From the “I thought [ ] my heater and [my] air conditioner was the best defense” department and the society of brain-dead wishful group-think at the Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends) comes this stunner of a press release. Perhaps they haven’t noticed the other environmentalists wailing about the coral reefs already being dead, or the global loss of native forests (they had to go all the way to Madagascar for the photo), or that fact that the world has already pledged 100 billion dollars as part of the wealth redistribution climate healing campaign. I guess if they just issue a press release saying so, all these things will be magically fixed/healed/solved.
Intact nature offers best defense against climate change
CREDIT Julie Larsen Maher/WCS
Key points:
- Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good
- Native forests reduce the frequency and severity of floods
- Coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures
- The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year
NEW YORK (January 28, 2016) – Worldwide responses to climate change could leave people worse off in the future according to a recent study conducted by CSIRO, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of Queensland.
The paper, “Intact ecosystems provide the best defense against climate change,” published today in Nature Climate Change, discusses how certain adaptation strategies may have a negative impact on nature which in turn will impact people in the long-term.
“In response to climate change, many local communities around the world are rapidly adjusting their livelihood practices to cope with climate change, sometimes with catastrophic implications for nature,” according to CSIRO’s principal research scientist Dr. Tara Martin.
The authors say that in Australia and Canada, conservation reserves are being used as drought relief to feed livestock, while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought, and coral reefs are being destroyed to build sea walls from the low-lying islands in Melanesia.
Dr. Martin added: “These are just few of the human responses to climate change that, if left unchallenged, may leave us worse off in the future due to their impacts on nature. Functioning and intact, forests, grasslands, wetlands and coral reefs represent our greatest protection against floods and storms.”
The paper states that intact native forests have been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of floods, while coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures.
Likewise, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and tidal marshes are proving to be a more cost-effective and ecologically sound alternative to buffering storms than conventional coastal engineering solutions.
Co-author Dr James Watson, a lead scientist with WCS and Principle Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, said that with more than 100 million people per year at risk from increasing floods and tropical cyclones, ill-conceived adaptation measures that destroy the ecosystems, which offer our most effective and inexpensive line of defense, must be avoided.
“The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year in the coming decades but this is small change when we consider the environmental and economic fallout from not using nature to help us cope with climate change,” said Dr. Watson.
Dr. Watson added: “If we consider another perverse mechanism contributing to climate change, fossil fuel subsidies, it is small change. A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.”
“Fortunately some adaptation strategies are being developed that do not destroy nature, some of which are even ecosystem-based. The protection and restoration of mangrove forests that is actively funded by agencies such as USAID is a prime example,” Dr. Watson said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…Cold Kills,.do we have to always learn the hard way ??
Odd, not a word in the article about biofuels.
Agreed. No comments on prairie being plowed up to grow corn, trees cut and concrete poured for wind plants, etc. Wonder how they missed that?
They can’t be seen from their condos.
Or the jungles of Borneo being converted to palm oil for biofuels. All in the name of CO2 green.
“A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.”
Since the VAST MAJORITY of these “subsidies” go toward allowing impoverished residents of oil-rich countries to buy and use fuels at a reduced price rather than the market price, how would eliminating this subsidy reduce emissions?
It would just make the market price of oil drop, since the oil they are now using would go unused and flood onto the market. Then the rich countries would buy and use more, and countries that wouldn’t usually buy as much because the market price is a bit too high would buy more.
Whatever oil gets pumped will get used, whether by poor countries, rich countries, or those in between. Short term fluctuations in price and demand due to huge changes in policies like they are talking about are irrelevant in the big picture.
Most energy subsidies are in third world countries.
The reduction in oil consumption would reduce price and limit production.
If oil prices remain at $30 the output over 5 years would fall and substantially that would thus reduce consumption.
On a basis of historic cost the volume would be at least 10mmbbl/d.
I suspect on a very long basis say 15 years probably more like 20mmbbl/d
Hello Bill,
you painted the wrong picture, just to connect the dots, the British Government collects 70% of the pump price in taxes ( other countries are all trying for second place ) for the Government its instant cash!
If oil prices remain at $30 the output over 5 years would fall and substantially that would thus reduce consumption.
=================================
nope. low price encourages more consumption. and paradoxically, countries like Saudi that rely on oil revenues, need to pump even more oil when prices are low, to maintain their revenues. Which further drives down the price.
when prices are high, Saudi can cut back on supply and still maintain their revenues, which is the reverse of normal supply and demand. normally high prices increase supply.
Bill: by ‘subsidies’ [they] mean deducting the cost of truck maintenance and repair (for example) as a cost of doing business.
You would never guess that because it is so stupid, but that is where the figure $2.9 trillion comes from. What they means is to stop counting all operating costs as ‘expenses’ because they are now called ‘subsidies’. Geddit? Everything spent in the production of oil would have to come out of ‘profit’ where ‘profit’ is 100% of income. Then the oil companies would be taxed on 100% of gross revenue on the basis that it is ‘profit’. So instead of having 3-5% profit as they do now, all revenue would be treated as profit.
Because this is so stupid and no one above the age of 10 could think it up, everyone reading is excused for not understanding where this ‘subsidy’ cancellation comes from.
The carpenter’s equivalent is that if he builds you a house, his net income for tax purposes is the cost of the house, not the selling price minus the cost of materials and sub-contracted services. Those expenses will be treated as ‘subsidies’ because government presently says they are deductible from gross revenues.
Obviously this will end all exploration, production and distribution of oil products. Applied to the wind, solar and hydro industries, it will bring them to a halt too. Think of the money governments will make!! Ooooh, they are so clevah!
A friend of mine was in Zaire in the early 70’s. Chickens were $5. Someone figured out that if everyone charged $10 per chicken, they would all get rich. So one day all chickens at all markets were $10 and they did indeed get rich, very quickly. See how simple it is? To make a lot of money all you have to do is charge a great deal for a product or service that is worth much less in real terms. Think…windmills.
Oh, it also ended bank robberies. After a while money was worth so little that you had to show up with a dump truck to carry enough money to be worth stealing and it just wasn’t worth the effort. Think: Zimbabwe.
In a commodity glut suppliers usually reduce output by cutting exploration and mothballing production plants. Eventually the glut disappears and prices start to rise again. At which point it is attractive to reopen plants again. The Chinese boom led to a commodity shortage, a big rise in prices which has now become a slump as supply increased and the Chinese demand slowed down. Oil used to be more controlled as the OPEC cartel would vary supply to keep the price up but now we have Saudi Arabia trying to drive US shale and possibly Russian production out of business. However, they might not be able to do this for too much longer as they are causing themselves a budget deficit that is eating up even their reserves of cash.
Subsidies? What subsidies? In Israel we pay 65% tax on every liter! And that is BEFORE VAT…
We need some subsidies, quick!
Oil use in rich countries is quite price-inflexible.
However, oil use in poor countries is reduced by high prices.
So I would expect a reduction in oil company subsidies to cause a reduction in use by the poorest of countries. However, no meaningful change in the wealthier ones.
Once again, a well meaning initiative’s goal ends up doing nothing but hurting the poor.
They don’t care about the poor.
They don’t even care about the environment. Just look at how often their wunderkind solutions cause more damage then the alternative.
…Agenda 21
Come now, let’s get rid of this conspiracy nonsense. Especially “Agenda 21”. The UN doesn’t control the world any more than the Freemasons do. I doubt most people outside of our little circle could even tell you what Agenda 21 IS. Heck, I doubt most of y’all could give an accurate description without looking it up.
Remember that most people are not evil, just wrong. They think they are doing the right thing, but are missing all the unintended consequences of their actions. Many of the rest are just stupid. The only people that I would consider actually evil are: proven frauds especially scientists who fabricated evidence (not the self-deceived, which are hard to distinguish), those engaged in active hypocrisy, and those who actively advocate mass impoverization and genocide.
“Agenda 21” isn’t an answer. It’s a conspiracy theory and an argument dismissal. It’s as bad a conversation-ender as calling someone a “denier”. A valid argument is: “he didn’t think this through”, “the guy’s an idiot, believing that a coral reef can protect an island”, or even “he’s evil and wants people to die so nature can thrive”. That last would be tough to prove but at least would be a basis.
Actually Ben, it isn’t. If you go to the UN website and have a read of the actual documents you will see why people are worried.
The argument is simple, since resources and the ecology are planetary in scope and the actions of one nation will affect others, then there should be a controlling body (unelected) of “specialists” who get to tell nations what they can and cannot do. There will of course be the need for an enforcement arm. 😉
It’s no theory, the UN makes it quite plain and open what the intention is.
Benofhouston-
It’s not a theory, or a conspiracy ben, it’s an actual, real document…all 700 pages of it.
“The UN doesn’t control the world any more than the Freemasons do.”
No one said they did. That does not mean they aren’t trying to.
“I doubt most people outside of our little circle could even tell you what Agenda 21 IS. Heck, I doubt most of y’all could give an accurate description without looking it up.”
Why? Did you have to look it up ben? I doubt most of the people in my “little circle would have to look it up and could tell you exactly what it is. Maybe because where I live, people are trying to actively BAN it from the books, and the people where I live are “into” what’s going on around them.
“It’s as bad a conversation-ender as calling someone a “denier”.
Really? There’s nothing wrong with the word “denier”. It just depends on whether or not the person being called a denier is actually denying something or not doesn’t it? For example, you seem to be attempting to end a conversation about Agenda 21 by calling it a conspiracy theory and equating the very mention of it with something else you think is “bad”. Surely you cant “deny” that.
“Remember that most people are not evil, just wrong.”
“The only people that I would consider actually evil are: proven frauds especially scientists who fabricated evidence (not the self-deceived, which are hard to distinguish), those engaged in active hypocrisy, and those who actively advocate mass impoverization and genocide.”
Have you run the actual numbers ben? How confident are you that “most people” don’t fall into at least one of those categories? Evil is evil. People are people. People are not evil. But a crapping lot of them sure do evil things, whether by accident or intentionally. And both are wrong.
The conspiracy comes when you think it means something. Yeah, the UN has agendas. They have a lot of people and make a lot of documents. They also couldn’t do anything about Syria using chemical weapons on their own people. While they might try to run the world or pretend to do so, the UN doesn’t run anything.
The conspiracy theory comes when you think there is some united front trying to implement this obscure document. It’s a non-binding plan from the Rio climate conference. As far as plans and international diplomacy go, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Half the passages were added specifically to please one member or another, and it’s strength is comparable to single-ply toilet paper.
It’s not in the books because there’s nothing to write about. There’s no grand meeting of people trying to implement this plan in your local city council. Any idea is good or bad on it’s own merits. Trying to tie it to this overriding master plan just makes you look crazy. If it’s a good idea who cares if it helps Agenda 21, do it anyway because it’s a good idea. If it’s a bad idea, then shoot it down based on the facts, not due to any connection to a failed conference.
As far as my conviction that most people are genuinely good, it comes from talking to the other side. Progressives typically have their positions because they want to help people. Most of them are actually quite receptive to ideas, and often they are horrified at the idea of the unintended consequences of their actions. Of course, this presumes they are willing to talk. The ones who think conservatives are satan incarnate probably won’t even listen in the first place.
Donna Laframboise’s analysis is pertinent.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2016/01/28/carbon-taxes-real-misery-imaginary-results/
In fact most of these IMF “subsidies” aren’t subsidies at all in the normal use of that term. The IMF claims that Canada’s fossil-fuel subsidies totalled $45.2 billion in 2015. These subsidies consisted of: global warming – $17.2 billion US; air pollution – $6.05 billion US; congestion – $14.89 billion US; accidents – $2.08 billion US; road damage – $0.88 billion US; foregone consumption tax revenue – $3.54 billion US.
The first two items are model-based guesstimates of fossil-fuel externalities. Congestion, accidents and road damage would occur if electric cars were being used and are obviously not fossil-fuel “subsidies”. None of these items represent the type of direct subsidies which most people associate with the word “subsidies”. This IMF report is political propaganda by an international organization looking to increase its power and influence using climate change hysteria.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
If only people didn’t engage in agriculture… if only there weren’t any people…
That’s the goal of many “envirnomentalists”.
Except for themselves, of course.
exactly….
…Agenda 21
Right. If it weren’t for people and problems this would be a great planet to live on.
I guess some people are never happy. The great vistory in Paris wasn’t good enough for them.
Great victory indeed
i can’t bear any more of stephen hawking’s greatest hits, admad.
doesn’t matter how clever.
“Native forests reduce the frequency and severity of floods”
The U.S.A forests have increased greatly in the last 50 years. Something like 50% more trees on the lower 48. So, again, you’re welcome world.
50% more trees on the lower 48
=====================
they quit cutting them down to burn and switched to coal. Now they are cutting them down again and sending them to the UK for Drax to burn.
The Law of Unintended Consequences rises to bite the Green tails….
You know….you’d think that evolution would have caused them to be born tail-less thousands of years ago…considering how often they die from being bitten there….:)
Well, I’ll agree with their premise that a lot of active projects are misapplied and can leave things worse than they are.
However, their “leave it alone and it will be better” is reminiscent of naturalists prescribing quinine instead of filtered and processed malaria medication. It’s “natural” so it must be better. Even if it is actually better than nothing, claiming that a coral reef is hugely superior to a seawall is simply stupid. If it was, then why would engineers and governments build seawalls, and continue to build more? It’s not like the effectiveness of hurricane protection can be masked.
This is more of the same anti-development naturalism that we’ve seen time and time again.
Coral reefs wouldn’t do a lot for country like the Netherlands. I guess the Dutch engineers and government realize that coral reefs won’t help to protect a lot of their land which is below sea level!
coral reefs able to protect the coastline only grow in the tropics because warming will kill them.
Let all the Greens go to some isolated island and form a society strictly committed to no intervention with ‘nature’.
No agriculture
No clothes
No windmills or solar cells (they also interfere with nature).
etc;etc.
One step further, Let them all form independent cities in several nations and prove the Carbon Free lifestyle.
No Gas, No Oil, No Plastics or other oil derivatives, etc… and let them prove to the rest of the world just how Utopic their vision is. If everyone wants to live there, problem solved. If their energy source doesn’t work, Problem solved (they can Buy their way out) assuming they still have the means of creating wealth.
Presumably, the ‘Carbon-free Lifestyle’ would include adhering strictly to a carbon-free diet.
carbon-free diet
=============
the EPA has ruled that carbs are a pollutant.
carbon free diet – there’s a new black for fashion food enthusiasts
Typo alert!
“From the “I thought is was my heater and air conditioner was the best defense” department and the society of brain-dead wishful group-think at the Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends) comes this stunner of a press release.”
[There are a number of ways of structuring that thought. None are perfect. .mod]
Scratch a warmunist and you’ll find a Malthusian. Every time.
But they never seem to want to go first, do they?
Stone-age conditions are for the little people.
Live in harmony with nature, eating nuts and berries and climbing trees to escape predators and if you’re lucky enough to reach the ripe old age of forty, you’ll be one of the tribe’s “ancient ones”.
Sounds like a suicidal solution.
a suicidal solution
================
try living in the jungle. the bugs will make you wish for death.
ferd
after a few weeks of not bathing and slathering mud all over your body, the bugs will be manageable, almost
Ah, echoes of the Lazlow interview with Reed Tucker in GTA III.
http://www.co2science.org/video/gope2.php : The defence rests.
there is that 97% again, I love that figure.
Ah but this is a more sophisticated ‘average’ of 97% (range 100% to 94%?). How are we going to charge up our cars on windless nights if there’s no wave enery?
Harness the power of your dreams. However, hallucinations have more energy.
Nature has a really bad track record of sustaining a stable climate.
nah that trend is flat no changes at all it were the neanderthals that were smarter then we thought and drove around in cars, flew airplanes and had electricity and lived in cities from which we can dream of and of which Plato made the legend of atlantis…..
it’s all because of us humans 🙂
Every animal that has ever existed strives to modify it’s environment for it’s own benefit.
Some are just better at it than others.
“Co-author Dr James Watson, a lead scientist with WCS and Principle Research Fellow at the University of Queensland…”
I guess he’s all about the principles.
We don’t need pruufreaders or chequers now that we have computerz. Screw attention to detail, that’s a job for the little people!
Where would the world be without the University of Queensland? Flooded with cretins I suppose.
I don’t know much about academics in Australia, but is it possible that “University of Queensland” is merely code for “Morons R Us”? As soon as I see “University of Queensland” I know whatever it discusses will be stupid, irrational, illogical, and pretty much something that could have been written by pot smoking monkeys. Only that’s insulting to monkeys.
Like most universities in Australia they are inhabited by cloistered academics of average intelligence with nothing to do and when some grant money arrives: relevance and a chance for publication.All they ever say is the bleeding obvious( unless they draw wrong conclusions).Welcome to the post-modernist world.
“inhabited by cloistered academics of average intelligence with nothing to do and when some grant money arrives”
Ahhhh. Here in the states we call people like that bureaucrats. Or activists.
Australian academia has an enviable record of excoriating exceptional geologists such as Bob Carter, Sam Carey and Ian Plimer. The only surprise is that a PhD course in Brown-nosing has yet to be established.
Maybe a reactive response, responding to threats we know exit now, is better than reacting to future threats since we have no idea how climate is likely to change in the near or distant future. The climate models have been falsified, responding to [their] output is a fools errand.
Also a little common sense might be in order, such as the cessation of construction in coastal areas that are below sea level.
It is a good thing that you want a little common sense, as it is currently so uncommon.
But if you are an environmentalist you can do no wrong whilst saving the planet.
“Microsoft founder Paul Allen’s yacht accused of damaging Cayman Islands coral”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12128156/Microsoft-founder-Paul-Allens-yacht-accused-of-damaging-Cayman-Islands-coral.html
Wait, confused, I believe the environmentalists who wrote the article just told us that we CAN do wrong while trying to save the planet. Or ourselves. Or both.
Well, this is no “Leonardo di Caprio taking time off from basking on a yacht owned by an oil tycoon to fly to Switzerland to lecture us on how we can save the oceans”, but its pretty funny too.
And by funny I mean pathetically predictable and having no impact on the fanboys and -girls who will hang on his every utterance like he actually knows anything other than the next line that someone else wrote for him.
Even if you are following instructions from a government official:
So we have an environmentalist billionaire actively working to expand the role of government in protecting the environment accused of causing extensive damage as a direct result of following official instructions. The irony is delicious. Don’t expect the Cayman government to apologize and accept responsibility.
When did they last have coral reefs in the vicinity of NYC?
What he actually wants is to kill billions of poor people by depriving them of fuel in order to deprive of food and shelter.
He must stay alive though, to make sure they are dead.
Ok, so who is going to sit Fabius Maximus down and break this to him? No sea walls, no “artificial” climate change preventative measures.
And just exactly HOW do these Giants of Natural Protection think we should go about convincing coral and mangroves to grow in areas in which it’s too freaking cold and too freaking turbulent for them to grow now? For example, off the coast of New York? Where do we find coral and mangroves that can thrive AND protect the East Coast from hurricane force waves?
But wait….where did that last tropical storms devastate those islands which are located near what is called the “coral triangle”? Did they just not have the “wave reducing” coral there? Were their mangroves the wrong kind? Obviously the “in tact” “Nature” hasn’t done a crapping thing to prevent severe weather (not climate) from devastating places in the past…so why do they think it’s going to magically start doing it now?
Oh, and humans are PART OF the biosphere. We’re NATURAL. They just need to think of us as giant ants, who like to tunnel for oil, then burn it for survival, and use it to create almost every conceivable, usable item we can imagine. If humans needed to EAT trees for survival (instead of using them to build houses and other things which help keep us alive) like termites, we’d release a heckofalot more CO2 than our consumption of fossil fuels does, but we’d be destroying the climate NATURALLY, and they’d be ok with that….right?
Someone actually said the other day in a discussion revolving around the law of conservation/mass balance, that out of all the “carbon reservoirs”, humans are the only ones that are a constant source of carbon, and never a sink. I literally laughed until I cried. Humans are MADE of carbon, we’re a natural sink and the more there are of us, the more carbon we “sequester” until we die. I tried to get him to see that the “source” of our fossil fuel carbon is the lithosphere, we get it out of the ground. We don’t make or create carbon out of thin air in our homes at night when no one is looking. And the carbon that is buried in the ground, was once part of the biosphere, just like we are now. It’s all just a cycle. Humans are just participating in the carbon cycle, as naturally as anything else does. When a volcano erupts, it’s tossing massive amounts of sequestered and gas and other things from the lithosphere into the atmosphere. All that carbon then gets recycled back into the other reservoirs-the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the hydrosphere. Eventually, it all ends up back in the lithosphere again because plants eat it, humans and animals eat the plants, humans eat some of the animals, or other animals eat them, and in the end, we all end up as decay either at the bottom of the oceans or absorbed into the ground on land.
The entire idea that humans are “un-natural”, that we are doing something foreign or alien by participating in the natural carbon cycle is idiotic, unscientific, and completely unenlightened at it’s very foundation. For example-Trees and plants that should not be growing in certain places ARE, because birds and other animals consumed their seeds and “naturally” RELOCATED them elsewhere, in other habitats. But if humans relocate trees or transplant things in other areas, we are “destroying and unnatural.” Earthquakes tear the earth apart, tectonics grind and subduct it, volcanoes melt and burn and release it’s properties back into the environment “naturally”. But if humans tear into it, or grind it up to make concrete, or melt and burn and release it back into the environment-its UNnatural. Alien. Wrong.
How is it that the most sentient, advanced species on this planet has arrived at a place in which it no longer views itself as PART of the natural, carbon based cycle of life from which it originated?
Because we are ancient aliens.
Bang on.
Start with religion.
What religion claims humans are some kind of alien creatures that do not belong on Earth?
Ditto what Reality Check asked. Which religion teaches that? Except maybe the The Great Church of AGW?
“The authors say that in […] Canada, conservation reserves are being used as drought relief to feed livestock,”
They are?? Where? Why haven’t I heard of it here in Canada but they know all about it in Queensland?
This Canadian drought “issue” should be looked into.
I suppose they would be in favor of blowing up the dikes surrounding the Netherlands and let nature take it’s course. Keep all those tulips from sucking that co2 out of the air.
There are almost no fossil fuel subsidies except within OPEC (e.g. venezuela, saudi arabia, iran). That is an old warmunist canard. Depletion allowances, depreciation,and the like are not subsidies. Federal mineral rights are auctioned to the highest bidder.
OTH, there are most definitely subsidies (PTC, federally guaranteed loans, feed in tarrifs, …) for renewbles and biofuels (e.g. DRAX woodchips now being investigated by the EU as excessive). Because without them there would be no wind, solar, or biofuels, as Spain has just proven.
” could leave people worse off ”
Don’t you love the word could.
” could reach 100 billion per year”
oh for could, for could..
” may leave us worse off ”
thank goodness for a may.
” Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good ”
If only we would return to slash and burn practices, or better yet, let’s all starve to death. Protecting nature… don’t look at the hidden agenda behind the green curtain… is the highest and most important goal.
Too bad they aren’t saying what leaves us better off. I have quite a few ideas on what will leave us better off.