Percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar is 1.1%

[markslawson + 1,061]

23 hours ago, NickW said:

Err no - you need to add up the contributions to each of the organisations listed in the drop down list - thats how you come to the $100m mark, Mark. 

Donations to the Cato institute alone were $17m

No - go back and look at the drop down box.. the vast bulk of the organisations listed have nothing to do with climate. The Cato Institute which you cite, for example, has little to do with the climate debate. One research area among many listed on the site is energy and climate, but its basically about free markets and individual liberties and so on. That's its main focus. So that's how they got to the $100 million figure. Rather than just inventing it as I first thought, they added in every donation they could find, knowing that the credulous would swallow it. Its complete failure in critical thinking that leads to this sort of disinformation. I urge you to look beyond Greenpeace press releases. As we have now sorted out there is no funding on the sceptics side. The think tanks get a few dollars as I first said.. and that NickW is the end of the debate. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, markslawson said:

No - go back and look at the drop down box.. the vast bulk of the organisations listed have nothing to do with climate. The Cato Institute which you cite, for example, has little to do with the climate debate. One research area among many listed on the site is energy and climate, but its basically about free markets and individual liberties and so on. That's its main focus. So that's how they got to the $100 million figure. Rather than just inventing it as I first thought, they added in every donation they could find, knowing that the credulous would swallow it. Its complete failure in critical thinking that leads to this sort of disinformation. I urge you to look beyond Greenpeace press releases. As we have now sorted out there is no funding on the sceptics side. The think tanks get a few dollars as I first said.. and that NickW is the end of the debate. 

You don't get to end the forum debate no matter what level of self importance you assign yourself. If you don't wish to continue discussing then go away. Your frequent unilateral close down attempts are not going to work on me. 

All of those organisations in that list have a wide remit to challenge virtually anything undertaken in the interests of environment or public health. Some of those challenges are full on, others more subtle like the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is simply a vehicle by which the Koch's promote their agenda through the guise of a 'research institute'. 

Anyway they appear to have a fairly sizeable section on energy and the environment. 

People are at liberty to fund what they want. Thats not the question here - its your claim that the denial camp get no funding which is so difficult to believe when we know for a fact that  large sums of money have gone from energy sector companies (Exxon being one particular example) into denial  organisations & campaigns. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

None of these organisations are exclusively climate change denial however trying to repeal any environmental legislation appears to be a core tenant of their collective modus operandi's

Heres just a few I glanced upon with a quick google.
 

FreedomWorks -

>$10m annual income. (Kochs come into play here)

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/10/more-than-kochs-small-donors-fueled/

Heritage Foundation

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3819

2016 revenue $79m 

Co2 Coalition (formerly Marshall Inst)

Revenues $1m ish. Same old names crop up on the 'Trustees' list

 

 

 

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

The Cato Institute which you cite, for example, has little to do with the climate debate.

We seem to live in different universes.  I counted well over 400 contributions on global warming from the Cato Institute, ranging from commentaries, to articles, reviews, public filings, reviews, events and speeches.

You went on to say, "Its complete failure in critical thinking that leads to this sort of disinformation. I urge you to look beyond Greenpeace press releases. As we have now sorted out there is no funding on the sceptics side. The think tanks get a few dollars as I first said.. and that NickW is the end of the debate."

Critical thinking may elude you, and a very interesting read from 5 years ago is here: Funding the climate change counter-movement

Is it possible much has changed since then?  I would think it has, in that funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources, with Donors Trust/Capital becoming a more important vehicle.  Moreover, it's not just the USA which has organisations devoted to discrediting the science, there are hundreds of others across the globe, eg the ostrich clubs

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, J S said:

Stick a rat in a microwave oven, and it will urinate on itself to try to keep cool.

Rats urinate all the time - they are genetically incontinent. Thats why if they get in the house they make everywhere stink. 

[markslawson + 1,061]

15 hours ago, Red said:

We seem to live in different universes.  I counted well over 400 contributions on global warming from the Cato Institute, ranging from commentaries, to articles, reviews, public filings, reviews, events and speeches.

Red - again we have that complete failure in critical thinking I was talking about. Go back and count the total output of the Cato Institute and then work out the ratio of environment stuff/total output. You will find it to be vanishingly small. Go look at the web site. You have to search to find the climate section. Greenpeace's mistake is to attribute the whole $12.5 million to over 30 years or whatever - not much per year, please note - to climate scepticism, when most obviously the actual figure they can allocate is tiny. Its count is full of errors like that. To repeat the blindingly obvious, Greenpeace is adding up a standard corporate grants program and insisting that the whole thing is climate related when only a fraction, if that, counts as climate. To repeat the earlier point I come from the sceptic side and there is no money - no grants, no climate fellowships, no well funding positions at NGOs, nothing. All those in the area are part-timers or retired academics and the like. The only two organisations of any size that are specifically dedicated to scepticism (not institutes like Cato or think tanks), with actual paid staff I have found in the area, are the GWPF in the UK and Heartland in the US. How many are there on the global warming side? There may be at least 10 in Australia - that is, those with secretariats and paid staff. Yet in the teeth of such evidence activists still try to claim that somehow the funding is on the sceptic side. You're right we did go to universities. Leave it with you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

15 hours ago, J S said:

The worlds getting hotter caused by hydrocarbons.  It is a fact jack.  All people that have analyzed the data agree on this. 

If you disagree with my statement now would be a time for self analysis. 

It is not religion or opinion.  It is scientific fact.  That said, I a pretty sure the morans over the world and especially in the US that still don't agree will make it worse, basking in their jingoistic ignorance. 

Nope.  I disagree.

And you misspelled "morons".

[NickW + 2,714]

7 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Red - again we have that complete failure in critical thinking I was talking about. Go back and count the total output of the Cato Institute and then work out the ratio of environment stuff/total output. You will find it to be vanishingly small. Go look at the web site. You have to search to find the climate section. Greenpeace's mistake is to attribute the whole $12.5 million to over 30 years or whatever - not much per year, please note - to climate scepticism, when most obviously the actual figure they can allocate is tiny. Its count is full of errors like that. To repeat the blindingly obvious, Greenpeace is adding up a standard corporate grants program and insisting that the whole thing is climate related when only a fraction, if that, counts as climate. To repeat the earlier point I come from the sceptic side and there is no money - no grants, no climate fellowships, no well funding positions at NGOs, nothing. All those in the area are part-timers or retired academics and the like. The only two organisations of any size that are specifically dedicated to scepticism (not institutes like Cato or think tanks), with actual paid staff I have found in the area, are the GWPF in the UK and Heartland in the US. How many are there on the global warming side? There may be at least 10 in Australia - that is, those with secretariats and paid staff. Yet in the teeth of such evidence activists still try to claim that somehow the funding is on the sceptic side. You're right we did go to universities. Leave it with you.

Academic critical review is a key feature of this research. Huge sums are spent testing the models, analysing their acurracy and revising findings if necessary. 

No one is going to fund research along the lines of 'CO2 isn't a warming gas' because basic physics prove in the 19th Century that CO2 absorbs and emits IR energy. Of course there is lots of funding to test the models which is what gives us the refining of the academic theories that support this area of work. 

You say there is no NGO funding  that looks at factors that work against global warming. This is part of the fantasy world you live in. There is a huge amount of research work on negative feedback mechanisms in changing climates - effects of aerosols, albedo effects, cloud formation, afforestation etc. 

When universities start funding work along the lines of 'CO2 / Methane /CFC's are not warming gases' then they might as well fund studies into why the earth might be flat after all and the lifecycle of the Loch Ness Monster. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Nope.  I disagree.

And you misspelled "morons".

I think this simply defines whether someone falls into the denial or sceptic camp (I differentiate between the two) 

 

Q1: Do you believe CO2, Methane, N20 and CFC's have a warming effect on the atmosphere?

No: 

A follow on question is therefore - so you refute the physics undertaken in the last 140 years on this? Please advise why the entire Physics community are wrong?  (This answer in my view defines a climate change denier) 

Please advise why the Earht isn't a ball of ice? 

Yes:

Q2:  Is this effect causing the Earths temperature to rise?

Yes 

No. Ok - so please explain the negative feedback mechanisms that cancel out the warming effect of the gases (this would define your climate sceptic) 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

On 11/26/2018 at 11:00 AM, zerogrid said:

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !

I don't know the relative tax incentives, but in the San Juan Islands we have Community Solar that people can buy into if their roof is not oriented in an ideal way. It is completely optional to buy or not buy into this solar panel array that is coupled to storage batteries. If you buy into the Community Solar, you receive a check every year that is proportional to the number of panels you purchased. The return is pretty good.

Also, I imagine that tall apartment blocks will have too small a ratio of roof area to living space to supply energy to all the apartments. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

26 minutes ago, NickW said:

I think this simply defines whether someone falls into the denial or sceptic camp (I differentiate between the two) 

I'm a sceptic.  And I'm a sceptic about many, many things.  For example, I'm sceptical that CNN is actual journalism rather than project mockingbird manipulation.

As far as climate change, I agree that climate does change.  Slowly and over long cycles.

I remain sceptical that the ongoing climate change is directly caused by human + hydrocarbon activity.

From what I can see, the leaders that scream the loudest about halting hydrocarbon usage because ZOMG CLIMATE CHANGE ARMAGEDDON PANIC  ELEVENTY are mostly the same people that want to remove borders from countries and impose a global Socialism onto the world.  Leaders like Macron, Trudeau, Merkel.

● So to be clear, I do not deny that climate changes.

● But I remain sceptical that climate change is a direct result of humans using hydrocarbons.

• Correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone thinks I'm stupid, I probably can't change their opinion about me.  And I'm perfectly fine with that. 

Please consider that I've actively moderated at least a hundred threads on climate change / global warming / environmental concerns, both on the now defunct Oilpro forum and also here on the Oil Price forum.  And have read the endless arguments from various camps.  And the endless verbal foodfights from competing viewpoints.  And ... I remain sceptical that climate change is directly caused by humans using hydrocarbons.

And it is great to see your distinction between denial and scepticism, Nick.  They are not the same.

 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

Tom,

I think you are exaggerating a bit here,

"From what I can see, the leaders that scream the loudest about halting hydrocarbon usage because ZOMG CLIMATE CHAMGE ARMAGEDDON are mostly the same people that want to remove borders from countries and impose a global Socialism onto the world.  Leaders like Macron, Trudeau, Merkel."

Justin Trudeau's government recently purchased the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Kinder Morgan with the aim of facilitating the tripling of its capacity and supplying the world with oil sands bitumen. The reserves of Albertan bitumen are massive. The carbon footprint to mine, transport, and refine this heavy hydrocarbon is huge. 

Also, the Canadian border is live and well. I live just south of it. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I'm a sceptic.  And I'm a sceptic about many, many things.  For example, I'm sceptical that CNN is actual journalism rather than project mockingbird manipulation.

As far as climate change, I agree that climate does change.  Slowly and over long cycles.

I remain sceptical that the ongoing climate change is directly caused by human + hydrocarbon activity.

From what I can see, the leaders that scream the loudest about halting hydrocarbon usage because ZOMG CLIMATE CHANGE ARMAGEDDON PANIC  ELEVENTY are mostly the same people that want to remove borders from countries and impose a global Socialism onto the world.  Leaders like Macron, Trudeau, Merkel.

So to be clear, I do not deny that climate changes.

But I remain sceptical that climate change is a direct result of humans using hydrocarbons.

Correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone thinks I'm stupid, I probably can't change their opinion about me.  And I'm perfectly fine with that. 

Please consider that I've actively moderated at least a hundred threads on climate change / global warming / environmental concerns, both on the now defunct Oilpro forum and also here on the Oil Price forum.  And have read the endless arguments from various camps.  And ... I remain sceptical that climate change is directly caused by humans using hydrocarbons.

And it is great to see your distinction between denial and scepticism, Nick.  They are not the same.

If you refute that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of hydrocarbons (or any other input) won't have any impact on the climate (a doubling is estimated to raise Temp by 2 deg C) then to back that up you would need to explain why the consensus of opinion in the physics community is wrong. If not that places you in the denial position because  scepticism needs to have some rational explanation behind it that is beyond a hunch or one that simply  reverts to the caveat that most of our politicians are self serving liars. 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

I read these discussions to try to broaden my exposure to diverse points of view.

A lot these recent posts have been shouting from opposing ends of a spectrum about whether Climate Change is linked to human activities -specifically the oxidation of fossil fuels. 

Here are is a variable that can be measured in real time -no models are needed.

It is air pollution.

Air pollution has political consequences.

China's reaction to severe air pollution has been a movement away from coal-fired electrical generation.  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Rats urinate all the time - they are genetically incontinent. Thats why if they get in the house they make everywhere stink. 

Is that true?  I think we have some Chinese geneticists who might be able to help.

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

Red - again we have that complete failure in critical thinking I was talking about. Go back and count the total output of the Cato Institute and then work out the ratio of environment stuff/total output. You will find it to be vanishingly small. Go look at the web site. You have to search to find the climate section. Greenpeace's mistake is to attribute the whole $12.5 million to over 30 years or whatever - not much per year, please note - to climate scepticism, when most obviously the actual figure they can allocate is tiny. Its count is full of errors like that. To repeat the blindingly obvious, Greenpeace is adding up a standard corporate grants program and insisting that the whole thing is climate related when only a fraction, if that, counts as climate. To repeat the earlier point I come from the sceptic side and there is no money - no grants, no climate fellowships, no well funding positions at NGOs, nothing. All those in the area are part-timers or retired academics and the like. The only two organisations of any size that are specifically dedicated to scepticism (not institutes like Cato or think tanks), with actual paid staff I have found in the area, are the GWPF in the UK and Heartland in the US. How many are there on the global warming side? There may be at least 10 in Australia - that is, those with secretariats and paid staff. Yet in the teeth of such evidence activists still try to claim that somehow the funding is on the sceptic side. You're right we did go to universities. Leave it with you.

I was right - you definitely live in a different universe!  If you think that over 400 contributions is "little to do with the climate debate" then I am curious as to what a lot might be?  Moreover, these contributions were specific to global warming, and not to " free markets and individual liberties" as you claimed.

By the way, I never mentioned Greenpeace, so not sure why that's in your reply.  I did, however, link to several hundred+ organisations that contribute non-science in the main to a topic which is about science... seems a little curious for those with a hint of sanity.  (I note you mentioned only 2, suggesting you might not be too good at this.)

Critical thinking on this matter should at least have included conceptualising, analysing, and evaluating the available information, yet  you are stuck in a narrow rut.  Aside from what is written and available (from those very few "part-timers or retired academics"), significant funding is nowadays poured into social media platforms, not just from ill-informed commentators on you tube and similar, but also insidious bots which pervade thousands of internet forums.

I do understand the position of those who disagree with the science, but wonder what makes you think that it could be a good idea to fund such organisations if they bring nothing credible to the table.  It's a bit like suggesting "flat earther's" should be treated on par with scientists who are involved with interplanetary missions. 

With respect to organisations which support science, I trust it is many more than you suggest.  You never know, but one day there could be someone with a credible counter to what is regarded as established science.  

 

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

As far as climate change, I agree that climate does change.  Slowly and over long cycles.

What do regard as a long cycle?

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I remain sceptical that the ongoing climate change is directly caused by human + hydrocarbon activity.

So are climate scientists.  That's why they are looking at all the factors affecting climate.  They are not 100% sure, and never will be.  But they have worked out that if the human contribution was excluded over the past hundred years, it would be almost impossible to see (read "calculate") such a sustained planetary warming in such a short period of time.

When you say "correlation does not equal causation," what are you talking about?  I have not read every science paper, but of those many I have the suggestion has never been made.  

If you are suggesting that "greenhouse" gases have no role in temperature moderation, then it would be an interesting view.  

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

32 minutes ago, Red said:

but also insidious bots which pervade thousands of internet forums.

 

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Nope.  I disagree.

And you misspelled "morons".

Mr. JS has left the building, if anyone is wondering why there are some quotes that no longer have an origination post.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

Mr. JS has left the building, if anyone is wondering why there are some quotes that no longer have an origination post.

Bot?

[Rodent + 1,424]

15 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Bot?

Who knows. Someone having a bit of fun perhaps. I have in the past been accused of being a fun sucker (I once made the mistake of trying to say that too fast with ugly results), I thought today I'd live up to that reputation.

THERE IS NO FUN HERE, MY FRIENDS. 

BOT, ALIEN, TROLL--no matter. 

Please excuse the interruption... now where were you all.....greenhouse gas, climate change, world coming to and end..... 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

World coming to an end, Alex.  For $300.  Daily Double!  ding ding ding

[Red + 252]

19 hours ago, NickW said:

If you refute that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of hydrocarbons (or any other input) won't have any impact on the climate (a doubling is estimated to raise Temp by 2 deg C) then to back that up you would need to explain why the consensus of opinion in the physics community is wrong. If not that places you in the denial position because  scepticism needs to have some rational explanation behind it that is beyond a hunch or one that simply  reverts to the caveat that most of our politicians are self serving liars. 

Nick, the consensus relates to accepting climate change as true.  The physics community just have numbers to work with and it's not possible for them to come up with a diferent conclusion - it's a case of do the math.

Many claiming to be sceptical present the trivial response that because the climate will always change, hey presto climate change is real.  That's not even an argument 🤥.

Or they invoke political arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with the science.  In most cases they will not address the science because, for them, it's either too difficult or not credible (or some other obfuscation): whereas it's much more likely to be an ideological preference. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Wall of text incoming.  You can just skip to the bits that I bolded below:

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Official: "Climate Policy is Redistributing the World's Wealth"

Date: 18/11/10

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

● Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

● That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

● That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

● Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

● First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.

● It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.

The great misunderstanding of the UN summit in Rio in 1992 is repeated in the climate policy: the developed countries talk about environment, the developing countries about development.

● It is even more complicated. In the 1980s, our local environmental problems were luxury problems for the developing countries. If you already fed and own a car, you can get concerned about acid rain. For China, the problem was how to get 600 million Chinese people in the middle class. Whether there was a coal power plant or whether the labour standards in the coal mines were low was second priority – as it was here in the 19th Century.

But the world has become smaller.

● Now something new happens: it is no longer just our luxury, our environment. Developing countries have realized that causes of climate change lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The people here in Europe have the grotesque idea that shopping in the bio food store or electric cars will solve the problem. This is arrogant because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.

You say that for successful climate policy a high degree of international cooperation is necessary. However this cooperation is not present.

● I share the scepticism. But do we have an alternative? Currently, there are three ideas how to avoid the difficult cooperation: We try unsafe experiments such as geo-engineering, focus on the development of clean and safe energy, or one trusts in regional and local solutions. However, there is no indication that any of these ideas solves the problem. We must want the cooperation, just as you work together for the regulation of financial markets.

But unlike the financial crisis, in climate policy a country benefits if it does not join in.

● The financial crisis was an emergency operation – in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

In your new book you talk much about ethics. Do ethics play a role in climate negotiations?

● Ethics always play a role when it comes to power. China and Latin America, for example, always emphasize the historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change. This responsibility is not to deny, but it is also a strategic argument for these countries. I would accept the responsibility for the period since 1995 because we know since then, what is causing the greenhouse effect. To extend the responsibility to the industrial revolution is not ethically justified.

Could we the ethics in order to break the gridlock?

● The book contains a parable: A group of hikers, who represent the world community, walks through a desert. The industrialized nations drink half of the water and then say generously: “Let us share the rest.” The others reply: “This is not possible; you have already drunk half of the water. Let us talk first about your historical responsibility.” I think if we are arguing about the water supply because we cannot agree on the ethical principles, then we will die of thirst. What we need to look for is an oasis that is the non-carbon global economy. It’s about the common departure for this oasis.

Copyright 2010, NZZ

Transl. Philipp Mueller

Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.

 

[Red + 252]

29 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Official: "Climate Policy is Redistributing the World's Wealth"

Date: 18/11/10

Why quote such old news?

Ottmar's comments were spot on, but the headline was somewhat disingenuous.  What he said had a clear context - keep coal in the ground.   Ottmar's more recent collaboration on this topic is here: Making Carbon Pricing Work  However, if there is no price put on carbon there is no real incentive to change, and there a President who currently leads that charge.

Fortunately there has been significant movement since 2010, and the meagre incentives which were put in place have spurred a renewnables revolution which, in many countries, means it's cheaper to invest in new energy via renewables than coal.

Australia's energy prodiucers, as a case in point, not only have no intention of building any new coal-fired power facilities, they have recently resisted ham-fisted tactics from the federal government to keep open those mooted for closure.