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.
It’s simple to understand this ideology:
If a human builds a dam. That is interfering with the natural flow of a river.
Interfering with rivers is bad.
Also if a human interferes with a population of beavers then that too is bad.
Because beavers build dams.
And so disturbing beavers interferes with activities of a creature which interferes with the flow of rivers.
And interfering with the flow of rivers is, in this case, good.
Nope – wait a minute – I’ve already completely confused myself.
indefatigablefrog
But blocking waters with dams is bad, because then the slowly released fresh water downstream into brackish waters in the delta and river mouth must be kept constant all seasons of all years because otherwise the salt water would be present in too strong a ratio when the rivers do not flow in drought years like they didn’t flow during drought years before the dams were built, but did flood with fresh water causing too little salt in the no-longer brackish delta waters when the floods came before the dams were built.
Right?
Yes, not allowing nature to occasionally and quite randomly create a catastrophic flood is quite obviously bad.
The people must learn to become victims so that the state apparatus can rescue them repeatedly in a dramatic but ineffectual fashion.
Or occasionally abandon them to misfortune in order to demonstrate the urgent need for more state sponsored climate manipulation.
Leave “nature” alone. Allow the “natural planet” arrive at its “carrying capacity” for technologically advanced bushmen and you will have achieved a monstrous murder of most of humanity which will certainly have consequences for the rest of the biosphere as the population collapse results in the sort of desperation the AGW crowd claim is the result of “climate change”
It’s beyond idiotic as a proposal for modern society. Such stupidity won’t result in some dystopian “Mad Max” or Hunger games world it will finally result in world war and emerging from that, my friends, republican democracy is unlikely to survive and the “great experiment” in true Constitutional government will be over.
Fossilsage,
It’s over now. Most of what the US government does is not authorized in the Constitution, unless you are a believer that the congress is authorized under the “promote the general welfare” line to do whatever they wish. Or that the POTUS can do whatever he wants without congress. Or that the Supreme Court can “interpret” modificatios of the bill of rights that expressly say “may not be infringed”.
The problem with the best systems Man has devised is that there are people involved…and we know what stinkers they can be!
“….it will finally result in world war and emerging from that, my friends, republican democracy is unlikely to survive and the “great experiment” in true Constitutional government will be over.”
Yeah well. That’s your opinion, and it may very well be accurate, but its certainly not the only possibility. For example, Christians aren’t worried about it, because it’s prophesied that upon such catastrophe, God will return and a true Utopia will begin. Most religions bear a similar theme. So what’s a little turmoil and upheaval if that’s the end result? It should also be noted that the “religious right” in the US tend to be extremely well armed, prepping in advance, and resigned to the idea of an end of days type conflict. So either way, it’s win-win for them.
Should God not return, preppers and other self reliant folks will still most likely be the last ones standing because of their preparation and expectation of such world events. Liberals and others who don’t own guns or stock ammo, can’t take care of themselves without government intervention, and have little to no “out door” survival experience will be the first to die-most likely attempting to get “stuff” that belongs to the prepared ones. Cities dominated by such types, like New York, will consume themselves with violence and greed and panic quickly. Cities in which there is a more down to earth, survivalist mentality, will most likely ban together to create strongholds.
So you never know. If the majority that’s left ends up being strong willed, patriotic, liberty minded people-it might be a whole lot easier to conduct that “great experiment” the next time around because there might be a whole lot less opposition to it in the future. Or not.
I’ve always found it kind of amusing/ironic/puzzling that people who don’t believe in “God” or “Christianity” are always trying to undermine it, or talk people who do, out of their beliefs. If you are of the mindset that there is nothing but this life and then death, no hope for a better place or existence, no eternal reward for spending one’s life trying to be nice, kind, selfless, and charitable….why on earth would you want to convince everyone ELSE of that? I mean seriously. Look at the current state of humanity even WITH a large number of people who ARE supposedly religious! Are we not rapidly trending into increased incivility, greed, lust, and depravity? Reason would dictate that the LAST thing you want to do is talk people out something that is supposed to help them overcome their more primal, fallen, carnal tendencies! I mean sure, you could HOPE that the collapse of religions would result in humanity realizing that this one planet is all we have and we should work together to preserve it and treat each other with grace and love. But is that a rational, logical expectation based on the current state of humanity? I don’t think it is! I think what would result is all of the former, mediocre-in-name-only religious people suddenly realizing “Wait…what? No God? Nothing after this? Well then, I’m going to get what is MINE now and screw everyone else because if there’s no reward in the afterlife, then there’s also no punishment either!”
It seems like the CAGW people don’t really think things through with reason and logic either. For example, they make public statements so the effect that “skeptics” are stupid, selfish, idiots who are being paid by big oil to spread misinformation. But they don’t think that through to all, if any, of the most obvious and logical conclusions…
1) if big oil really WAS paying people to spread information, then the LAST THING they should be doing is ANNOUNCING that fact, because there are millions of stupid, selfish, idiots who could care less about science or the planet in the first place, who would SIGN UP IMMEDIATELY to work for “big oil”.
2) if you convince the public that people will say ANYTHING if you pay them enough money, then you’ve just convinced the public that SCIENTISTS (who they insist are people too) will say ANYTHING if you pay them enough money!
3) If big oil WAS going to “buy people to promote their selfish agenda”, it would be CHEAPER and easier to purchase a handful of prominent scientists, (or heck….put 100 people through college until they get PhD’s in science, pull strings to get those people into positions at NASA and NOAA etc) and simply “change the paradigm/consensus” overnight than it would be to purchase and police and instruct hundreds of thousands of bloggers and talking heads and people who post online! As “evil ” as they think big oil is, they certainly cant think big oil is as STUPID or inefficient with their money as THAT plan would be.
4) if you write peer reviewed papers highlighting how disturbing and insane people are who believe in conspiracy theories…the last thing you want to do…yourself….is engage in and perpetuate a conspiracy theory about “big oil” and “right wing think tanks” paying members of the public to lie for them!
That’s why it’s so obvious that John Cook and Gang are either independent idiots on a fool’s errand, or useful idiots working for other idiots, because nothing they produce is well thought out, and so often results in them just digging a fresh hole while trying to infill an old one. It boggles the mind.
” It boggles the mind.”
That’s evident. But that has to be a complete accident, right?
You even have said it elicits physical reactions from you.
Pavlov had similar accidents with a drooling dog.
Really? It’s like being followed around by a giggling 8 year old girl waiting for me to repeat a bad word out loud. If you’d like to insinuate that I said something that contradicts something else I said, then please, just get on with it. State it in clear, precise words and I will happily address the issue. If I did, I’ll correct that. If I didn’t, I’ll explain myself and try not to mock you for being pest on top of misinterpreting what I said.
See how simple grown up conversations should be?
Here gnomehead- here’s the comment I think you are referring to for easy reference.
“John, we HAVE BEEN inoculated. We’ve all had our full series of BULLCRAP shots, so we’re perfectly and totally immune to it. I know it’s your hearts desire to “infect” us all with the malicious disease you and your clubhouse friends suffer from, but it’s no use. The moment you open your mouths, or press letter keys with your fingers, powerful antibodies start surging through our veins.
Most of us also have physical reactions to just seeing your names in print. Revulsion, hives, uncontrollable laughter, headaches, and nausea are common, as well as Tourette like outbursts involving words like “idiot” “stupid” “invalid” “hilarious”.”
I’m waiting…
yes, that’s the quote.
my contention is that it’s done deliberately to achieve the result it does achieve.
you dispute my contention.
and yet, here we are again, among the walls of text in response to the lews and cooks.
so even if you have a very good grasp of the principles of logic, somebody has taken away your self possession to the degree that you resort to playground insult.
even if i’m wrong – even if the systematic chain yanking is accidental- you will still benefit by recognition that chains are being yanked and that you lose control of yourself when they decide to do it.
later, if you think about it – you might ask, after so many such ‘accidents’, whether somebody is aware of the cause and effect.
and also, you might realize that i’m not the one yanking your chain.
i am drawing attention to these strings and it’s your choice to cut them or be a puppet.
I think that’s honorable. if an 8 year old girl were able to do that, i’d admire her greatly for the effort, whether successful or not.
you’re welcome.
“yes, that’s the quote.”
Thought so.
“my contention is that it’s done deliberately to achieve the result it does achieve. you dispute my contention.”
“Of course I dispute it. Any rational person would. You cannot prove your contention is true. It MIGHT be, but it also equally might not be.”
“and yet, here we are again, among the walls of text in response to the lews and cooks.
so even if you have a very good grasp of the principles of logic, somebody has taken away your self possession to the degree that you resort to playground insult.”
I call it like I see it. If you find 8 year old giggling girls to be an insult, that’s on you. To me, they are merely annoying, and based on the evidence you provide here, my analogy was spot on. Offering another personal opinion (that someone has taken away my self possession) is merely another example of flawed logic.
“even if i’m wrong” (yeah….we’re making progress) – even if the systematic chain yanking is accidental- you will still benefit by recognition that chains are being yanked and that you lose control of yourself when they decide to do it.”
Here’s the thing, as a self possessed person, I can express myself any way I wish to without “losing control” of myself. I don’t CARE if they are, or are not, yanking my chains. I have the right to speak freely and express my OPINIONS just like you do.
“later, if you think about it – you might ask, after so many such ‘accidents’, whether somebody is aware of the cause and effect. and also, you might realize that i’m not the one yanking your chain.”
Again, the “chain yanking” is entirely theoretical at this point isn’t it? And allowing someone else’s chain yanking, whether real or imaginary, to control what I say or don’t say would indeed indicate that someone had possession of me other than myself! How circular can your reasoning be without making you dizzy?
“I am drawing attention to these strings and it’s your choice to cut them or be a puppet.”
Good for me! But guess what, not only do I have the choice to cut them, or ignore them or deny them, but I also have the choice to call your assumptions arrogant AND illogical, because they are. (and paranoid and very conspiracy theorist)
“I think that’s honorable.”
Again, we are very different people. Even if I thought that your arguments were perfectly sane and reasonable, I’d still find your compulsion to tell me what I should or should not do to be arrogant and creepy. Honor is earned, not assumed. What evidence have you given me or anyone else that you are an “honorable” person in the first place?
if an 8 year old girl were able to do that, i’d admire her greatly for the effort, whether successful or not.”
At least everyone naturally expects a giggling 8 year old girl’s rationale to be immature and unskilled. I surely wouldn’t take advice from one.
no, Aphan.
too much displacement; too many exclamation points; too many impertinent adjectives; too many scare quotes; too many straw men – just too much squid ink.
go help oliver – he needs a drum major for his parade.
And we should return Manhattan Island to the Native Americans.
And then they should return it to a mile thick sheet of ice…
Why would you want to do that to the Native Americans? What have they ever done to you? :p
the native americans were actually not native and had traveled to north america from asia.
The journey of Humankind through the Holocene appears to have been a relatively ‘easy’ ride. ‘Natural adaptation’ aided with nous seems to have managed quite well. Were the Holocene to terminate in an Ice Age, the Green chancre would be cured. When NGO (aka UN “Civil Society”) worker drones in academic institutions talk endlessly about axiomatic ‘climate change’ and adapting to it, they mean their new well funded order would be far less difficult were people to simply accept the unadulterated view of the ‘natural order’ of things, promoted by the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda, UNEP divestment policies and the UN Social and Economic Council. They never fail to betray themselves.
With all the money we’ve wasted on the problem of Climate Change already, we could’ve built a bunch of desalinization plants and turned the Sahara desert into the Sahara Oasis. Which, incidentally, would consume far more CO2 than any of the proposed solutions to date.
Pete I just listen to question period opening of parliament house of commons Canada today. The first number of question was Bla Bla Bla green house gases and climate change. I want to [throw] up.
Russell, Thanks!!!
Hey, at least it deflects attention from other, more important issues…
But…but….that wouldn’t be leaving nature intact!!!! 🙂
I think we can be pretty certain that the vast amounts of money being squandered on climate change will leave most people worse off, but some people considerably better off.
“A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year …”.
================================
The paper referred to has taken on a life similar to that 97% Cook paper, authored by another Australian sad to say; it is mentioned time and time again by the usual suspects as if it has the authority of the IMF when it clearly carries the disclaimer: “This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate”.
Forbes pulls it apart here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-imfs-absurd-calculations-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-its-really-not-2200-for-every-american/#15d12ded73ad
I notice these quacks are referred to as “Dr.” I didn’t realize they gave degrees – doctorates no less, in Stupid.
Where have you been Bruce? They’ve given doctorates in Social Science and Liberal Arts for as long as I can remember. (grin)
Here’s a perfect example of the brilliant ideologically motivated plans of eco-tards.
This is the chosen eco-tard response to the severe Somerset floods of 2014.
The floods which occurred were not “flash floods” and so this proposed solution has no relevance.
The floods of 2014 were the result of sustained rainfall and sustained over-topping from drainage channels over a period of two months. Channels which had been allowed to clog with silt over the prior 20 years due to the suspension of dredging works. Which in turn was due to the interference of eco-tards.
Here in all it’s glory is the brilliant solution offered up by the same bunch of eco-tards who through their own ineptitude caused the 2014 flood. Here it is – leaky dams. That’s their brilliant idea:
https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/795946/dd_project_leaflet.pdf
“Here in all it’s glory is the brilliant solution offered up by the same bunch of eco-tards who through their own ineptitude caused the 2014 flood. Here it is – leaky dams. That’s their brilliant idea:”
Stephen Stewandpoutsky says that leakage is bad. Very bad. He will not be happy about this.
Lew seems to think that “hiatus” leaked from the skeptics to the climatologists.
Whereas as a skeptic I would really prefer “plateau”.
Since a skeptic would not assert that the upward trend was sure to continue once the “plateau” has concluded.
So, he has is leakage flowing in the wrong direction.
I think that it was very considerate of us to adopt the word “hiatus” from the warmists who clearly invented it.
They would have really hated “plateau”.
This part made me laugh out loud-
“Historically-Woody debris dams that occurred naturally were removed because they were believed to
impair fish migration and cause local flooding.
Now -We are seeking to reintroduce leaky woody debris, as research has shown that they are essential
to stream health, for aquatic wildlife and for natural flood management.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
It made me laugh, too.
I really would like to meet with these people and see if they will let me chop down some trees for them.
If they are willing to pay me to dump some trees into a brook then I’ll happily take the money.
Then once I’m paid I’ll use the opportunity to explain to them that the problems of flooding will only be solved not by leaky debris – but by DRAAAAINAGE…
I’ll tell them this in the style of Daniel Day Lewis.
That would be the best day of my life:
If governments weren’t squandering money on climate hype and faux “renewable” scams the governments could just do their jobs of taking care of infrastructure.
Don’t even credit the nonsense about fossil fuel subsidies. These are business expenses, depreciation, resource depletion allowances needing funds for replacement to stay in business…..Similar to many resource and manufacturing industries.
http://oilpro.com/q/675/how-many-people-work-in-the-oil-and-gas-industry-globally
The industry in the US alone, employed (2011) 2.6million and with direct and indirect impacts, a total 10million Americans. With salaries and benefits plus the value added side of the business, $1.8trillion. This sector pays governments in income taxes ~25% of this, say, $450 Billion.
In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, or ~315 billion gallons from which government collected over 50c/gallon or $160Billion more in excise taxes.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
Now this fuel was used for trucking, air transport, railways, ships and small vehicles in businesses and private citizens going places to buy things, go on holidays, etc. How much is that worth?!!!
The auto industry makes cars and trucks…….
I haven’t included gas or coal employment and impact
What does the Oil industry get out of the sales – well they gross under $40 a barrel today so we’re talking $1.00 gross/gallon. Times are tough these days so their costs must be the best part of that – lets say 75c/gal. although I think it’s more. So their take is about half what the government gets!
Finally, how much revenue would WWF, Greaspeen and the rest of the multibillion dollar green activist club
from all this when we return to nature. Don’t be too hasty in your reply
27 Jan: BBC: Mark Kinver: Climate compensation schemes ‘failing to reach poorest’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35409903
solution? pay everyone:
Global Environment Change: Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’ people? Lessons from Madagascar
Open Access funded by Natural Environment Research Council
Madagascar has a number of REDD+ pilot projects with World Bank support including the Corridor Ankeniheny-Zahamena (CAZ). Nearly two thousand households around the corridor have been identified as ‘project affected persons’ (PAPs) and given compensation. We compare households identified as project affected persons with those not identified. We found households with more socio-political power locally, those with greater food security, and those that are more accessible were more likely to be identified as eligible for compensation while many people likely to be negatively impacted by the REDD+ project did not receive compensation…
We suggest that in cases where the majority of households are likely to bear costs and identification of affected households is challenging, the optimal, and principled, strategy may be blanket compensation offered to all the households in affected communities; avoiding the dead weight costs of ineffective safeguard assessments…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801630005X
Reform Party : Harper will make a return, separation anxiety will be back on the agenda thanks to the Greens. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan outraged, demanding their 10 billion dollars back. The federal government makes equalization payments to less wealthy Canadian provinces like Quebec. The City of Montreal opposes Pipe Line East through Quebec, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make it so difficult with environmental restriction it will never happen.
All written from their climate adapted buildings with aircon, electricity, man-made gardens of non-native plants and wearing climate adapting clothing.
YOU JOHN! You! Are NOT signing Kumbaya LOUD enough!
If they want to protect forests they should be campaigning against bio fuels. The felling of tropical forests to grow palm oil is the major threat to them today. Madagascar is the next big source of Palm Oil with jungle being cleared at an unprecedented rate. The greens seem happy with this but have campaigned against the development of their oil and coal reserves.
Two points:
1). They can get rid of all the freakin’ windmills then.
2). “Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends)…” They have friends?
Earth First, ALF, ELF, PeTA, Environmental Defense Fund, etc. etc.
Nope, I said friends, not partners in crime. 😀
I stand corrected.
They are of the kind that eat their young.
Gunga Din, I can’t stop laughing! Except these days, they are of the kind that refuse to have young because the world is such an evil place. Or we’re killing the planet. Or something. But who cares…it means less of them! WOOHOO
“The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year”. That’s cheap compared to what’s being wasted on renewables.
No one needs to adapt. Adaptation isn’t a strategy. Adapt, or die. It’s not a tactic either. It’s something an organism does or it doesn’t. Live free or die hard 🙂
“……..while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought.”
Now that’s rather odd. I could have sworn that people grow more food in response to the need to feed themselves. However, who am I to argue with somebody (Dr. Tara Martin) who has a PhD. LOL.
Although I do consider myself a conservationist and care about the Earth’s wildlife, people who are way too emotionally wrapped up in the “Save-the-Earth” ideology really make me laugh sometimes with the irrational things that they say.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you to “just look out the window!”? I get that one all the time. Looks just like it did 30 years ago here. 🙂
“……..while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought.”
Yeah, she’s a bright star ain’t she? But I LOVED the “drought” thing…if there’s enough water in the Congo basin to grow crops with…and water enough to grow forests with…then there can’t be a drought in the Congo basin! Idiots. The problem isn’t drought, it’s poor, unsustainable farming practices on top of an increasing population.
I really must apologise to everyone. Apparently a gigantic amount of stupid was inserted into the UQ water system.
I will be asking about how an individual who is paid by the Queensland Government can also be a lead researcher for a lobby group. It would be nice to know that his work for the lobby group hasn’t been paid for by the taxpayer. That he identifies himself as a lobbyist first and a University researcher second it a telling point.
Redistributive change and pro-choice/abortion. Capital control and democratic (i.e. human) suppression.
[???? .mod]
unless “carbon-sucking forests” bring on another little ice age
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/27/did-spains-us-conquest-trigger-the-little-ice-age/
CSIRO and University of Queensland? Oh dear Cane toad, Cook and Lewpaper? Yet another worthless study!!!!