The title of the talk is "Going Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: Exploring the void between rhetoric and reality in reducing carbon emissions"
There is also this alternative version.
A blog written to explain that the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme will not effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Showing posts with label climate science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate science. Show all posts
22 May 2012
Kevin Anderson, rhetoric, tenuous hope, brutal numbers
This is a brilliant talk by Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and the Tyndall Center about how the OECD countries have deluded themselves that they are doing anything meaningful to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
01 March 2012
Climate change denier Bryan Leyland as a "must read"? Has Bryce Edwards jumped the shark?
I usually enjoy reading the usually thoughtful opinions of Otago political scientist Bryce Edwards of the Liberation blog. Since the 2011 election Bryce Edwards has written a daily column in the New Zealand Herald. But in his column of 27 February 2012, Bryce Edwards endorses an opinion piece by climate change denier Bryan Leyland as a "must-read item for the day".
Bryan Leyland is one of New Zealand's premier deniers of anthropogenic 20th century climate change. Leyland was a foundation member of New Zealand's American-funded deniers organisation - the New Zealand Climate "Science" Coalition.
Has Bryce Edwards lost it? Has he jumped the proverbial shark? Has he succumbed to media savviness under the pressure of having to provide a daily political column?
Bryce Edwards should be aware that climate contrarians like Leyland enjoy a media platform out of proportion to their expertise;
"For those interested in issues of inequality (and the environment), the must-read item for the day is Brian Leyland's "The only way is full steam ahead". Leyland makes the case for the necessity of both economic growth and technological innovation in order improve not just the interest of society as a whole, but to reduce inequality and protect the environment".Really. Really! Really?
Bryan Leyland is one of New Zealand's premier deniers of anthropogenic 20th century climate change. Leyland was a foundation member of New Zealand's American-funded deniers organisation - the New Zealand Climate "Science" Coalition.
Has Bryce Edwards lost it? Has he jumped the proverbial shark? Has he succumbed to media savviness under the pressure of having to provide a daily political column?
Bryce Edwards should be aware that climate contrarians like Leyland enjoy a media platform out of proportion to their expertise;
"media-savvy individuals with outlier views on climate change can be disproportionally represented in the national news media regardless of the level of their expertise".I don't know, but I have just lost some confidence in the opinions of Bryce Edwards.
16 January 2012
James Hansen at 5min.com
I have just seen a new source of online videos of James Hansen. The website 5min.com is also free of the advertisements that seem so pervasive at You Tube these days.
24 November 2011
International climate change negotiations planning to fail
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith seems perfectly happy to pretty much ignore the science (as visualised in the excellent graphic of future emissions pathways) and see the UNFCCC/Kyoto process fail.
Here is a statement he made to Parliament where he implies the lack of an international climate change agreement, after Kyoto ends in 2012, is fine with him as it enables him to tell Kennedy Graham (Greens MP) that there will be no cost after 2012 to the taxpayer from giving emitters free emissions units.
"This member and other members make the gross error of trying to claim that not exposing industries or consumers to the full price of carbon over all their emissions is somehow a subsidy. A subsidy implies that there is a cost to taxpayers. That is not true. It is not true, and members opposite who attempt to run that argument ignore the fact that there is no international agreement beyond the end of 2012 for reducing emissions at this point, and without it, there is no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer."
To me Smith seems to be saying "It's no big deal if the UNFCCC/Kyoto process fails. In fact, we are relying on failure in the crazy design of our NZETS".
As well as basing the NZETS policy on a bet that the Durban conference will continue 18 years of stalemate, Smith is also wrong in fact about costs to taxpayers. The NZ emissions units are owned by the Crown on behalf of taxpayers. Giving them away free to emitters is a transfer of wealth from all taxpayers to emitters. Or a cost.
Here is a statement he made to Parliament where he implies the lack of an international climate change agreement, after Kyoto ends in 2012, is fine with him as it enables him to tell Kennedy Graham (Greens MP) that there will be no cost after 2012 to the taxpayer from giving emitters free emissions units.
"This member and other members make the gross error of trying to claim that not exposing industries or consumers to the full price of carbon over all their emissions is somehow a subsidy. A subsidy implies that there is a cost to taxpayers. That is not true. It is not true, and members opposite who attempt to run that argument ignore the fact that there is no international agreement beyond the end of 2012 for reducing emissions at this point, and without it, there is no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer."
To me Smith seems to be saying "It's no big deal if the UNFCCC/Kyoto process fails. In fact, we are relying on failure in the crazy design of our NZETS".
As well as basing the NZETS policy on a bet that the Durban conference will continue 18 years of stalemate, Smith is also wrong in fact about costs to taxpayers. The NZ emissions units are owned by the Crown on behalf of taxpayers. Giving them away free to emitters is a transfer of wealth from all taxpayers to emitters. Or a cost.
20 November 2011
The IPCC report on extreme climate and weather events
The IPCC report on extreme climate and weather events is discussed at Real Climate
Here is a wordle of it.
Here is a wordle of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)