Wednesday
Aug042010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Pielke Jnr on the Climate Fix
Aug 4, 2010 Books Climate: WG3 Climate: other Energy RP Jnr's talk on climate policy is well worth a look, if nothing else for the perspective it gives on UK energy policy. One can't help but be mightily embarrassed by the 'solutions' put in place by our political leaders and mightily concerned that our energy policy is now being dictated by 'Howlin mad' Huhne.
Reader Comments (10)
Sooner (I hope) or later (probably), someone's ears have got to "prick up" and actually hear what this guy and many others, not least Nigel Lawson, are saying, and hear the sense about the practicalities of delivering all these wonderful promises and examples to the world (that no-one else will hear as they'll be too busy laughing at us).
I realize this is terribly naive but, either our "Honourable" representatives are deliberately dragging this on with all these obvious whitewash enquiries, allowing them to deliberately lead us so deep into the smelly stuff as to create the next big "crisis" from which to save us i.e. the energy gap. Then of course it will be the usual "sorry about this chaps but we've got no choice" etc or, they're all completely ruddy dim!
Ee it's a grand life i'n't it?
No worse than those who've gone before. The last sensible one was Tony Benn.
What an execllent exposition of the problem. I also found it cautiously optimistic. The narrowmindedness of the 3rd runway at Heathrow debate was well illustrated.
Not to say that a new runway wouldn't seriously affect nearby residents, but the scale of changes that are needed to address future economic and energy needs really do suggest that life in 2050 will be remarkably different from now.
I liked that presentation and think he's a great speaker. Comments on UK policy were rather depressing, and unfortunately all too true and perhaps highlight problems around arbitary goal-seeking. So to meet emissions targets, building 40 Dungeness B's by 2015 which is impractical and will make close to real zero difference unless other countries follow suit.
That's all part it seems of confusion between climate policy and energy policy. Climate change may be less certain than the UK's energy problems but they've somehow become inextricably linked. There was an interesting answer to a question on how cap and tax policy conflicts with funding for research for improved technology and current policy may act as a disincentive, hence we see manufacturing and industry offshore rather than face increased costs. More carrot to improve efficiency may be more effective than the sticks to fund windmills.
The most important feature of this talk was the sense of proportion that Roger Pielke Jnr brings. In Britain we have a policy of 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, that is both unachievable, and will make us a good deal poorer in the attempt. Even if achieved over 42 years, the Chinese have already increased their emissions by that amount twice over this year.
It is this sense of proportion is what is lacking throughout the whole of the science and policy-perscriptions.
It makes one wish that with a magic wand or one dayof power we could oblige Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and others just to sit down and listen to Pielke.
But even if we could sit them down would they actually listen and understand.?
Does anyone have any idea why our political elites are so misguided?
@diggerjock
OK, I'll treat your question as non-rhetorical:
A large proportion of the populace (perhaps a majority) are scared witless by the apparent prospect of catastrophe ... so they want AGW "fixed", BUT - they want someone else to pay for it. This is so for most, if not all, of the Western democracies
Populist politicians (ie. the sort that get elected) avoid this conflict by expounding hopelessly impractical solutions in the cynical knowledge that a majority of the populace are sufficiently technically illiterate to be unable to question these with any accuracy or indeed, interest
People prefer to believe than to know - it makes them feel better
Don't forget folks, the Climate Change Bill was passed at its third reading by 463 votes to 3. The British political establishment seems pretty well unanimously in favour of the idea that CO2 is a demon. They apparently believe that windmills are going to make a substantial contribution to the national grid and that there will be thousands of green jobs; there may be, but many more existing jobs will be destroyed. Climbing back down from that position when so much has been invested and bureaucracies set up will take some doing.
Then of course, there's the fact that much of the anti-AGW legislation we see comes from the EU.
It would be nice to think that Pielke's more rational views could gain some traction, but it doesn't look promising.
From what I can see, the public is starting to get fed up, but it's just one issue among others at present, and I don't think it's dawned how much Westminster's green dreams are going to cost, what little useful effect they will have, and the damage they will do.
But Cosmic, as Pielke himself explained you cannot cause a loss of amenity for the electorate. They will not wear it and will chuck out the politicians who dare to bring it on. There is no doubt the Climate Change Bill will cause a large increase in the price of electricity, a loss of energy security and a serious loss of amenity.
Some of the 463 MPs may have been silly enough to think it wouldn't. Others may have thought they would be gone long before the chickens came home to roost. No doubt some thought they would be able to blame it on the recession, the bankers or someone else.
However the public are not that stupid and I cannot imagine that if Chris Huhne is still in the same job 4 years from now that he (and the coalition) will be able avoid being blamed.
When ideas soar and defy the gravity of reality, they eventually have to be reacquainted with the ground, it could be a soft landing by shifting AGW talk into energy security, but there's no evidence of that happening and too much inertia in the notion of fixing climate change. A lot of the baggage of climate change such as Carbon Capture and Storage, is contrary to the objective of energy security anyway. Pielke in his talk was trying to do this without quite going so far as to say the fixation with CO2 is bunk.
It looks as if we are in line to see a spectacular crash landing.