Quote of the week

qotw_croppedBarry woods writes in with this interesting and surprising quote, that says quite a lot about the value of the viewpoint of climate skeptics:

From Mark Lynas – India’s Coal conundrum – Which comes first the climate or the poor, and he cites GWPF in that quote! (heresy)

To be poor is to be vulnerable, even in today’s climate. The fact that only ‘climate sceptics’ tend make this point currently is somewhat shameful. – Mark Lynas

Source: http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/indias-coal-conundrum-which-comes-first-the-climate-or-the-poor/

 

 

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Quote of the week

  1. quote of the week – a tad early ‘aint it? It’s only Monday
    What happens if Obola suddenly gets to his feet and utters “this climate change stuff – it’s all crap, we’re sorry, have a refund” ??

  2. And the worm continues to turn.
    Mark Lynas didn’t mention the GWPF by name (or acronym), but at least he put a link in to the site.

  3. Note: this is actually the view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They state clearly that poverty and social injustice are a worse problem than climatic factors(page 7 of AR5 WG2 SPM).

    Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence). These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement). This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes
    include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability.

    And the cheapest energy is part of the answer, in my opinion

    • Not so! “…especially vulnerable to climate change…” is NOT the same as Lynas’ “…even in today’s climate.”

  4. The answer to his “which comes first” question should be obvious – to left wing western intellectuals, the sense of superiority they gain from moral preening ALWAYS comes first – no matter how many poor people have to suffer for it!

  5. Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    The less energy there is available to poorer are the people that is fact. American energy use is way down and so is the median American household income. All this has happened in the last 6 years and this administration is continuing to reduce our ability to make energy for the people so one wonders why they are doing what they are doing?

  6. I keep trying to post this and it keeps failing: Reference: IPCC AR5 WG2 SPM page 7

    Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence).
    These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement).
    This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability.

    In other words, poverty an inequality have been accepted by the IPCC as being more important than climatic factors. And cheap energy should, therefore, be supported.

    • Mcourtney:
      I read your IPPC quote as stating factors other than climate may result in “…Differences in vulnerability and exposure…” and these may “…shape differential risks from climate change…”.
      It’s hard to I interpret the IPCC quote you supplied as stating (your words): “…poverty an inequality have been accepted by the IPCC as being more important than climatic factors. And cheap energy should, therefore, be supported.”

      • A matter of interpretation. The other factors lead to these people being “especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses”.
        Note:

        also to some adaptation and mitigation responses

        Not only the climate change but also the remediation of the climate change is bad for these most marginalised people.
        So dealing with these other factors must be a higher priority than the adaptation and mitigation responses.
        Unless we want to ignore the needs of the most vulnerable.

    • What does “discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability” have to do with climate change? Along with “marginalized” and “inequalities”, they seem to be listing all of the standard progressive victims. The IPCC seems to be filling out a neoliberal checklist of triggers to create an overflow of crocodile tears.

      • Not true, they left out LGBTs, so not quite all the standard victims are used to fan our guilt. This tactic (guilt trip) is becoming soooo transpqrent. It a bit like when your 2 year old tells you “You don’t love me anymore” when you refuse to give them a lolly.

  7. “The proof of this is right on India’s border in the shape of China’s coal-based development miracle. China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent decades, and made such immense strides in its development index that it alone has helped the world achieve most Millennium Development Goals – all based on a manufacturing boom almost entirely fuelled by coal.
    http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/indias-coal-conundrum-which-comes-first-the-climate-or-the-poor/
    Anyone in doubt should visit China and see the miracle for themselves. The Yangtze bridges alone are a modern engineering miracle. Try building these using windmills and solar panels.
    “Until the completion of the Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge in 1957, there were no crossings across the main stretch of the Yangtze known as Changjiang, a distance of 2,884 km (1,792 mi) from Yibin to the river mouth in Shanghai. Over 75 bridges and six tunnels have been built, the overwhelming majority constructed since 1990. They reflect a broad array of bridge designs and, in many cases, represent significant achievements in modern bridge engineering. Several rank among the world’s longest suspension, cable-stayed and arch bridges as well as some of the highest and tallest bridges.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_River_bridges_and_tunnels

  8. Add to this the many thousands of miles of bullet train network in China, with many of the new bridges designed for double duty carrying cars and rail. These bridges are massive.

    • China now has 10,000 miles of bullet train tracks. The cars are locally designed and have 100% local content, so I was told.

  9. I would change one word, “To be unarmed is to be vulnerable”, particularly in today’s world but has always been true. Of course, being stupid is also a big disadvantage.

  10. The scale of new construction underway today in modern China would be imossible in most developed countries. Environmental and regulatory red-tape would delay the projects and drive the cost through the roof, making most of them economically impossible. Pipe-dreams in a never to be realized distant future.

    • ferd,
      Regarding construction in China –
      You seem to be following developments there. What is happening with the many highrise apartment buildings that have been built? You have been commenting on infrastructure projects. But other aspects are interesting. Here is a quote from Bob Davis who spent 4 years there as a WSJ reporter covering China’s economy:
      Most of the Chinese cities I visited are ringed by vast, empty apartment complexes whose outlines are visible at night only by the blinking lights on their top floors. I was particularly aware of this on trips to the so-called third- and fourth-tier cities . . .
      http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-end-of-chinas-economic-miracle-1416592910?KEYWORDS=china+cities

      • We also saw evidence of ghost apartments – no laundry hanging out to dry from apartment windows. This was explained to us as follows: Husband and wife are working very hard in the city. They buy a dream apartment somewhere else, but have no time to visit. I would suspect a lot of buildings are going up as speculation, awaiting further migration to the cities and the inevitable price increase. During the same time real estate prices doubled in Vancouver, they went up 5 times in Shanghai.

  11. So in other words, in the upside down and backwards world of climatism, “carbon” is still Planet Enemy Number 1, but fairness dictates that only the wicked countries of the West should have to shoulder the burden of “cutting carbon”. But in order for us to do what would essentially crater our economies, creating economic hardship for many, and a vastly expanded number of poor people, we would have to not only have astronomical energy costs, but also cut our imports from countries like China and India, since the “carbon footprint” of their goods would still be high. Utter madness, and completely unneccesary.
    Nice that he threw us “climate sceptics” a bone, but come on.

    • My analogy is a bucket of crabs. You don’t need a lid as as one begins its escape by climbing out, the rest of the crabs drag him back into the bucket. Everyone needs to be dragged down into the bucket of misery.

  12. Doesn’t anyone realize our naked emperor cares about the poor more than ANYONE! ! He’s giving billions to the third world to deal with climate chage instead of that meaningless stuff like clean drinking water and cheap available power.

    • LogosWrench:
      And not ONE PENNY of that money for fighting climate change will go to helping the poor solve their real problems.
      ALL will go to the (corrupt) politicians in those countries. And to those people who help and nurture and support the (corrupt) politicians now receiving that money.

  13. what might i more interesting than Mark agreeing with sceptics ,
    is that Mark is disagreeing with 350.org… I wonder if Bill Mckibben will respond.
    Lynas:
    Climate campaigners 350.org recently had an ‘India Beyond Coal’ day of action, supported by assertions such as this:
    350.org:
    ‘Our excessive dependence on coal threatens a future where we can pull millions of Indians out of poverty. Rising costs of coal, reduced availability, excessive deforestation, negative health impacts and the climate crisis are strong reasons to begin the transition towards renewable energy and energy efficiency.’ – 350.org
    Lynas:
    I really don’t think this is true. The costs of poverty – which includes millions of preventable deaths of young children, lack of access to water and sanitation, reduced livelihood prospects, large-scale hunger and malnutrition, and so on… are clearly much greater than the direct costs of coal burning, and this equation probably still holds even when the future damages from climate change are factored in.
    The proof of this is right on India’s border in the shape of China’s coal-based development miracle. China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent decades, and made such immense strides in its development index that it alone has helped the world achieve most Millennium Development Goals – all based on a manufacturing boom almost entirely fuelled by coal.
    Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the best way for poorer countries to protect themselves against future climate change might not be to reduce their emissions, but to use as much energy as possible – including from coal – in order to develop richer and more resilient societies. There is a very good reason why hurricanes of an equivalent ferocity kill thousands in a country like Myanmar or Haiti, but only a few dozen at most in the US or Australia. To be poor is to be vulnerable, even in today’s climate. The fact that only ‘climate sceptics’ tend make this point currently is somewhat shameful.” – Lynas
    Mark has come a long way – over ten years ago he (and George Marshall) listed a Who’s Who of Climate deniers…
    http://www.newstatesman.com/node/146820

    • Climate campaigners 350.org recently had an ‘India Beyond Coal’ day of action
      =============
      Neo colonialism. The white man’s burden. Telling Indians how they should live.

      • I’m glad I’m not the only one seeing that.
        The Lordly white folk who are just so smart and know so much more than those primitive coloured folk. The Africans, Indians and Chinese should be thankful for their guidance.
        /sarc. (It shouldn’t be needed, but just in case.

  14. The real point is that until the poor have adequate electricity, water and other infrastructure that can only be provided through inexpensive energy (i.e. fossil fuels) they are vulnerable to just typically harsh weather, like a normal flood, mudslides, a cold snap or a heat wave or a drought. That is far more a threat, and a real one, than the hypothetical threat of rising sea levels due to Antarctic melt, or higher frequency of CAT 5 hurricanes, or the impacts of species extinction.
    Hmmm. Should advocates of the poor argue for more solar panels and wind mills, or should they demand better access to inexpensive energy? I think the answer — both from an economic and a moral standpoint — is very clear.

  15. At this stage – it might be best to focus on, what we can agree on..
    ie man made CC bad or not – bad policies are bad policies and can hurt the poorest the most

    • Taken to the normal leftist position, a tax is therefore required on the rich to transfer money to the poor.

  16. This is a big win for Matt Ridley. I think it was only a couple of weeks ago that he took Mark Lynas to task for calling him (and GWPF) deniers and now Mark is linking to GWPF and referring to them as sceptics.
    Mark Lynas began this journey by accepting that GM crops were not the work of the devil and now he is actually looking at sceptic arguments instead of dismissing them out of hand. We may not be talking about a Damascene conversion here, but that’s OK – just taking the time to look and listen is where this starts.

  17. To the left, caring about climate change IS caring about the poor. After all, they are the most at risk to climate change. Everyone knows it, just ask the editors at NYT or the Guardian (sarc)… The claims that higher energy costs will hurt the poor are just lies propagated by horrible deniers…

  18. coal worked for The UK and Europe during the industrial revolution. It worked for China. it will work for India – given a chance.

  19. Reading this and other recent headlines on climate change, it appears that the climate change protagonists are now concerned with ever rising global temperatures and its impact on future generations. Current generations …. not so much. Unfortunately, as far as the poor are concerned, if Climatocysts have their way future generations don’t really have to worry because they are never going to be born.

  20. Maybe I am overly cynic, but it always was my contention of climate politics was to reduce the number of people on the planet. Especially the poor, who reproduce in great numbers. It is the dirty, not so secret, secret of climate policy. That and get rich through climate taxes. To sum up AGW-activism, make the rich bankers and politicians more rich and kill the poor. The greens (WWF crowd) has made a deal with the banks: You get the taxpayers money and we get to kill the poor, deal? – Deal…!
    It was Ken Lay from Enron and Albert Gore (who invented the internet you know) who planned the carbon trade [scheme.]
    We must never forget:
    http://youtu.be/sH0Ryek7rHk
    Variation of the old “Gore effect”, divine intervention?
    http://youtu.be/awtm4NoD_IM

  21. As I said to Barry and to Mark Lynas via Twitter, on the weekend, I was delighted to see this from Mark. I agree with Rob (7:59 am) that Matt Ridley’s robust response to Lynas 17 days ago, including over his use of the term ‘denier’, must be seen as a key input leading to one of the best moves by a AGW believer we’ve seen for many a moon. Nine days back I myself wrote this at The Conversation:

    All we have as a human race in such areas are tradeoffs. In Josh’s cartoon the climate/energy tradeoffs are brought out most powerfully for me by ‘wood burning’ and ‘biofuels’. Reminding us that certain proposed policies of those concerned about AGW can do real damage, by raising food prices for the poorest or not allowing them to have electricity, through a coal power station nearby. Biomass burning in huts kills millions every year right now. Don’t AGWers care? If they do care, why do they never mention this tradeoff as they campaign for the World Bank to no longer provide loans for coal-fired power stations?

    Others had perhaps been encouraging me to engage at the forum. This was my first multi-post effort. It didn’t seem to have had any effect. Then Barry pointed me to the new post by Mark. There’s probably no direct connection but I’m encouraged to think of the effect on an alarmist who happens on both. None of our efforts for truth, especially on behalf of the poor, are wasted.

  22. “Yes, I am a climate skeptic. I doubt the existence of climate.” Ridiculous. What the heck is a “climate skeptic?” Skeptical of climate? I don’t think so. That is such a juvenile jab. We are simply skeptical of certain individuals’ modeled predictions of the earth’s ever-changing climate. And since when did science reject skepticism? If science has rejected skepticism… well jeez… it ain’t science no more.

Comments are closed.