Comments on: NYT’s Tom Friedman updates the global warming threat and spells out the solution http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Susan Nortis http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-35009 Susan Nortis Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:34:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-35009 Efficiency increases won't work unless we tax the resulant savings. Iwhen people save money as the result of greater efficiency, they take that money and spend it elsewhere, usually on activities that produce the same amount of GHGs. Read up on "Jevon's Paradox" and it's implications on climate change. Eye-opening stuff!! Efficiency increases won’t work unless we tax the resulant savings. Iwhen people save money as the result of greater efficiency, they take that money and spend it elsewhere, usually on activities that produce the same amount of GHGs. Read up on “Jevon’s Paradox” and it’s implications on climate change. Eye-opening stuff!!

]]> By: Modesty http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34951 Modesty Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:57:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34951 Re the MIT Joint Program Gamble Friedman refers to and which you've blogged on, I would love to see three new policy pie charts, analogous to the "Policy" pie chart here: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/policy.html The first new pie chart, call it the what-if-you-really-are-stuck-with-whatever-warming-is-in-the-pipeline-in-2100 case, would use the same input as the Gamble Policy Case but show equilibrium warming, rather than warming in 2100. This new pie chart would also show warming compared to the pre-industrial average global temperature, rather than warming compared to 1990 levels. This pie chart would look a bit different from the Gamble Policy Case pie chart and not connote "2-degree-iness" so much. However unintentionally misleading on the part of the MIT Joint Program people, it's a little jarring to have a 675 ppm CO2_eq stabilization scenario in any way connote 2-degree-iness. The second new pie chart would also use equilibrium warming compared to the pre-industrial, rather than 2100 warming compared to 1990, but would not use the "Level 2 stabilization scenario" used in the Gamble Policy Case and the first new pie chart. Instead, it would limit emissions so as to stabilize at, perhaps, 400 CO2_eq or whatever is needed to have the likelihood (ignoring tipping points) of equilibrium warming greater than 2 degrees relative to the pre-industrial be less than 50 percent. Call this one the blinkered-coin-toss-2-degree-policy case. It would be nice with a little online tool so that people can choose what risk level they are comfortable with, say, 30 percent risk (ignoring tipping points) of greater than 2 degree warming, instead, and have the corresponding pie chart (with the same temperature intervals and colors as in the (2009) "Gamble Policy case") generated, along with a key that shows what "policy" ie atmospheric stabilization target it corresponds to. Perhaps this already exists? The third new pie chart would be generated by incorporating risks of triggering major additional feedbacks and once again recalibrating the "policy" so as to have the stabilization target (what would it be?) yield a better than a coin-toss chance of staying below a 2 degree rise over the pre-industrial global average temperature. This would be the "taking-the-problem-seriously" case. I think it would help to have all these policy pie charts side by side. Here's the link explaining the use of the 675 CO2_eq or 4.7 W/m^2 input in the Gamble Policy Case: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/scenario.html Re the MIT Joint Program Gamble Friedman refers to and which you’ve blogged on, I would love to see three new policy pie charts, analogous to the “Policy” pie chart here:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/policy.html

The first new pie chart, call it the what-if-you-really-are-stuck-with-whatever-warming-is-in-the-pipeline-in-2100 case, would use the same input as the Gamble Policy Case but show equilibrium warming, rather than warming in 2100.

This new pie chart would also show warming compared to the pre-industrial average global temperature, rather than warming compared to 1990 levels.

This pie chart would look a bit different from the Gamble Policy Case pie chart and not connote “2-degree-iness” so much.

However unintentionally misleading on the part of the MIT Joint Program people, it’s a little jarring to have a 675 ppm CO2_eq stabilization scenario in any way connote 2-degree-iness.

The second new pie chart would also use equilibrium warming compared to the pre-industrial, rather than 2100 warming compared to 1990, but would not use the “Level 2 stabilization scenario” used in the Gamble Policy Case and the first new pie chart.

Instead, it would limit emissions so as to stabilize at, perhaps, 400 CO2_eq or whatever is needed to have the likelihood (ignoring tipping points) of equilibrium warming greater than 2 degrees relative to the pre-industrial be less than 50 percent. Call this one the blinkered-coin-toss-2-degree-policy case.

It would be nice with a little online tool so that people can choose what risk level they are comfortable with, say, 30 percent risk (ignoring tipping points) of greater than 2 degree warming, instead, and have the corresponding pie chart (with the same temperature intervals and colors as in the (2009) “Gamble Policy case”) generated, along with a key that shows what “policy” ie atmospheric stabilization target it corresponds to. Perhaps this already exists?

The third new pie chart would be generated by incorporating risks of triggering major additional feedbacks and once again recalibrating the “policy” so as to have the stabilization target (what would it be?) yield a better than a coin-toss chance of staying below a 2 degree rise over the pre-industrial global average temperature. This would be the “taking-the-problem-seriously” case.

I think it would help to have all these policy pie charts side by side.

Here’s the link explaining the use of the 675 CO2_eq or 4.7 W/m^2 input in the Gamble Policy Case:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/ resources/ gamble/ scenario.html

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34862 paulm Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:27:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34862 <blockquote> Obama adviser on new era for science in US http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7968205.stm .... Nobel prize-winning cancer specialist, Harold Varmus, who has been charged with the task of 'restoring science to its rightful place', talks to Newsnight's Science editor, Susan Watts.

Obama adviser on new era for science in US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ programmes/ newsnight/ 7968205.stm
….
Nobel prize-winning cancer specialist, Harold Varmus, who has been charged with the task of ‘restoring science to its rightful place’, talks to Newsnight’s Science editor, Susan Watts.

]]> By: Harrier http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34861 Harrier Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:08:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34861 With regard to stopping the use of carbon-based fuels, we are in one respect lucky that, according to some, we've already passed Peak Oil. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5177 With regard to stopping the use of carbon-based fuels, we are in one respect lucky that, according to some, we’ve already passed Peak Oil.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5177

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34849 paulm Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:49:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34849 I think this article is right about a defining moment in the action on CC... <blockquote> The G2 interview 'We're the first generation that has had the power to destroy the planet. Ignoring that risk can only be described as reckless' http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/30/climate-change-nicholas-stern-interview .... Since publishing the Stern Review in 2006, the professor has become the global authority on climate change. Commissioned by Gordon Brown,<b> his study of the economics of climate change shifted the debate away from polar bears and unseasonal summers, and reframed it in the cold hard language of the balance sheet.</b> Unless we invested 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change, the review warned, it would cost us 20% of global GDP. Suddenly, the CBI and the Institute of Directors were paying attention. It was a defining moment for the credibility of a movement once belittled as too counter-culture to be taken seriously. Stern became the grey hero of the greens - powerful precisely because he seemed such an improbable eco warrior. I think this article is right about a defining moment in the action on CC…

The G2 interview
‘We’re the first generation that has had the power to destroy the planet. Ignoring that risk can only be described as reckless’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ mar/ 30/ climate-change-nicholas-stern-interview
….
Since publishing the Stern Review in 2006, the professor has become the global authority on climate change. Commissioned by Gordon Brown, his study of the economics of climate change shifted the debate away from polar bears and unseasonal summers, and reframed it in the cold hard language of the balance sheet. Unless we invested 1% of global GDP per annum in measures to prevent climate change, the review warned, it would cost us 20% of global GDP. Suddenly, the CBI and the Institute of Directors were paying attention. It was a defining moment for the credibility of a movement once belittled as too counter-culture to be taken seriously. Stern became the grey hero of the greens – powerful precisely because he seemed such an improbable eco warrior.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34842 David B. Benson Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:53:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34842 robert benson --- Do we know each other? If so, hi. If not, hi. robert benson — Do we know each other? If so, hi. If not, hi.

]]> By: robert benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34841 robert benson Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:48:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34841 I haven't seen Friedman or Climate Progress note the work on tipping points just published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.0809117106). 43 of the world’s top climate scientists carried out a sophisticated probability analysis . The study puts the risk of breaching tipping points--sudden, huge, irreversible changes in natural systems that determine climate--at 1 in 6 if global average temperature increases 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and 1 in 2 if temperature moves higher. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology currently predicts 9 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2100. I haven’t seen Friedman or Climate Progress note the work on tipping points just published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.0809117106). 43 of the world’s top climate scientists carried out a sophisticated probability analysis . The study puts the risk of breaching tipping points–sudden, huge, irreversible changes in natural systems that determine climate–at 1 in 6 if global average temperature increases 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and 1 in 2 if temperature moves higher. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology currently predicts 9 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2100.

]]> By: amazingdrx http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34837 amazingdrx Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:26:58 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34837 Joe might not be perfect,but no one is. Pretty great blog! Now if he'd listen to us once in awhile? hehey. Oh well. Joe might not be perfect,but no one is. Pretty great blog! Now if he’d listen to us once in awhile? hehey. Oh well.

]]> By: Robert T http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34835 Robert T Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:11:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34835 Unfortunately none of these 5 policies would necessarily guarantee a net reduction in emissions. The global economy is carbon-based and predicated on growth and CO2 emissions are likely to keep rising even if you do improve efficiency, add renewables to the energy mix, etc. To demonstrate, the Formula 1 KERS system is the ultimate hybrid but the goal is more power not reduced emissions: http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2009/1/8887.html Even a carbon price is not a guarantee of reduced emissions. If the money raised is spent on carbon-based economic activity in the public sector then how would it help? The real solution is too unpalatable for most to contemplate. We need to stop digging carbon out of the ground. This approach is about as popular as telling a smoker he needs to stop buying cigarettes. Unfortunately none of these 5 policies would necessarily guarantee a net reduction in emissions. The global economy is carbon-based and predicated on growth and CO2 emissions are likely to keep rising even if you do improve efficiency, add renewables to the energy mix, etc. To demonstrate, the Formula 1 KERS system is the ultimate hybrid but the goal is more power not reduced emissions:

http://www.formula1.com/ news/ features/ 2009/ 1/ 8887.html

Even a carbon price is not a guarantee of reduced emissions. If the money raised is spent on carbon-based economic activity in the public sector then how would it help?

The real solution is too unpalatable for most to contemplate. We need to stop digging carbon out of the ground. This approach is about as popular as telling a smoker he needs to stop buying cigarettes.

]]> By: Richard Pauli http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34817 Richard Pauli Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:04:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/29/nyts-tom-friedman-updates-the-global-warming-threat-and-spells-out-the-solution/#comment-34817 Joe, I am not that impressed with ClimateWorks either. Their seminal document is a report claiming that "Global warming can be limited to 2°C, but only if top-emitting nations and sectors take action now. .." With the MIT prediction of 5.1 degrees - That may no longer be possible. Friedman and you suggest we might be thinking survival instead of "low carbon prosperity" But maybe soon they can catch up with current science and open up to new options. Perhaps you can advise them. Joe, I am not that impressed with ClimateWorks either.

Their seminal document is a report claiming that “Global warming can be limited to 2°C, but only if top-emitting nations and sectors take action now. ..” With the MIT prediction of 5.1 degrees – That may no longer be possible.

Friedman and you suggest we might be thinking survival instead of “low carbon prosperity”

But maybe soon they can catch up with current science and open up to new options. Perhaps you can advise them.

]]>