Comments on: Open challenge to Roger Pielke and Breakthrough Institute — Part 1 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:55:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10476 Robert Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:11:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10476 You could argue that the renewable energy technology is not actually very advanced and not marketed on a large scale simply because fossil fuel is so hard to compete with. By tilting the playing field against fossil fuel the power of the market could prove very effective in developing and advancing the technology. No technology is very optimised to begin with (e.g. the first PC's, the Apollo moon shots) but let the market scrap over it for a few years and all sorts of technological miracles evolve. The catalyst to kick off the process is to make fossil fuels far less attractive via some form of carbon tax or capping system. You could argue that the renewable energy technology is not actually very advanced and not marketed on a large scale simply because fossil fuel is so hard to compete with. By tilting the playing field against fossil fuel the power of the market could prove very effective in developing and advancing the technology. No technology is very optimised to begin with (e.g. the first PC’s, the Apollo moon shots) but let the market scrap over it for a few years and all sorts of technological miracles evolve.

The catalyst to kick off the process is to make fossil fuels far less attractive via some form of carbon tax or capping system.

]]> By: Tom http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10471 Tom Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:11:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10471 The issue of climate change and global warming seems overwhelming, and it's not helped by a feeling in the popular press that we can get on top of things through the use of funny-looking lightbulbs and hemp shopping bags. I got the impression the authors of the Nature piece felt we lack the technology to reach the goals of reversing global warming, setting up for severe disappointment. There's a phobia in DC right now about preparing people for sacrifice (the Iraq war being the best example). Except for a few dimly lit corners of the Internet, I don't find much debate about the size of the societal transformation that may be necessary if we're going to leave much for our great grand children. I may have missed the conclusion of the authors, but the details of their piece made clear we either need to begin talking about sea-walls around Manhattan or rethinking every aspect of modern life. The issue of climate change and global warming seems overwhelming, and it’s not helped by a feeling in the popular press that we can get on top of things through the use of funny-looking lightbulbs and hemp shopping bags.

I got the impression the authors of the Nature piece felt we lack the technology to reach the goals of reversing global warming, setting up for severe disappointment.

There’s a phobia in DC right now about preparing people for sacrifice (the Iraq war being the best example). Except for a few dimly lit corners of the Internet, I don’t find much debate about the size of the societal transformation that may be necessary if we’re going to leave much for our great grand children.

I may have missed the conclusion of the authors, but the details of their piece made clear we either need to begin talking about sea-walls around Manhattan or rethinking every aspect of modern life.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10468 Robert Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:03:10 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10468 Gore said almost nothing in An Inconvenient Truth about solutions, or about politics. Just that political will was a renewable resource (or something like that). If you buy the science then the political battle is enormous. Rather like convincing everyone on the planet to give up breathing air. Gore said almost nothing in An Inconvenient Truth about solutions, or about politics. Just that political will was a renewable resource (or something like that).

If you buy the science then the political battle is enormous. Rather like convincing everyone on the planet to give up breathing air.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10459 Joe Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:35:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10459 Tom -- that is how any reasonable person other than the authors would read their piece. The conclusion you drew, however, is not the one they drew. Quite the reverse. I don't think Gore has mislead people as to how hard this is. Right now we're doing NOTHING. Tom — that is how any reasonable person other than the authors would read their piece. The conclusion you drew, however, is not the one they drew. Quite the reverse.

I don’t think Gore has mislead people as to how hard this is. Right now we’re doing NOTHING.

]]> By: Tom http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10458 Tom Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:25:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10458 The Nature commentary delivered most of what you needed to know in one sentence: "An analysis of China's carbon-dioxide emissions estimated them to be rising at a rate of between 11% and 13% per year for the period 2000–2010, which is far higher than that assumed by the SRES scenarios for Asian emissions (2.6–4.8% per year)." What technology can possible get in front of that runaway train? The strength of the Nature commentary was the way it helped shake the inertia that seems to be brought on by a love of technology, and a blind trust it will solve everything. Take a long view, and you see that a depressing amount of the innovative energy in the United States seems dedicated to entertaining and distracting consumers, rather than transforming society. In the late 19th Century, the situation was quite different. Al Gore's a great leader, but why does his We Can Solve It campaign inspire us with references to defeating Hitler and overcoming slavery without mentioning the scars left by those events? No one is preparing society for the extraordinary cost of reversing the damage done to the environment. Instead, we're left to believe this global warming problem is on the verge of being licked, if only we'd send an email to our senator. Pielke, Wigley and Green make a strong case for a little less wishful thinking and a little more hard-headed preparation and honest discussion. Debating the number of assumptions that can dance on the head of pin misses the overall theme of their article. The Nature commentary delivered most of what you needed to know in one sentence: “An analysis of China’s carbon-dioxide emissions estimated them to be rising at a rate of between 11% and 13% per year for the period 2000–2010, which is far higher than that assumed by the SRES scenarios for Asian emissions (2.6–4.8% per year).”

What technology can possible get in front of that runaway train?

The strength of the Nature commentary was the way it helped shake the inertia that seems to be brought on by a love of technology, and a blind trust it will solve everything.

Take a long view, and you see that a depressing amount of the innovative energy in the United States seems dedicated to entertaining and distracting consumers, rather than transforming society. In the late 19th Century, the situation was quite different.

Al Gore’s a great leader, but why does his We Can Solve It campaign inspire us with references to defeating Hitler and overcoming slavery without mentioning the scars left by those events? No one is preparing society for the extraordinary cost of reversing the damage done to the environment.

Instead, we’re left to believe this global warming problem is on the verge of being licked, if only we’d send an email to our senator.

Pielke, Wigley and Green make a strong case for a little less wishful thinking and a little more hard-headed preparation and honest discussion.

Debating the number of assumptions that can dance on the head of pin misses the overall theme of their article.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10439 David B. Benson Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:10:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10439 Harold Pierce Jr --- Ever heard of Peak Coal? Just so everybody knows, I'm a 315 advocate. Maybe even less. Harold Pierce Jr — Ever heard of Peak Coal?

Just so everybody knows, I’m a 315 advocate. Maybe even less.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10436 Joe Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:54:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10436 Greg -- I don't think Pielke is a 450 guy, but hopefully we find out. Greg — I don’t think Pielke is a 450 guy, but hopefully we find out.

]]> By: Greg N http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10434 Greg N Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:56:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10434 Does this mean there is now close agreement between Roger Pielke Jr and Joseph Romm on what is an "acceptable" stablization level, namely: 450 ppm to 500 ppm? Reaching such a consensus is encouraging progress, surely? Now we can focus on practical measures to achieve the agreed goal and dismiss every policy that would cause an overshoot above 500 ppm? Does this mean there is now close agreement between Roger Pielke Jr and Joseph Romm on what is an “acceptable” stablization level, namely: 450 ppm to 500 ppm?

Reaching such a consensus is encouraging progress, surely? Now we can focus on practical measures to achieve the agreed goal and dismiss every policy that would cause an overshoot above 500 ppm?

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10432 Paul K Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:47:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10432 Roger Pielke, Jr, I hope you find the readers of climateprogess are among the most polite and sincerely curious on the web. Roger Pielke, Jr,
I hope you find the readers of climateprogess are among the most polite and sincerely curious on the web.

]]> By: Nick http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10429 Nick Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:25:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/04/open-challenge-to-roger-pielke-and-breakthrough-institute-part-1/#comment-10429 One study: Socolow and Pascal, 2007. "Stabilization Wedges." http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabilisation2005.com%2FRobert_Socolow.pdf&ei=LTr2R66JDYy-eLWCpPMM&usg=AFQjCNHas-MikMraiIhG44030fMEVvGpGw&sig2=hU0naudnuPHKAsGKcFWnzQ One study: Socolow and Pascal, 2007. “Stabilization Wedges.”

http://www.google.com/ url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stabilisation2005.com%2FRobert_Socolow.pdf&ei=LTr2R66JDYy-eLWCpPMM&usg=AFQjCNHas-MikMraiIhG44030fMEVvGpGw&sig2=hU0naudnuPHKAsGKcFWnzQ

]]>