While numbers can lie, these look pretty compelling to me. My question is, why are we still arguing with the deniers. Let’s just write them off as an unfortunate failure of our school systems and start working with the well informed on the solutions. Think globally and act locally is a good place to start. Let’s get the kids involved, and not as canon fodder, but as leaders. They are smarter than us and they have a lot more at stake.
Sorry about the original posting…I posted the comment on the article from my smart phone and it “corrected” my spelling to make my comment unintelligible. Here is what I meant to say.
It is sad that, because of ill informed or ill intentioned climate change deniers, we are just now getting around to acknowledging formally that human activities are implemented in the changes to the global climate. The need to be “balanced” means that we have spent an inordinate amount of time defending the proven and discussing the ridiculous. It is not time to move on to finding a solution to the problems.
But, better late than never.
The Australian Academy of Science says man-made climate change is real and the consequences will be dire if no action is taken to address it.
The academy, in an update to its science of climate change booklet produced in 2010, says its authoritative account of the science behind global warming will help counter confusion and misinformation.
The update is written and reviewed by 17 of Australia’s leading experts in a range of climate-related sciences.
Earth’s climate has changed over the past century. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, and glaciers and ice sheets have decreased in size.
The best available evidence, the scientists say, indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.
I just read an interesting paper from the MIT Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and it had some interesting things to say about bio-fuels and politics. The paper Some Inconvenient Truths About Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies (August 2011), by Stephen P. Holland, Jonathan E. Hughes Christopher R. Knittel and Nathan C. Parker is a technical paper where they reflect on the relationship that exists between various forms of carbon emission reductions that rely on subsidised biofuels and voting patterns in the United States.
The paper compares the costs to reduce greenhouse gasses of three different policy choices against the Cap and Trade (CAT) option, which does not subsidize the production of biofuels. They show CAT as the lowest cost alternative in terms of dollars per unit of carbon reduction but find that the higher cost options are frequently adopted. They go on to show that the subsidized options, though more expensive, produce the highest potential for private gain, while CAT produces the highest potential for carbon emission reduction per dollar spent.
While the article does not answer the question posed in the title, it does seem to conclude that if private interests were taken out of the equation, we could get better carbon reduction bang for our bucks if we adopted a cap and trade system rather than any of the subsidized bio-fuel alternatives.
The article is a bit technical, but it is still written in such a way that most informed readers can take something away from it. It is also nice to see that these issues are being discussed by institutions such as MIT.
- Response #1: Sustainable bio fuels are closer than you think. (envirowriters.wordpress.com)