barbara, California, that fully 3.5 billion people currently lack proper access to energy, and “more energy is needed to create energy access for billions, to sustain growth for a new global middle class and improve access to low-cost electricity,” while reminding us “too many families in developed nations face the tough choice of paying for food or energy.”

And thus Boyce concludes, “the greatest environmental crisis we confront today is not a crisis predicted by computer models but a human crisis fully within our power to solve,” which can be accomplished via the means of low-cost power that can readily be provided by today’s advanced coal technologies that (1) have the scale to meet these needs, and (2) are employed in today’s high-efficiency supercritical coal plants that have state-of-the-art controls and ultra-low emission rates, which facts allow him to state that “every large, advanced coal plant brings the equivalent carbon benefit of removing 1 million cars from the road.”

And the marketplace would appear to agree, for Boyce notes coal has been the fastest-growing major fuel of the past decade and is set to surpass oil as the world’s largest fuel in coming years. Indeed, he says coal’s market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by fully one-third over the past two years, and that it now has twice the market share of natural gas.

Perhaps these several observations suggest there may be a potential for both the IPCC and the NIPCC to agree on the core aspect of reducing poverty, as each moves forward in attempting to determine what is best for the biosphere – and humanity – as time marches on.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eustace Cranch
May 22, 2014 1:08 pm

Low-cost energy is crucial. However, two other factors must be recognized:
1. The primary cause of poverty worldwide is tyranny.
2. The primary cause of poverty in a free society is personal behavior.

empiresentry
May 22, 2014 1:12 pm

Oh gawd. someone please help me. I am trying to find the quote where climate Catastropharians claim making fake adjustments to real data in order to make models work is valid because the cause is so important. Anyone that can help?

Richard
May 22, 2014 1:14 pm

World poverty is shrinking rapidly, new index reveals | Society | The …
http://www.theguardian.com › News › Society › Poverty
Mar 16, 2013 – UN development report uses nutrition and education as yardsticks as well as income.

jones
May 22, 2014 1:56 pm

Poverty, grinding poverty, is the DESIRED state of being for this lot.
A little bit of tyranny thrown in doesn’t harm either.
.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/north-korea-unlikely-champion-fight-against-climate-change
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/the-ideal-climate-citizen-north-korea.php

more soylent green!
May 22, 2014 1:59 pm

Don’t forget the legal and culture aspects necessary to eliminate poverty — Free markets, free enterprise, individual rights, property rights, the rule of law, etc. In my opinion, those are the things the AGW proponents most want to stop. Carbon is just a handy excuse.

May 22, 2014 2:02 pm

Q: What is “the biggest single barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate.” (?)
A: Poverty
Yep,. that’s right.
So let’s accept that creating wealth for the most vulnerable is the key issue and own that the world’s problems are political and economic.
Not climatological.

Louis
May 22, 2014 2:11 pm

“…coal’s market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by fully one-third over the past two years, and that it now has twice the market share of natural gas.”

That’s news to me. I thought coal powered plants were on the decrease. This is what was predicted for the US just last year:
“Coal-burning facilities are expected to slip to 10% of total new capacity in the U.S. in 2013, down from 18% in 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. Gas, meanwhile, is expected to soar to 82% of new capacity in 2013 from 42% last year.”
Were they that wrong? If coal has twice the market share of natural gas, why do the stats from 2012 show them almost equal with natural gas on the increase? Something doesn’t add up:
[US] Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:
Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Biomass 1.42%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.11%
Wind 3.46%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

Chad Wozniak
May 22, 2014 2:14 pm

The biggest single barrier to alleviating poverty is restrictions on fossil fuel development; therefore, the biggest single barrier to alleviating poverty is global warming alarmism.

Gamecock
May 22, 2014 3:23 pm

Solyent is correct. Property rights and free trade will end poverty.
A big coal plant next to people with no property rights will produce nothing.
I am uncomfortable with this:
“In addition, he notes “every one of the U.N. Millennium Development goals depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge.””
“Adequate energy,” in the context here, is not the natural state of man. Most has been created in the last century or two. Lives lost to the impacts of this scourge – Man living in his natural state – seems contrived. “One out of every two citizens” would be 4 billion people. 4 million lives lost is tiny, gutting their argument. Electricity for all would be good, but I find their analysis strange.

Mike H
May 22, 2014 3:27 pm

Eustace Cranch:
Very true, but let’s not forget the other side. The primary cause of wealth creation in a free society is personal behavior.

James at 48
May 22, 2014 3:44 pm

And meanwhile, in other news, the 1%ers, led by the “Green Billionaire,” have declared war on skeptics. It is time for The People to realize just how this game has been rigged.

Eustace Cranch
May 22, 2014 3:50 pm

Mike H- yes. I absolutely agree.

Jimbo
May 22, 2014 4:46 pm

It’s quite simple. Increased standards of living leads to women wanting fewer babies. Compare any 5 EU countries to 5 developing countries. Tell me about the fertility rates etc. Better standards of living leads to lower numbers which leads to panic over. (Did I hear Singapore? Japan? Italy? Mexico? Germany? Can I go on and on?) Even the poorest continent on Earth is seeing falling fertility rates. STOP THE ALARM, IT’S BORING ME TO DEATH. Good night.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/population-bomb-so-wrong/
http://geocurrents.info/population-geography/indias-plummeting-birthrate-a-television-induced-transformation
http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/television-and-fertility-in-india-response-to-critics

R. de Haan
May 22, 2014 4:47 pm
R. de Haan
May 22, 2014 5:03 pm

Just a few years earlier cleaning house and you all would have been fine.
Today we’re too late. The world is bankrupt and what we see today is just the end game : http://detlevschlichter.com/2014/05/keynesian-madness-central-banks-waging-war-on-price-stability-savers/

David L. Hagen
May 22, 2014 5:21 pm

In “The Morality of Cheap Energy” Stephen Moore observes:

there’s a wonderful new essay out by energy expert Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It is called, provocatively: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

Her thesis is fairly logical when you think about it: “Affordable energy is the wellspring of life itself. We use it for food, shelter, clothing and everything that we need to live a productive life.”
She also notes that cheap energy is the great equalizer in terms of levelizing living standards. “The poor,” she explains, “benefit most from cheap energy, and keeping energy production up and prices low is one of the best anti-poverty programs.”

Moore further questions:

Is it moral to take money from taxpayers without their consent to support one industry over another?
Is it moral to have an energy policy that intentionally keeps prices high? Is it moral to eliminate potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. and ship them to China and India and Mexico when we have 18 million unemployed Americans?

Bjorn Lomborg writes The Poor Need Cheap Fossil Fuels

What those living in energy poverty need are reliable, low-cost fossil fuels, at least until we can make a global transition to a greener energy future. This is not just about powering stoves and refrigerators to improve billions of lives but about powering agriculture and industry that will improve lives.
Over the last 30 years, China moved an estimated 680 million people out of poverty by giving them access to modern energy, mostly powered by coal. Yes, this has resulted in terrible air pollution and a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions. But it is a trade-off many developing countries would gratefully choose.

milodonharlani
May 22, 2014 5:41 pm

What the world needs now is love, sweet love.
And nuclear power.

milodonharlani
May 22, 2014 5:45 pm

Not just for some, but for everyone.
If only the hard-core Greens would embrace the atom.

David Riser
May 22, 2014 6:53 pm

Louis,
Both are right, you are looking at the “new” vs old. A powerplant is not something we ever seem to replace, we just keep adding more plants to meet demand. When coal gets the shut down we are going to have power problems like nobody’s business.
v/r,
David Riser

May 22, 2014 7:29 pm

and trying to prevent the harm they cause by mandating policies designed to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the height of folly, as spending the trillions of dollars that would be needed to only maybe make an impact on these weather phenomena is far, far worse than doing nothing at all.
File this under Kerry’s “supposing scientists are wrong, What’s the WORST that can happen?”

u.k.(us)
May 22, 2014 7:56 pm

I think I’ll stay out of this quagmire.

May 22, 2014 8:03 pm

Speaking of poverty and “height of folly”….
WSJ 5/23/14:

Then, on Nov. 25, the EPA regional office in Texas did an about-face when it decided that Exxon Mobil would not have to install the [carbon capture storage (CCS)] technology in its planned chemical plant (such plants emit carbon dioxide) in Harris County, because it would be prohibitively expensive.
Enter the Sierra Club, which challenged the EPA’s Exxon Mobil decision on Dec. 26. Last week, three administrative law judges on the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board upheld the Texas office’s decision not to require CCS. Why? Because the EPA regional office found, and the judges agreed, that the “addition of CCS would increase the total capital project costs by more than 25%.”
…..
” Then there is the ongoing saga of Southern Company’s planned power plant in Kemper County, Miss. The Washington Post noted May 17 that the coal-fired Kemper plant—hailed for its plan to use CCS technology—is a year behind schedule and expected to cost $5.5 billion, or more than double the original estimate, partly due to miscalculations designing and building the carbon-capture system.

The piece is written by Brian H. Potts, lamenting how the EPA legal house of cards is in jeopardy. His analysis and recommendation to EPA:

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act says that the agency can’t regulate greenhouse-gas emissions [see my Note 1] from existing power plants, unless and until it has regulations in place for new power plants. So if a court overturns the agency’s carbon capture and sequester requirement for new plants, the EPA won’t be able to implement its climate rules for existing power plants (which the agency plans to propose on June 2).
… The agency has to scrap the CCS requirement for new coal plants and instead adopt something more legally defensible, such as requiring that all new coal plants be built using the most efficient plant design.
This would require Ms. McCarthy and the EPA to eat some crow. But it’s the right decision for many reasons, including protecting the climate.

Note 1: This is far down the road of interpretation, re-interpretation and inference. Section 111 says nothing about “greenhouse-gas emissions”. Sec. 111 refers to “pollutants.” Hence the administrations invention of “carbon pollution.” See pages 5 and 6 of Regulating Carbon Dioxide under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act: Options, Limits, and Impacts 3.5MB PDF Duke Univ. Jan. 2013.

May 22, 2014 8:06 pm

Forgot the citation and link to the WSJ opinion piece by Potts.
The EPA’s Carbon Capture Flip-Flop
One of the agency’s own regional offices and a panel of EPA judges have ruled that the policy is too expensive.

george e. smith
May 22, 2014 9:01 pm

Well just use the Obama approach. Have the UN set a world wide minimum wage of $25 US per hour. That should fix world poverty.

Editor
May 22, 2014 9:54 pm

empiresentry says:
May 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Oh gawd. someone please help me. I am trying to find the quote where climate Catastropharians claim making fake adjustments to real data in order to make models work is valid because the cause is so important. Anyone that can help?

Stephen Schneider, who famously said:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

He discusses the quote here.
w.