Alex White » carbon emissions

China’s Carbon Emissions: A Thinking Point at CPD

Alex — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 05:21:01 +0000

The Centre for Policy Development has kindly published my Thinking Point on how we can understand China’s carbon emissions conundrum.

A scene from Shanghai in 2008

Alexander White tackles two issues that seem too hard for our political system to handle: China and climate change. China’s response to climate change has shaped the course of climate negotiations. They were accused of stymieing negotiations at Copenhagen, and conservatives have used China’s reticence to adopt binding carbon reduction targets as an excuse for taking no action at all. But as China becomes the world’s largest carbon polluter, it is also on track to become the largest global producer of renewable energy. It’s a catch-22 for the Chinese Government – continued growth is essential to reduce domestic poverty, while the effects of climate change threaten its national security.

What is motivating the Chinese leadership and what can Australia do?

Read the entire Thinking Point at CPD and don’t forget to sign up to their updates.

Climatologists vs. meteorologists

Alex — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:08:29 +0000

I wrote a few months ago that in the United States, TV weathermen are increasingly skeptical about climate change, while at the same time being highly trusted on the issue by the public.

This is despite many TV weathermen not having a degree relating to their on-screen activities (the days of meteorologists being hired by TV companies seems to be over).

The New York Times reports on the latest instance of this skepticism:

The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists — especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. Meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns, are not so sure.

Joe Bastardi, for example, a senior forecaster and meteorologist with AccuWeather, maintains that it is more likely that the planet is cooling, and he distrusts the data put forward by climate scientists as evidence for rising global temperatures.

The split however is not just from TV weather personalities however, but from actual TV meteorologists. Apparently, the cause of the skepticism is linked to the different weather tracking methodologies.

Yet, climate scientists use very different scientific methods from the meteorologists. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist who straddled the two worlds when she worked at the Weather Channel, noted that meteorologists use models that are intensely sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere but have little accuracy more than seven days out. As a result, Dr. Cullen said, meteorologists are often dubious about the predictions made by climate scientists, who use complex models to estimate the effects of climate trends decades in the future.

I’m not aware of any polling done in Australia of TV weathermen (or weatherwomen), but I would hope that they are less likely to be climate deniers than their US brethren.

However, the key for me is the trust. In the US, weathermen are more likely to be trusted on issues relating to the climate than other people, including well-known personalities like Al Gore or Sarah Palin. It seems to me that in Australia, climate action groups may want to survey and (if necessary) educate TV weathermen.

UPDATE:

Climate Progress has written about this exact topic.

The reason I am repeating this basic fact for the umpteenth time — see “Are meteorologists climate experts?” — is that the former paper of record has once again equated people who don’t know about climate science with people who do (see “NYT Faces Credibility Siege over Unbalanced Climate Coverage“).

My point (and not really covered in the Climate Progress article, which focuses on why the mainstream media are giving credibility to non-experts) is that TV weathermen are amongst the most trusted by Americans on climate change. This makes it very important for climate change activists and organisations to focus on education (especially at universities and colleges). Cross-disciplinary education is also essential (to get those journalism students – who make up around half of the TV weathermen).

Closer to dangerous tipping points: Arctic emissions increase

Alex — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:44:45 +0000

A new report shows that carbon emissions from the Arctic have increased dramatically:

ARCTIC emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped 30 per cent in recent years in a worrying hint that global warming might unlock vast stores frozen in permafrost, scientists say.

The 30.6 per cent rise in emissions from the Arctic from 2003-2007, to about 4.2 million tonnes, was the biggest percentage gain for any region of the world’s wetlands in the study in the journal Science with colleagues in Scotland and the Netherlands.

“It’s too early to call it a trend but if it continues this way there will be serious implications,” said Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University in Scotland who was among authors of the study of methane emissions from wetlands.

This dangerous increase takes us closer to dangerous tipping points.

Tipping points in climate change are points of no return of significant, irreversible change to our climate. They can start positive feedback loops, exacerbating and hastening even more climate change.

A well-known tipping point is the melting of the permafrost and tundra in the Arctic circle. Billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane are trapped in the ice in the Arctic. If these greenhouse gasses were released, it could send us over a tipping point.

Many scientists say that we will reach this tipping point if we reach or exceed 2 degrees Celsius in warming.

Weathermen amongst most trusted authorities on climate change; many are skeptics

Alex — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:52:34 +0000

Columbia Journalism Review reports a worrying fact: a significant number of US weathermen on TV believe climate change is a scam, and two thirds of Americans trust weathermen for information about climate change.

Coleman’s crusade caught the eye of Kris Wilson, an Emory University journalism lecturer and a former TV news director and weatherman himself, and Wilson got to wondering. He surveyed a group of TV meteorologists, asking them to respond to Coleman’s claim that global warming was a scam. The responses stunned him. Twenty-nine percent of the 121 meteorologists who replied agreed with Coleman not that global warming was unproven, or unlikely, but that it was a scam.* Just 24 percent of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the change in climate over the past half century, half were sure this wasn’t true, and another quarter were “neutral” on the issue. “I think it scares and disturbs a lot of people in the science community,” Wilson told me recently. This was the most important scientific question of the twenty-first century thus far, and a matter on which more than eight out of ten climate researchers were thoroughly convinced. And three quarters of the TV meteorologists Wilson surveyed believe the climatologists were wrong.

Some other worrying facts highlighted by Charles Homans:

Only 17% of weather reporters have a graduate degree of any kind, while only half had a degree in meteorology or similar.
Only scientists outrank weathermen as more authoritative on climate change.
Just 18% of Americans know a scientist.
99% of Americans own a TV.
John Coleman is a well known climate skeptic who founded The Weather Channel (he doesn’t work there now).
85 million people watched The Weather Channel in 2008.

Read the entire article here.

(Via Sean Kidney.)

What if it's a hoax?

Alex — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:59:08 +0000

From USA Today.

A funny cartoon, with a serious message. Many politicians and leaders don’t understand the benefits of switching to a low carbon economy.

Shifting to a low carbon economy and embracing ecologically sustainable development will bring untold benefits for humanity, and for Australians.

There is no doubt about the science of climate change, and the predictions of dire consequences if we don’t act.

Skeptics should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. They should think: “even if climate change is not real, or not as bad as scientists are warning, we should still have an ambition of a sustainable, clean future for our planet and our children”.

Explaining cap and trade

Alex — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:33 +0000

An interesting little video from the creators of the Story of Stuff, this has an explanation of how “cap and trade” (emissions trading) works, and the major pitfalls with the system.

Unfortunately, the video is one of those preachy, moralising videos that is full of criticisms but no solutions. The closest it comes is proposing a “simple carbon tax”, without recognising that a carbon tax has as many policy hurdles as carbon trading (just look at tax avoidance and minimisation by big companies as it stands).

Media beat up, part I

Alex — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:10:00 +0000

I recently had a debate with a friend about new media versus old media. One of the points I made was that journalists at major newspapers and TV stations are just as likely as PR spin doctors and politicians to be pushing a line. Furthermore, I argued that journalists “beat up” stories to get copy into the paper, emphasising minor differences and turning them into major divisions.

This was on show during the recent Federal Liberal Party leadership crisis and the dumping of Nathan Rees as NSW premier. The Press Gallery in Canberra was willingly a part of the Minchin/Abetz machine that ruthlessly white-anted Turnbull. What was even more telling was that the “insider” journalists were often no more informed than observers on Twitter.

A case in point that is particularly close to my heart at the moment is a recent story in The Australian: Union revolts over ETS.

The story is about the union I work for, the NTEU, which at its recent National Council, passed a motion calling for a minimum 40% cuts to carbon emissions in Australia, and for the “abandonment” of the CPRS. The motion ends announcing that the NTEU will work with the ACTU and others to promote this position. There is a separate motion that says the NTEU will work with the ACTU and ACF’s Climate Connector campaign.

Somehow, this simple motion (which was passed in early November without comment by the media) has turned into “breaking ranks” with the ACTU.

Now, perhaps I’ve got rosy-coloured glasses on, but my understanding was that the ACTU didn’t support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but rather saw it (like the Fair Work Act) as the “only option on the table” and thus better than nothing.

“The settlement between the Rudd Government and the opposition has sadly been driven by business self-interest in many areas, however the basic architecture to drive carbon abatement remains intact,” said ACTU President Sharan Burrow.

Now, of course, the NTEU has proposed development of carbon pollution reduction policies that do not “primarily rely on market mechanisms”. This does seem to me to be “breaking ranks” or a “revolt”.

It does however come at a time when the Rudd Government is being heavily criticised by the Opposition over its CPRS. It comes at a time when emissions trading has been put under sustained pressure and attack by climate change denialists.

The Australian is an avowed “campaigning” newspaper. The article’s author, Ewin Hannan has long experience (at The Age and then The Australian) covering politics and industrial relations. I can only assume he gets the ACTU media releases. I can only assume he read the NTEU’s policy motion. I can only assume he has an understanding of how unions, union conferences, and union policy motions work.

I cannot see how the NTEU’s motion turns into a “revolt”. Except of course, if there was a “line” being pushed.

Most subsidies still go to dirty, polluting fossil fuels

Alex — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:34:38 +0000

Another report from the New York Times tells how in the US, most government subsidies for energy research goes to polluting fossil fuels and unsafe nuclear energy:

Despite a lot of promises, no one so far has wanted to pay the extra costs to make wind and solar more than a trivial energy source. Research is uncertain and expensive, and the benefits seem far away.

So while all kinds of domestic energy technologies are being advanced in the name of energy independence, most of the money and attention are still focused on the dirty but cheaper standbys: offshore oil, oil sands and coal, in all its various incarnations, from straight out of the pit to black-coal liquid.

â€œYou have fossil fuels competing with renewable fuels,â€ said Benjamin Kroposki, a senior scientist at the Renewable Energy Laboratory. â€œRenewables lose every time.â€

One example is the shotgun approach to tax incentives, loan guarantees and other spending in the 2005 energy act, the first major energy legislation enacted by Congress in a decade: $13.1 billion for oil, gas and coal, $12 billion for nuclear energy and $7.7 billion divided up among a wide assortment of renewables like ethanol, hydroelectric, wind and solar.

Now that they are in control of Congress, Democrats have promised to increase the amount going to renewable energy sources, taking the money from tax breaks for oil companies.

But even additional money for renewable energy will be going up against government tax policies that encourage more energy consumption. Companies can still deduct purchases of sport utility vehicles and utility bills, for example, while consumers get a break to build bigger homes with deductions for interest payments on mortgages, even on second homes, that far outweigh their energy saving credits.

Meanwhile, fuel efficiency standards for automobiles have changed only slightly over the decades, and the federal government still does not have a building code to encourage energy efficiency.

The graphic (from NYT) shows that fossil fuels are projected to rise significantly, while renewables remain well below the levels the world (and the US) need to reach by 2020 and 2030.

(Via Sean Kidney.)

Coalition ETS amendments shows denalists have won

Alex — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:35 +0000

The amendments proposed by the Coalition (really, the Liberal Party, since the Nationals outright oppose any ETS) are simply a way to divert more money to heavy polluters and will do nothing for the environment.

If the amendments are accepted, the already compromised CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Australia’s cap and trade scheme) will achieve absolutely nothing except the enrichment of the carbon-lobby.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has recently released a summary of the changes:

The changes would see the Australian government handing out $10 billion in compensation for coal-fired electricity generators, and would require them to buy less carbon permits than proposed under the governments CPRS.

Other changes proposed under the Coalition amendments include:

excluding emissions from coal mines and moving to permanently ban the inclusion of agriculture in any trading scheme

Huge concessions to trade-exposed polluting industries “ starting at 94.5 per cent free permits, then 90 per cent by 2015. These concessions to remain in force until at least 80 per cent of the industries’ international competitors are faced with a carbon price

allowing farmers to make money out of the scheme by creating offsets, while excluding them from paying for their emissions

free permits to be given to food processors such as meat and milk producers

…

The Australian Conservation Foundation conducted its own analysis of the scheme which indicated the Opposition amendments would cost $8.9 billion over the first five years of the scheme in additional compensation. That includes an extra $3 billion in free permits to heavy-polluting industries and $4.6 billion for coal-fired electricity generators.

The ACF estimated $4.8 billion in revenue would also be lost under Coalition plans to exclude emissions from coal mining. It said if the amendments were accepted, the first year of the scheme would cost the budget $402 million, as opposed to a $775 million benefit under current proposals.

As I have written elsewhere, Labor needs to take a strong stand on climate change. The CPRS is a flawed policy instrument, but it is the only thing on the table.

The Government needs to ensure that it doesn’t so further compromise the CPRS that its already small steps send us backwards.

The proposals by the Liberal Party show that Malcolm Turnbull, far from winning at the party-room last weekend, has completely caved into the climate change deniers in his own party.

The economics of climate change

Alex — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:28:28 +0000

The economics of climate change, like the science of climate change, is becoming clearer.

The scientific evidence is saying that unless we rapidly and significantly reduce our carbon emissions, we face a climate catastrophe.

The economic evidence is also showing that the cost of inaction will far out-weigh the economic costs of action, and more than that: that early action now actually makes good economic sense.

Climate Progress has posted about a report for the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3) found that with investments of 1-3% of global GDP, we could convert the global economy to clean energy, create jobs and stabilise the climate.

The take away message of the report is that we cannot afford to just have a little bit of climate policy.

From the report’s introduction:

Stopping global warming and protecting the earthâ€™s climate is a daunting challenge. To prevent a climate crisis we have to move quickly to transform the ways in which we create and use energy, develop petroleum-free transportation, and much more. These changes will not be free; there is already resistance to paying for the first steps along this road. Some think that reaching for more ambitious mitigation targets, and quicker reductions in emissions, would mean economic disaster. Some economists have become known for advocating only slow and modest responses to climate change, lest the costs of mitigation become too large. This report demonstrates that the ‘go slow’ recommendations are unjustified. A number of economic analyses, informed by recent scientific findings and using reasonable assumptions, suggest that more ambitious targets and quicker action make good economic sense. The warnings about climate change are growing steadily more ominous â€” but it has not, as a consequence, become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future.

The bad news about climate change relates mostly to the costs of inaction. As greenhouse gas emissions grow, it is the cost of doing nothing that is becoming unbearable, not the cost of taking action. If there is reason for optimism amidst the dire warnings it is this: the costs of insuring the planet against climate disaster are not prohibitive. The best estimates of the costs of a vigorous, immediate effort to rebuild the world economy around carbon-free technologies are still in the range of one to three percent of world output (GDP) per year, even with the more stringent emissions reduction goals we are supporting. Scientific research continues to yield evidence that climate change is occurring faster, and its consequences could be more severe, than previously expected: the costs of climate inaction, or even of delay in mounting a large-scale response to the climate crisis, are getting worse and worse.

We cannot afford a little climate policy, half-measures that would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly destructive climate. We need a big initiative, a comprehensive global deal on protecting the earth’s climate by rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Because the status quo is not sustainable, the most economical choice is to change, as quickly, cost-effectively, and comprehensively as possible. This study looks at both sides of the equation, beginning with the worsening news about climate risks (i.e., the costs of inaction), then turning to the costs of an adequate response.

This report is primarily looking at the economics of the 350ppm target. However, 350 is now seen as the very least we should be aiming at if we really want to avert dangerous climate change.

Just like no credible scientist is saying that climate change is not real, no credible economist is saying that early action to mitigate and adapt to climate change is worse for the global economy than doing nothing. The risks of doing nothing are simply too great.

What we need now is political leadership, both globally and in Australia.

Letter in Crikey

Alex — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:01:16 +0000

My letter in Crikey today

Regarding “Make the World Pay“: I’ve noticed it is fashionable for Crikey to publish CPRS-bashing articles from the Greens Party and others (e.g. Bernard Keane).

There is no doubt that the CPRS is less than many people hoped it would be — especially the excessive industry assistance. The simple fact of the matter is that the CPRS is better than nothing, and lays the foundations for stronger, more robust action, CO2 emission reductions, renewable energy investment and green job creation in the future.

Those bashing the CPRS, such as Senator Milne from the Greens Party have yet to offer a serious alternative. Instead, the Greens Party and other CPRS-bashers have fallen alongside the worst elements of climate sceptics, who oppose any carbon emissions whatsoever.

The CPRS is not revolutionary, but does create the structure for future emissions reductions. Those who want the CPRS voted down, such as Senator Milne, need to come up with a genuine alternative, rather than just 10 minute protests, 30 second ads on TV or pithy statements such as “The Greens are there in Parliament arguing the case for meaningful action.”

Senator Wong and Labor are in there actually trying to deliver on outcomes that will protect the climate. The Greens Party and other CPRS bashers need to put up, or shut up.