Bishop Hill Rusbridger asks my question
Apr 16, 2015 Climate: WG3 Ethics In Nature, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger is calling on scientists to put pressure on organisations like the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation to divest from fossil fuels. Now I'm not sure about the idea of scientists taking up the activist cudgels in this way, but I'm certainly interested in the views of climate scientists on the moral dilemmas involved. A month or so ago I asked climate scientists a very similar question on Twitter.
Climate scientist followers: what is your response to people who seek to deny third world access to fossil fuels because of AGW?
— Bishop Hill (@aDissentient) March 15, 2015
My question had been prompted by a tweet by Gavin Schmidt, who had been taking Matt Ridley to task for even suggesting that there might be a trade-off:
Conflating climate change concerns w/a disregard for African children dying from smoke inhalation by @mattwridley is totally abhorrent.
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) March 14, 2015
Unfortunately, nobody seemed to want to respond to my question, and Doug McNeall said that this was my own fault:
@aDissentient *sigh* nobody engages with you because your attempt to frame this is so transparently cynical. @ClimateOfGavin
— Doug McNeall (@dougmcneall) March 16, 2015
I don't see this myself. The policymakers who had to consider the question of investment in fossil-fuels in the Third World had a simple choice to make: do it, or don't do it. To ask people which way they would have chosen is hardly unfair.
Nor is it unfair to note that the policymakers in question said "no" and that their choice has had consequences: no decrease in deaths from woodsmoke in the present day but, if the climate and economic models are to be believed, then a saving of lives and costs in the future.
These are the choices that society has to make, and Alan Rusbridger is asking scientists to stand up and make the same decision. For sure, he makes no mention of the trade-offs involved, so I'm sure I will be commended by all involved for making this clarification.
I wonder what reaction he will get?
Reader Comments (142)
Since fossil fuels are even today uneconomic in most parts of third world countries and increasingly so, those who would help with the installation of renewable energy sources are friends of the developing world. Those who insist on burdening the poor with crippling, increasing and continuous fuel prices, are, well, fossils. The same sort of fools who would insist that the only useful telephone system to build in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia involves lots of wooden sticks
Eli lays this out pretty clearly in discussing whether Africa needs telephone poles, but the key takeaway is that fossil fuels carry a constant demand for buying the fuels with relatively little capital investment. Renewables, OTOH, have relatively high capital costs and low running costs.
This leads the Bunny to the conclusion that ethical people would conspire to help the developing countries with capital investment for renewables.
ethical people would conspire to ask the developing countries what THEY want.
Arrogant people might conspire to give the developing countries something else
ATTP
If you are sitting on large deposits of coal then fossil fuel=coal. Is your degree in hair-splitting, by any chance?
I note you still haven't bothered to answer the question or acknowledged that Greenpeace are moving heaven and earth at every opportunity to prevent the use of coal for electricity generation. (Not just in Africa and India as it happens but one thing at a time.)
Their justification is increasing CO2 causing catastrophic global warming. Since climate scientists either agree that CO2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming in which case they presumably agree that the deaths of a lot of Africans from smoke inhalation and other unpleasantries is a price worth paying or they don't in which case it is time to blow the whistle on an organisation that does.
Your choice. But it's either 'no' or 'yes' since there is no third option. Refusing to answer simply marks you as someone who is frightened of the consequences whichever answer he gives. One of these days all that fence-sitting will get you splinters in your backside!
A man dressed as a rabbit, speaking about himself in the third person just offered a perspective on development of poorer economies.
>> fossil fuels are even today uneconomic in most parts of third world countries and increasingly so <<
Given that the price of oil has fallen substantially, it would seem that the in that concatenation of claims is necessarily false. No support was offered of the other claims, except a few paragraphs on his own blog, which don't do as he believes them to.
How seriously can we take this banal man in a bunny costume? How seriously is he taking the debate?
Dave Salt (Apr 16, 2015 at 4:51 PM): it reminds me of a time, a few years ago, when I was in Nigeria. An official noticed my accent, and asked where I was from; when I responded, “England,” his immediate response was: “Oh. Are you here to make reparations, then?” I then replied, “Reparations for what? Britain gave you roads, railways, water, electricity, telephones, television, schools, hospitals, public buildings… Quite what do you want reparations for?!”
He could only reply: “Oh. I hadn’t thought of that…”
Yes, let’s not be patronising. Every country of the British empire had an entire infrastructure created for it; yes, Britain and the British became rich; but, then, so did an awful lot of the locals (i.e. MOST of them!). On independence, some countries used that infrastructure, and built upon it; however, others just sat back and moaned, and expected yet more from Britain (Robert Mugabe is still insisting that his country’s problems are the fault of Britain over 40 – 40! – years after independence). For how long does this have to go on?
Mike,
You really aren't getting this, are you? It's not even all that complicated.
This, from the NYT, a couple of days back: A call to look beyond sustainable development
Ken Rice - however much you blether on, you are still avoiding the crux of what BH is stating quite clearly and indeed, quite simply, that the policies that the likes of you advocate, whether directly or indirectly, cause misery and harm to millions in the Third World. If you can sleep well at night with that - well, bully for you. Now what was it you said? "Back up and fuck off" was it not?
aTTP, no matter how you try to twist and turn to avoid making a decision you will have to stand up and be counted.
Cutting to the base of the argument we have, on one hand those that advocate a long, slow painful genocide in Africa and other developing countries by denying the people there constant, abundant energy to improve and enhance their lives and on the other hand there are those that say we must provide that energy. The only way to obtain constant, abundant, reliable energy is to use fossil fuels - renewables just don't cut it.
Now aTTP which side do you stand with? Remember, global warming, climate change or what ever you want to call it this month does not stand against peoples lives at the moment - those unborn will look after themselves when their time comes and we have no way of influencing them.
If there were no theory of AGW and no thermometers and no climate scientists, the decision of the world bank would be despicable , unsupportable and downright madness.
But these things DO exist, so for the climate scientists and their apologists to claim it's nothing to do with them is a bit of a stretch imho
Shub --... dozens of countries — including Nepal, Cambodia and Bangladesh — have flocked to join China’s new infrastructure investment bank...
Amazing, isn't it. What ingrates these foreign people are, for choosing the offer of development from a country that has shown how to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty within just a generation, rather than the 'ethics' offered by the EU/US and men dressed as rabbits, which show how much they 'care' for their intended beneficiaries.
Roads, trains, factories, schools and hospitals. Or treadle pumps, fair trade and unending dependence.
Thank god for people speaking about themselves in the third person. How would people navigate this tough choice without men dressed as rabbits?
The Grauniads "Keep it in the ground" campaign does not apply to bunnies.
It is jolly decent of aTTP to keep digging a grave big enough to bury most of climate science in.
aTTP still thinks 97% of Bishop Hill viewers/contributors are stupid, because the Hockey Team say so, and they are experts in everything.
Rabbit fried Rice could form part of an affordable diet in the developing world, even if cooked with dung fire. At least dung fire is not as instantly fatal as gun fire.
Oh, I "get it" all right, Ken. I've been "getting it" for a lot longer than you've been around, believe me.
If I had had a pound for every time I have had to deal with a self-opinionated academic whose ego is about the size of a small planet and is convinced that he has no need to explain himself to those he considers lesser mortals then I would have been able to retire 20 years sooner.
Add in the ones who find it amusing to play word games and mind games with those they consider their intellectual inferiors and I could have probably bought a yacht as well.
You're just one more in a long line and not a very good one either.
Mike Jackson
You and me both!
Sandy, Mike: add me to that list!
(I suspect this could be a long, long list...)
@aTTP
What first attracted you to the field of Public Relations, Ken?
And, what characteristics do you have that makes you excel in your role as Public Relations Director for the Institute for Astronomy at Edinburgh University?
Mike Jackson, yes add me to the list.
But, aTTP could model the climate of a small planet, and in the absence of Little Green Men living on that small planet, no one could prove him wrong.
Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, Green men and women keep telling him he is right about modelled planetary climate physics.
Unfortunately, real men and women, keep noticing that Real Climate Scientists, with Really expensive compoota models, can't make predictions that Really work, and the money wasted could have been put to better uses.
Am I the only one to have noticed that aTTP's use of rhetorical statements concerning global warming require his presumption that 97% of Bishop Hill viewers share his gullibility?
RoyFOMR, in job titles, the words 'Director' and 'Dictator' are frequently confused, especially by incumbents, who by their own confused superiority, are licenced to condescend.
Ok, Golf Charlie, until Ken gets time off from his Slartibartfastian, planet-making modelling duties, I'll put your suggestions onto the stack for what every PR Director needs.
Condescension, Egotism and muddle-headedness; is that about right?
ATTP....just what is your point? Since you never express it and simply complain that people misunderstand you, perhaps it would be better if you acually explained your stance in a way that people could understand. I doubt that it would be possible for you however, since I doubt that you even have a point of view that you can express in a coherent way. You come across as a collection of psycho-babble diagrams.
RoyFOMR, yes!
I have never yet seen the fjords of Norway, but from photographs, I can appreciate why they won design awards.
Designing fjords into Africa on Earth Mk2, might have benefits for convection of dung smoke, but may not help with the production, and collection of dung. Unless Slartibartfast could include a flat plateau, just above sea level, along the length of every fjord. This would also require a further letter in the alphabet, somewhere between 'V' and 'U' to describe the shapes of valleys.
Beyond Our Ken
Ben Pile: Your comments are profound, especially about the way greens claim to care in the abstract.
I am reminded of a "Peanuts" cartoon (did Peanuts, i.e. Charlie Brown, appear in British media?):
Linus: I want to be a doctor when I grow up.
Sister Lucy: You can't be a doctor, you don't have enough love for mankind.
Linus: I love mankind. It's people I can't stand.
David Jay
We had Peanuts in the UK, we even had a hit record about Snoopy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxzg_iM-T4E
Apologies as it's pretty bad in many ways, and diverts the discussion away from a serious topic.
ATTP,
How do you fancy Living with Load Shedding?
http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Revised-Load-Shedding-Schedule.pdf
This is what the most developed country in Africa is having to face. Any cogent suggestions as to how to improve the lot of the poor citizens of the Rainbow nation, before they freeze their nuts off?
http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/sa-faces-a-dark-and-cold-winter-with-outages
Remember, the qualifying term is "cogent" , but not http://www.cogentinternational.co.uk/ B. S.
Perry,
I'm South African! I suspect that you too are failing to get my issue with how the question was phrased. Here's a hint.
Have you ever been there?
[Snip - raise the tone please]
[Snip - response to snipped comment]
I have. When the katabatic wind drops of Table Mountain, those with nuts start to look very concerned.
I was also rather disappointed with the conditions in Durban; while not exactly freezing, it was a bit of a shock to have to dress as warmly as I did.
So, aTTP, your point being?
Apr 17, 2015 at 10:59 AM perry
ATTP,
How do you fancy Living with Load Shedding?
Given the possibility that The Green Blob in Scotland will gain momentum with Nicola in charge, together with the possibility that Logannet shuts down next year, it is possible that Ken will find out what it is like before he is much older.
Perhaps, these two hotbeds of Green Blobism could volunteer to be first in line for disconnection when the time comes:
http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/humanities-soc-sci/research-ke/research-excellence/climate-change-network
ATTP,
Quo vadis? Is that question loaded enough for you? The Bish thought my previous interrogation a bit too water boarding, but IMHO t'were apposite. In which case, to put it more harmoniously, do you enjoy sex & travel?
Just illustrating ignorance, but I think that was probably unnecessary.
Ken Rice is concerned that the question was loaded, and that it is not for people who are concerned about climate to have to be concerned about the consequence of concern for climate.
But what if "concern for climate" is itself loaded?
What if concern for climate isn't just accidentally anti-human in character. What if -- and it seems to be the case -- "concern for the climate" always seems to involve putting humans second or later. What if, concern for the climate and misanthropy or racism are the same thing?
Ken Rice has no answer.
Ben,
"concern for climate" isn't a question. So, yes, I have no answer to the phrase "concern for climate" as I don't know how to answer a phrase.
mepoor people.Consider this: only one “renewable” (hydro) gives constant output; all other “renewables” require “fossil”-fuel backup. To ramp up the necessary output only when required costs a lot in fuel (and emissions), thus costing more. As this backup is necessary, and needs to have an output equivalent to the maximum available from “renewables”, why not just drop the ridiculously expensive idea of installing the “renewables” (and replacing them rather frequently) in the first place.
EternalOptimist: spot on!
(Remember your mantra, Rodent: “Do not rise, do not rise…ommmmm….” DNFTT.)
Ken Rice - "concern for climate" isn't a question.
Something doesn't need to be a question to be loaded. the point was that "concern for climate" might be prefigured. Or it might be that misanthropy manifests as such concern.
The question was 'But what if "concern for climate" is itself loaded?'
You want to say that AM's question is loaded, but that concern for climate is that and just that alone. But if concern for climate in fact rests on presuppositions or a priori, then concern for climate is not simply concern for climate and no more.
After all, the balance of atmospheric gases is not in and of itself a concern. It is the consequences which are supposed to concern us. So there is necessarily something loaded into the concern for the climate. And it needs unpacking.
It seems to me, however, that your project is determined to resist any analysis of environmentalists claim, and to undermine anybody who dares to unpack what 'concern for the climate' actually is.
'what is your response to people who seek to deny others the freedom to speak out ...'
Hmm, I seem to recall ATTP saying @Climate Etc that he cut off comments at his own
site because they annoyed him.
an issue [snip- venting] is that windmills are sources of climate change: they take out energy of the atmosphere. The loss of wind behind a wall of windmills is noticeable.
Weather = climate = wind mostly.
So to avert climate change, warmists [ed.and snip -ditto] propose to induce climate change??
Sort of darkly amusing, just about on topic ......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M
Sadly, most environmentalists believe what they have been taught.
They still believe Paul Ehrlich was right, even when he has been
wrong on almost everything. They think he won the bet with Julian Simon
because 40 years later someone found 1 commodity that for a brief few
years actually went up in real price.
They believe naively that the equation I = PAT actually means something
(Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology) when in fact, one can easily
show that in some cases a larger population can allow specialization and less
pollution or human impact and certainly it is the more affluent societies with the
best technology that often have the cleanest air and water and the least pollution.
The environmentalists including some climate scientists still will say that we need
to "humanely" reduce world population. They want to focus on the preventing the
3rd world from getting the "bad" technology and push wind and solar instead. They
don't want to think about the consequences in terms of more people dying and
suffering than in the case where they got to use coal and natural gas instead. Now,
I hope that there are some (like ATTP perhaps) who will admit in writing that they
agree that there will need to be some coal and NG along with some solar and that
this should be done as soon as possible to save lives.
But sadly, I think the problem is at least two-fold. On the one hand, they don't want
to get caught saying they agree there is a need for say a 2/3 or 3/4 mix of fossil fuels
with wind/solar or they may get thrown out of their little club and called a d-word and
have a hard time getting grants. The other is that, once they admit that more people
will die from one set of policies than the other, they then have to go down that road.
But if they side-step the issue and never admit it (at least to others) then they don't
have to think about the people who will die when they refuse to speak up.
Even now, all Schmidt or ATTP would have to say is something to the effect: "I agree
that fossil fuels have to be in the mix" and maybe add "some fossil fuel plants need to be set up
as soon as possible in Africa".
On the other hand, not admitting it to others (or possibly to themselves) allows
them to celebrate in 20 years when population growth in Africa has slowed and
they can rejoice that population has been "humanely" reduced without having to
think about the fact that it was not humane and that they are partly to blame for
not speaking up.
One interesting offshoot of scientists against energy development is simply this - how does one do science research without abundant, cheap power? We all know they all run to supercomputers with their models - the only type of research they now seem able to do - so if we trash fossil fuels, does that also put the wasted energy of running supercomputers and their models in the same energy dock as the 80% or more of people that see energy now as an expensive part of their lives? If so, we really don't have any need for scientists since they forgot how to use a hand calculator, much less a slide rule.
Fortunately for humans in need, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has been formed by China, India, Russia and 50+ other nations. As with buggy whips and sealing wax, the World Bank, IMF, CAGW believers, and New World Order types with their hateful beliefs will now be abandoned. The discussion is now over. Sheep and goats have been separated. As development moves forward, the haters who failed to stop freedom and opportunity, will be advised to move quickly into the shadows like the cockroaches they have become. The #AIIB is a sea change! You lost, get used to it.