Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

I realize that the below is an opinion piece but it shows the politics involved. There are 'trigger phrases' being used by the deniers. However, it has to be stated that the politicians themselves have stopped denying climate change. No one any longer can deny that we are in the midst of pretty massive changes. Their caveat (of course) is denying that human activity has gotten the ball rolling, despite the very clear evidence to the contrary.

Consensus Among GOP Candidates: Let The Planet Die ~ July 22, 2015
LINK: Consensus Among GOP Candidates: Let The Planet Die

TEXT: "When you look down the list of all of the 2016 GOP candidates, there is one thing that binds them all together: climate change denial. This means one of two things. Either these candidates literally believe that humans have no effect on climate change, or (and most likely), they’re just plain bought by the fossil fuel industry. Ring of Fire’s Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this."​

Consensus Among GOP Candidates: Let The Planet Die

TEXT: "Published on Jul 22, 2015: When you look down the list of all of the 2016 GOP candidates, there is one thing that binds them all together: climate change denial. This means one of two things. Either these candidates literally believe that humans have no effect on climate change, or (and most likely), they’re just plain bought by the fossil fuel industry."

 

[mike]

Lovelock has said more or less the same thing (though his views have been revised in terms of timeline lately)

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.
"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."
He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. "Carbon offsetting? I wouldn't dream of it. It's just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you're offsetting the carbon? You're probably making matters worse. You're far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests."
Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? "No we don't. Because we can't." And recycling, he adds, is "almost certainly a waste of time and energy", while having a "green lifestyle" amounts to little more than "ostentatious grand gestures". He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. "Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam ... or if it wasn't one in the beginning, it becomes one."

James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' | Environment | The Guardian

Im reminded of one of the recent end of the world scenarios maybe y2k or some asteroid, where people were advocating maxing their credit cards on booze and stuff and going out with a party.

Once the idea that catastrophe is unavaoidable then people become fatalistic, imo thats going to be the final nail in the coffin for us

 

[Tyger]

But he's wrong, Mike. Recall 'Lord Jim' by Joseph Conrad? How many real life examples do we have of the captain and crew abandoning ship, making a decision with the information at hand, only to discover the ship never went down?

He is a dooms-sayer. It's a big mistake. He sounds depressed. It might be his norm, I don't know. A new world is coming and it is coming through little decisions made every day by all of us - particularly to vote! We will get through this but not with his attitude.

As Oliver Cromwell most famously said: "By the Bowels of Christ, I beseech you - be-think you, that you may be wrong!"

 

[Tyger]

I'm reminded of one of the recent end of the world scenarios maybe y2k or some asteroid, where people were advocating maxing their credit cards on booze and stuff and going out with a party.

Y2K didn't happen because leading up to it, a massive amount of work was put in to correct the blip. Talk about a money-pit! Y2K didn't happen - not because it was a hoax - but because it was averted by actions taken (and coordinated) around the world.

 

[mike]

Im not so sure he is wrong, overshoot day keeps creeping back
Populations continue to grow
Many of those populations are developing thus consuming more resources per capita
The forests are still shrinking
The fish stocks still declining
The acidification of oceans is rising
Species loss due to habitat loss is at an unprecidented level, Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate
They estimate as much as 50 percent of species will be lost by mid century, the primary driver habitat loss


Year - Overshoot Date
1987 - December 19
1990 - December 7
1995 - November 21
2000 - November 1
2005 - October 20
2007 - October 26
2008 - September 23
2009 - September 25
2010 - August 21
2011 - September 27
2012 - August 22
2013 - August 20
2014 - August 19

And sure to quote the day the earth stood still "At the precipice we change", unless of course youve already fallen over

Im sorry to say i think we have

 

[Tyger]

Im not so sure he is wrong, overshoot day keeps creeping back
Populations continue to grow
Many of those populations are developing thus consuming more resources per capita
The forests are still shrinking
The fish stocks still declining
The acidification of oceans is rising
Species loss due to habitat loss is at an unprecidented level, Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate
They estimate as much as 50 percent of species will be lost by mid century, the primary driver habitat loss.

And sure to quote "the day the earth stood still" : "At the precipice we change", unless of course you've already fallen over.

I'm sorry to say I think we have.

I like the quote, and your commentary.

Acidification of the oceans is huge. It's the food chain. Huge consequences. It's all huge, of course.

You're right, Mike.

William F. Buckley was of the view that ideological debates were really cultural debates - and in many respects, that is what I have experienced with the Climate Change 'debate', except that in the Climate Change conversation what we are really dealing with is a purposely skewed conversation for economic reasons. That it demarks along cultural-divide lines is complicated.

I hope to see this film this summer - you can see the film's trailer in the link -
LINK: Best of Enemies (Official Movie Site) - Starring William F. Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal - In Theatres July 31st

TEXT: "This documentary, directed by Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville, details the historic 1968 televised debates between staunch conservative William F Buckley Jr. and the liberal writer, Gore Vidal. Firmly planted in their respective ideologies, the men often fought bitterly in their attempts to discredit each other, nearly coming to blows on more than one occasion. The film delves into their personal histories, mining for clues as to how the contrary political leanings of these two brilliant but complicated men evolved."​

Finally found the trailer on YouTube -
Best Of Enemies - Official Trailer

TEXT: "Published on Jun 9, 2015: 2 Men. 10 Debates. Television would never be the same. Watch the trailer for Best of Enemies featuring the explosive debates between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. Available in theatres July 10th from Magnolia Pictures."​

FaceBook LINK: Best of Enemies | Facebook

LINK: Vidal vs. Buckley Paved the Way for the 2016 Debates - The Daily Beast
Vidal vs. Buckley Paved the Way for the 2016 Debates: In the 1960s, Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley were having the same political arguments we’re having today—and had a lot more fun making them.

TEXT: "In Hillary Clinton’s first economic policy speech this past week in New York, she tracked the income gap between the super-rich and middle class back 15 years. It’s been going on way longer than that. [It goes back even further than Buckley and Vidal - it's been simmering since FDR and the New Deal, and if we were honest, the seeds to all this is buried back in Feudalism.]

"I recently saw a preview of a fascinating documentary, Best of Enemies, about the 1968 political debates between the two original ideologues of our polarized cultural wars. William F. Buckley, a staunch Catholic, was then the leading light of the conservative movement. Gore Vidal, a cousin of Jackie Kennedy, was a brilliant novelist, playwright, and a scathing left-wing satirist. Way back then, Vidal raised the issue of “income disparity.” He pointed to a statistic that was shocking fifty years ago. “Five percent of Americans own twenty percent of the nation’s wealth.”

"Those were the good old days."
​

They didn't know how good they had it!

 

[Tyger]

What to make of this? Probably nothing but one can understand the concern over 'coincidences'. I doubt this has any veracity because I am inclined - by temperament - not to see complexity where it is not clearly proven, and in this case the partner in one of the deaths is very clear regarding the death being an unfortunate accident.

Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims: Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence July 25, 2015
LINK: Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims - Telegraph

TEXT: "A Cambridge Professor has made the astonishing claim that three scientists investigating the melting of Arctic ice may have been assassinated within the space of a few months. Professor Peter Wadhams said he feared being labelled a “looney” over his suspicion that the deaths of the scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence. But he insisted the trio could have been murdered and hinted that the oil industry or else sinister government forces might be implicated.

"The three scientists he identified - Seymour Laxon and Katherine Giles, both climate change scientists at University College London, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for marine Science - all died within the space of a few months in early 2013. Professor laxon fell down a flight of stairs at a New year’s Eve party at a house in Essex while Dr Giles died when she was in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London. Dr Boyd is thought to have been struck by lightning while walking in Scotland.

"Prof Wadhams said that in the weeks after Prof Laxon’s death he believed he was targeted by a lorry which tried to force him off the road. He reported the incident to the police.

"Asked if he thought hitmen might have been behind the deaths, Prof Wadhams, who is Professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, told The Telegraph: “Yes. I do believe assassins possibly murdered them but I can see that I would be thought of as a looney for believing this. But it’s just very odd coincidence that something like that should happen in such a brief period of time.” He added: “They [the deaths] were accidents as far as anybody was able to tell but the fact they were clustered like that looked so weird.” Asked who might have wanted them out the way, he replied: “I can only think of the oil lobby but I don’t think the oil lobby goes around killing people.”

"He admitted it would have been "stupid" to go to the police with his concerns over the three deaths, not least because he was "suspicious" of the authorities - he cited the example of the death of the government’s weapons expert Dr David Kelly. Prof Wadhams added: “I thought if it was somebody assassinating them could it be one of our people doing it and that would be even more frightening. I thought it would be better not to touch this with a barge pole.”

"His suspicions drew outrage on Saturday from Prof Laxon’s partner, who was also a close friend of Dr Giles. When told what Prof Wadhams had said, Fiona Strawbridge, head of e-Learning at UCL, replied: “Good god. All of this is completely outrageous and very distressing.” The couple had been staying in a friends’ converted mill in the Essex countryside when her partner fell down the stairs in the early hours of New Year’s Day. He died the next day from head injuries. “It was very steep stairs and I heard Seymour fall,” said Ms Strawbridge, “It is just completely bonkers [to suggest murder]. I am sure there are some climate scientists who do get trolled and pursued but Seymour wasn’t one of them. I would have known if anybody had been pursuing him. Sometimes there are tragic coincidences and you have to accept that.” "​

 

[Tyger]

Outstanding analysis of the divisive nature of Climate Change in the US - or as Naomi Klein states - in any countries that have very polarized political debates - where there is a Culture War taking place (which is the case in the US for sure).

The first few minutes (just even 3 minutes) of this interview is chockfull of insights. Well worth a listen imo.

A lot of analysis has gone on regarding beliefs (pro and con) on Climate Change. It is noted that there has been a change. There was a time when you could not determine whether someone was a Republican or a Democrat based solely on their views around Climate Change. Climate Change was not a polarizing issue. That has changed. Democrats overwhelmingly believe in Climate Change (that has not changed), but Republicans (as a group) do not - or more correctly stated, they now do admit Climate Change, but insist it is not anthropogenic (caused by human actions). Beliefs are now split along partisan lines - and what this means is that it has nothing to do with the science.

Climate Change is now seen as an identity issue by those on the Right. People are now defining themselves as part of who they are (like around abortion issues, etc) around Climate Change views. It's not about the science because when one delves into the objections, people say that they believe it's a socialist plot to re-distribute wealth. There is a belief that it's a 'communist plot'.

Why is Climate Change seen as such a threat? Naomi Klein thinks it's not an unreasonable fear. She thinks it is unreasonable to think that scientists are making up the science and its'a hoax. But Climate Change really is a profound threat to a great deal of what Republican ideologues believe in. If you really wrestle with the implications of the science, and what real climate action would mean, it's sobering and means signifiant change.

Just a few examples - it would mean up-ending the whole free-trade agenda (it would mean we have to localize our economies). Free Trade and Globalization have been signature policies of the Right - so that would have to be reversed. We would have to deal with inequality, we would have to re-distribute wealth because this is what created the crisis to begin with, created by the North and the effects are being felt in the South [she is talking globally - hemispherically]. Any serious climate action means regulating corporations and means intervening in economies (dealing with what is called 'The Commons"). It also means that the United Nations does need to have more power/strength to deal with the global situation [note how this is in keeping with the fear-mongering about a New World Order]. The list goes on - so the way to deal with it is to deny the science.

[Understanding what the ramifications are of the science makes the politics all the more understandable. It also drives home the importance of the next presidential election in the United States.]

To accept Climate Change science one must accept that one's whole world view is going to fall apart - namely, that we have to have massive investments in infrastructure, that we have to reverse free trade deals, that we have to have huge transfers of wealth from the North to the South [which we do in the US btw - ironically, the wealth of the whole (tax dollars) gets funneled to the South by way of federal programs, while the red-state South votes congressmen and governors into office who want to cut those same programs and the taxes that support them. It's an irony that is tragic.]

But even the Green Groups have a kind of denial around the politics, failing to face the realities of what real change will mean when confronting the economic issues that (anthropogenic) climate change indicates.

This interview is from 2011 (in relation to her first book on Climate Change - she has a second book coming out now and a documentary coming out this fall). Though 4 years old what Naomi Klein is saying remains timely.

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine: "My Fear is Climate Change is the Biggest Crisis of All. 1 of 2

 

[Tyger]

Interesting interview for a variety of reasons, but what popped out at me was Klein mentioning that for the first time the Catholic Church (via the Pope's writings) is talking about 'Mother Earth - Sister Earth'. Some interesting insights.

Naomi Klein on Visiting the Vatican & the Radical Economic Message Behind Papal Climate Encyclical

TEXT: "Published on Aug 4, 2015: Following the publication of Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, a major conference on climate change was held at the Vatican. Speakers included our guest, Naomi Klein, author of "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” We speak to Klein about her trip to the Vatican and the importance of the pope’s message – not only on climate change, but the global economy."

 

[Tyger]

This book summarizes the situation: "Climate Change is the atmospheric legacy of a class war."

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate Paperback – August 4, 2015
by Naomi Klein (Author)

TEXT: "The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.

"In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.

"In This Changes Everything Naomi Klein argues that climate change isn’t just another issue to be neatly filed between taxes and health care. It’s an alarm that calls us to fix an economic system that is already failing us in many ways. Klein meticulously builds the case for how massively reducing our greenhouse emissions is our best chance to simultaneously reduce gaping inequalities, re-imagine our broken democracies, and rebuild our gutted local economies. She exposes the ideological desperation of the climate-change deniers, the messianic delusions of the would-be geoengineers, and the tragic defeatism of too many mainstream green initiatives. And she demonstrates precisely why the market has not—and cannot—fix the climate crisis but will instead make things worse, with ever more extreme and ecologically damaging extraction methods, accompanied by rampant disaster capitalism.

"Klein argues that the changes to our relationship with nature and one another that are required to respond to the climate crisis humanely should not be viewed as grim penance, but rather as a kind of gift—a catalyst to transform broken economic and cultural priorities and to heal long-festering historical wounds. And she documents the inspiring movements that have already begun this process: communities that are not just refusing to be sites of further fossil fuel extraction but are building the next, regeneration-based economies right now.

"Can we pull off these changes in time? Nothing is certain. Nothing except that climate change changes everything. And for a very brief time, the nature of that change is still up to us."​

A very good interview below covering a wide-ranging arc -

Naomi Klein with Katharine Viner, Conversation, 29 April 2015

TEXT: "Published on May 4, 2015: Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, fellow at The Nation Institute, and author of several international bestsellers. Her new book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, to be published in September, examines why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core ?free market? ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems. This event was part of the In Pursuit of Cultural Freedom lecture series."

 

[Tyger]

If you have the time, this is close to 2 hours and is (imo) an intelligent summation of the situation.

Naomi Klein - This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate

TEXT: "Published on Oct 29, 2014: Irving K. Barber Learning Centre Lecture presented by the Vancouver Institute. Webcast sponsored by the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre. Naomi Klein is the author of the critically acclaimed #1 international bestsellers, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies which have each been translated into more than 30 languages. She is a contributing editor for Harper's Magazine, a reporter for Rolling Stone, and a syndicated columnist for The Nation and The Guardian.

"Naomi is a member of the board of directors for 350.org, a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Her new book is This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (September, 2014). This lecture is co-sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 350.org and Green College."​

 

[Tyger]

Best Of Enemies - Official Trailer

TEXT: "Published on Jun 9, 2015: 2 Men. 10 Debates. Television would never be the same. Watch the trailer for Best of Enemies featuring the explosive debates between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley Jr. Available in theatres July 10th from Magnolia Pictures."​

I have seen the above documentary twice in the past week. Excellent. Thought-provoking. Highly recommend it. Mainly to do with the genesis of the American political culture wars. We are still in the same context that Gore Vidal and William F Buckley polarized into articulation - and that continues to play out in the Climate Change 'debate'.

 

[Tyger]

The behemoths of the far future - imo - will be Russia and China. The US may continue to be a cultural influence (perhaps), but for a variety of reasons (most particularly its pouring its treasure into ill-conceived and far-flung wars - the nemesis and beginning-of-the-end for all 'empires') the US's 'might' will continue to decline (unless serious reversals in systemic problems generated in the last few decades in the US governing structure take place - which is always possible).

One of the most serious blows will be the impact of Climate Change on the territory of the US. It's not for nothing that the CIA and US Military are openly stating that Climate Change is a national threat to the US. It truly is. In a not too distant future - with 20/20 hindsight - the catastrophe of the 'Climate Deniers' in the political realm (in the US) will be recognized. By then it will be a moot point. Already China is making investments in this hemisphere - case in point: Equador.

Russia claims vast Arctic territory, seeks U.N. recognition ~ August 4, 2015
LINK: Russia claims vast Arctic territory, seeks U.N. recognition

TEXT: "The Russian government on Tuesday announced that it had delivered "ample scientific data" to the United Nations to back its claim to more than 460,000 square miles of Arctic territory and the wealth of energy, gems and precious metals believed to lie within. Moscow also is asserting ownership of the emerging Northern Sea Route, the potentially lucrative seasonal shipping route opening above its northern coastline as Arctic ice melts.

"Russia was the first to claim the Arctic sea shelf as sovereign territory in a thwarted bid in 2002, but the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway also are pursuing jurisdiction over seabed in the Arctic, where a quarter of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves may be embedded. The 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes the right of countries to exercise sovereignty over an exclusive economic zone extending 200 nautical miles from their recognized shoreline borders. In cases where the continental shelf extends beyond that limit, the law of the sea allows a country to claim dominion up to 350 nautical miles from its shores.

"In the documents submitted to the U.N. on Monday, Russia argues that the undersea territory it seeks to add to its recognized borders doesn't fall under the 350-mile limit because the seabed and its resources are "natural components of the continent," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The statement said Russia expects the U.N. to begin considering its claim at a fall meeting of the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. But a U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, said that the commission isn't expected to gather in full until early next year and that in the meantime, Russia's submitted charts, maps and research data were being circulated among the 193 member nations of the world body for review.

"Russia first laid claim to the Arctic sea shelf in 2002, but its application for U.N. recognition was rejected on the grounds that Moscow hadn't provided sufficient evidence of the country's right to the territory. "To justify Russia’s rights in this area, ample scientific data collected during many years of Arctic research has been used," the Foreign Ministry statement said, alluding to exploratory missions and development of Arctic research facilities and floating ice stations going back to the 1930s. Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources estimates the Arctic sea shelf contains up to 5 billion tons of untapped oil and natural gas reserves worth as much as $30 trillion.

"Russian polar explorers in 2007 made a symbolic claim to the vast territory and maritime rights when they dropped a titanium-encased Russian flag on the seabed under the North Pole from a submarine. The Russian Defense Ministry has also flexed its muscle over the contested Arctic riches with a massive military exercise in March that deployed 40,000 troops, 50 warships and more than 100 combat aircraft into and over the Barents Sea. The Kremlin also announced last year in its revised strategic defense doctrine that a new Northern Fleet is being developed to protect its Arctic resources.

"Retreating Arctic sea ice has opened up a summer shipping route across northern Russia that can cut a cargo vessel's sailing time from Europe to Asia by nearly two weeks, raising the prospect of new income streams for Russia if its national claim to the Northern Sea Route is recognized by the United Nations. Russia boasts the world's most powerful icebreaker fleet and has plans to expand its nuclear-powered vessels to assist foreign cargo ships through the passage that remains icebound for much of the year.

"Environmental groups are warning against a rush to develop the Arctic shipping route and extract the energy resources under the sea bed. "The melting of the Arctic ice is uncovering a new and vulnerable sea, but countries like Russia and Norway want to turn it into the next Saudi Arabia,” Greenpeace Russia Arctic campaigner Vladimir Chuprov said in a statement. "Unless we act together, this region could be dotted with oil wells and fishing fleets within our lifetimes." U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry issued similar warnings about the fragile Arctic when he took the helm of the eight-nation Arctic Council at a summit in Canada's Far North in April.

U.S. takes helm of Arctic Council, aims to focus on climate change
"The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth. Temperatures are increasing at more than twice the rate of the global average, which means the resilience of Arctic communities and ecosystems and the ability of future generations to adapt and live and prosper in the Arctic is tragically, but actually, in jeopardy," Kerry said. He added that it is "imperative that the development we pursue is sensitive to the lifestyle and history that people want to hold on to, and also that it is sustainable."

"At a Russian government-sponsored Arctic development conference in Moscow in January, scientists and economists disclosed their projections that the sea shelf being pursued contains 90% of Russia's remaining nickel, cobalt and platinum, 60% of copper, and practically all of the country's explored reserves of titanium, tin and barite. The Arctic subsoil may also hold 70% to 90% of Russian reserves of gold, diamonds, lead, bauxites and other minerals, the Tass news agency reported from the conference.

"The 463,000-square-mile sea shelf claimed by Russia includes the Lomonosov Ridge, the Mendeleyev-Alpha Rise and the Chukchi Plateau, as well as the Podvodnikov and Chukchi basins that separate the three areas, according to the Russian documents submitted to the U.N. commission."​

 

[Tyger]

An article summarizing a study factoring in the true costs of fossil fuels and advising or "warning investors that they face risks if society ever wants to account for [societal] losses".

The Huge Hidden Costs Of Our Fossil-Fueled Economy: Oil companies may be the most profitable companies on the planet. But that's only because we let them destroy the planet for free.
LINK: The Huge Hidden Costs Of Our Fossil-Fueled Economy

TEXT: "Extracting fossil fuels is a lucrative business. Last year, ExxonMobil made $32.5 billion in profits. But, arguably, it's a business built on shaky foundations. If we were to account for the full cost of fossil fuels to the environment, it might completely wipe out the industry's profitability. That's the conclusion of a new analysis from the University of Cambridge that tallies up the social cost of producing oil, gas and coal products. Across 20 leading companies, it finds "hidden economic costs"—that is, costs that aren't currently paid—of $755 billion in 2008, and $883 billion in 2012. Which is several times what the companies reported in earned income in those years.

" 'The 20 companies as a group are highly profitable, with after‐tax profits of about 8.2 % of revenues in 2008 and 8.6 % in 2012. However this does not take account of the hidden economic cost to society that is caused when their products are burned and CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere,' says the paper by Chris Hope, Paul Gilding, and Jimena Alvarez.

"The researchers studied the accounts of major oil and gas groups like BP, Shell, Statoil, and Petrobras as well as several coal producers like Peabody and Coal India. The calculations are based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency model that says each ton of CO2 costs society $105 (in 2008 dollars). That's higher than the working EPA figure of $37 per ton, but below what some other researchers have calculated it should be. The analysis doesn't include some major state-owned producers such as Saudi Aramco, which don't publish open public accounts.

"Most of the oil and gas companies have hidden costs of $1.5 to $3 for every dollar is post-tax profit, while costs of the coal companies range mostly from about $40 to $100 for every dollar in profit, the paper says. The coal companies are also the most "unprofitable" with economic costs ranging from two to nine times annual revenues (let alone their profits).

"The point of the paper is to warn investors that they face risks if society ever wants to account for its losses (which doesn't look likely at the moment, but still). "These results will be a useful starting point for investors seeking to manage their exposure to climate change risk, and for policy makers interested in fossil fuel companies’ net contribution to society," the authors say."​

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Speaking of politics, wonder why this has received very little coverage?

July Was The Hottest Month Ever; Cable News Barely Noticed

 

[Tyger]

Speaking of politics, wonder why this has received very little coverage?

July Was The Hottest Month Ever; Cable News Barely Noticed

Every month is the hottest month since forever. Owning that means the nonsense the Republican deniers are parroting must be exposed. We are going into an election year. The populace must stay blinded. So no coverage.

 

[mike_thoth]

When it comes to headlines we need to be very careful & check the source of the actual data that is being reported. We recently had the same kind of announcements in the United Kingdom and trust me, this year has not been the hottest on record. What was reported was a record temperature reported at Heathrow airport, but the source of when and where this temperature was taken has been a little mystery and why it was used to demonstrate a record temperature was again, not scientific but it was reported because the same usual suspects will pickup and report it as a story. Heathrow is the busiest airport on Earth. It is on the outskirts of London. The temperature recorded was recorded at ground level on a runway area. Consider the Urban Heat Island effect here, the fact that it was a hot day, the air caked in jet fuel fumes, lots of people, planes. No person in their right mind what consider this temperature as being useful because of the urban heat island effect. Many of the temperatures reported these days are taken from weather stations that are located in terrible places, for instance in the US it was found that temperatures were being taken from very old stations which were painted black and located in car parks. These were being cherry picked and reported in the headlines. Anyone with any level of common sense knows that for a real temp to be taken certain factors must be cancelled out for a true temp, stations must be painted white and not stuck in the middle of the car park, but off away from any place which could influence it.

For my job I travel quite often the length and breadth of the UK, which is when I listen to the Paracast. On a recent trip of around 700 mile round trip, I was completely shocked by the amount of weather stations situated along the M6 and M5 motorways, two of the major roads running north and south down the country. During the trip it was cloudy and not warm, but given how busy these roads are, when the weather is hot, the heat coming off the road will have a major impact on the temperature and the closed lane to these stations is the "slow" lane, where all the freight travels. Even the heat of the freight engines would impact it. I have taken a sober and rational stance on this climate change issue for many years, I have informed myself as best I can, I whatever I find, I don't find a way to make it a serious and catastrophic issue. Yes climate changes, yes we impact this, but if we are suggesting that the CO2 we emit (remember it is plant food, plants would prefer 4000ppm and not the 400ppm we have currently) then we are adding a trace amount of gas into the atmosphere (currently 0.04% of atmosphere is CO2, we may up that to 0.05%) then what we are talking about is climate sensitivity. How sensitive is our climate to CO2 and trust me when I say this, the jury is still out on that. I think sensitivity is very low and the feedback of water vapour may actually have a cancellation effect. No matter what anyone says, climate sensitivity has not been answered and the only way for us to know what it is actually like is to monitor the climate. Over the last 20 years there has been a pause according to two satellite datasets (for those who don't believe this, just accept it has slowed down). Both scenarios strongly suggest that the sensitivity is low, if this is the case then calm down.

There are those who would use the precautionary principle in this. I don't agree this is the correct way forward. If we get the science wrong we get the policy wrong, $Trillions wasted which could have gone to saving lives elsewhere. So we must get the science right to get the policy right.

Michael

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

I'm saying..one reason that inclines me toward accepting climate change isn't that I love the corrupted left wing of the government that tells me everything that I want to hear. It's because the corrupted right wing of the government who are SO dead set against the idea are also fine with industrial pollution, deregulation of clean air and water standards, etc.

 

[mike]

Imagine having to live the rest of the year on a credit card..........................

Humans have already used up 2015's supply of Earth's resources – analysis


The GFN estimates that human consumption first began to exceed the Earth’s capacity in the early 1970s and the overshoot day has been falling steadily earlier ever since, due to the growth in the global population alongside the expansion of consumption around the world.

 

[Tyger]

When it comes to headlines we need to be very careful & check the source of the actual data that is being reported.

Exactly so.

We recently had the same kind of announcements in the United Kingdom and trust me, this year has not been the hottest on record. What was reported was a record temperature reported at Heathrow airport, but the source of when and where this temperature was taken has been a little mystery and why it was used to demonstrate a record temperature was again, not scientific but it was reported because the same usual suspects will pickup and report it as a story. Heathrow is the busiest airport on Earth. It is on the outskirts of London. The temperature recorded was recorded at ground level on a runway area. Consider the Urban Heat Island effect here, the fact that it was a hot day, the air caked in jet fuel fumes, lots of people, planes. No person in their right mind what consider this temperature as being useful because of the urban heat island effect. Many of the temperatures reported these days are taken from weather stations that are located in terrible places, for instance in the US it was found that temperatures were being taken from very old stations which were painted black and located in car parks. These were being cherry picked and reported in the headlines.

Because you are not citing sources it is difficult to know what you are talking about. For example, is your information coming from The Daily Mail, a notoriously inaccurate broadsheet? The Daily Mail would indeed be cherry-picking and reporting misleading headlines.

This is an example of the 'politics' of global warming.

It is always important to keep in mind the context for all the scientific data, and in this instance, it is global average temperature that is being discussed in the scientific literature, not individual locations, or even whole countries. Such may be experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, snow rather than rain, rain rather than dryness. That is an anticipated and predicted result of the global change in average temperature. Global average temperature has been rising steadily.

Anyone with any level of common sense knows that for a real temp to be taken certain factors must be cancelled out for a true temp, stations must be painted white and not stuck in the middle of the car park, but off away from any place which could influence it.

I think the scientists do have that common sense. You are displaying a lack of common sense if you actually believe what you are suggesting (imo) - namely, that scientists lack common sense, and you, as a layperson, have the wherewithal to anecdotally 'correct' their studies.

For my job I travel quite often the length and breadth of the UK, which is when I listen to the Paracast. On a recent trip of around 700 mile round trip, I was completely shocked by the amount of weather stations situated along the M6 and M5 motorways, two of the major roads running north and south down the country. During the trip it was cloudy and not warm, but given how busy these roads are, when the weather is hot, the heat coming off the road will have a major impact on the temperature and the closed lane to these stations is the "slow" lane, where all the freight travels. Even the heat of the freight engines would impact it.

Interesting anecdote but is not relevant to the larger issue.

I have taken a sober and rational stance on this climate change issue for many years, I have informed myself as best I can, I whatever I find, I don't find a way to make it a serious and catastrophic issue. Yes climate changes, yes we impact this, but if we are suggesting that the CO2 we emit (remember it is plant food, plants would prefer 4000ppm and not the 400ppm we have currently) then we are adding a trace amount of gas into the atmosphere (currently 0.04% of atmosphere is CO2, we may up that to 0.05%) then what we are talking about is climate sensitivity. How sensitive is our climate to CO2 and trust me when I say this, the jury is still out on that. I think sensitivity is very low and the feedback of water vapour may actually have a cancellation effect. No matter what anyone says, climate sensitivity has not been answered and the only way for us to know what it is actually like is to monitor the climate. Over the last 20 years there has been a pause according to two satellite datasets (for those who don't believe this, just accept it has slowed down). Both scenarios strongly suggest that the sensitivity is low, if this is the case then calm down.

There is some science in the above. You should explore your ideas more at science sites that genuinely discuss the science. You have not cited your sources, but I can recognize the 'facts' you are listing. Your science is off - or rather, more to the point, the way you are connecting the dots is off. You are reciting a very recognizable narrative spun by deniers. You don't know that you're off because you are accepting wholesale the 'analysis' you are reading, wherever you are reading it - website, article or book. (The whole business about CO2 being 'plant food' pretty poor stuff but rampant among those reading certain - denier - information. Your repeating that 'factoid' is a dead-give-away that you haven't really penetrated the science yet).

There are those who would use the precautionary principle in this. I don't agree this is the correct way forward. If we get the science wrong we get the policy wrong, $Trillions wasted which could have gone to saving lives elsewhere. So we must get the science right to get the policy right. Michael

In this case, if the science is wrong, the result is we have cleaned up the planet (not a deleterious trade-off). So no matter what, the policies serve the best interests of the whole. No one is being injured - except the monied interests.

What the science and subsequent policies are necessitating is a change in a top-down resource driven economic model. That is where the fear-based resistance comes from. Switching the energy reliance of whole countries is causing industries to shift - but how does that translate into 'trillions wasted'? In the US there are now more sustainable energy jobs than there are fossil fuel generated jobs. Who is hurting? The fossil fuel industry. (This kind of 'suffering' ensues whenever there is a shift in an economic base - as there was, for an example, in the South of the US after our Civil War, and the southern economy in certain quarters shifted from cotton growing to tobacco growing, and yet again 100 years later when it shifted out of tobacco growing). [BTW a similar 'hardship' will be generated when the US economy shifts away from armament/gun production - but the plus is that those trillions of dollars will then go into society - but the initial impact will be hardship as the balance shifts away from an armaments industry.]

What is curious is the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a top-down economic structure, where the resource can be hoarded and controlled for maximum profits/wealth by a small number. [No freedom for the worker.] This was not the initial intention behind the energy grid - that grid was sold to the common man on the idea that it was a communal endeavor, 'owned' by all the participants - a public utility. (Something similar is taking place in the US regarding the Internet. The Internet was developed by US tax dollars and offered to the public as a common asset 'owned' by all. There is a recurring attempt to change that).

Sustainable energy is at the other end of the spectrum - it is locally controlled by it's very nature, making people free in the way they were with candles and fires. Strange that people fight this.