“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books–mine included–because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
Now he tells us.
Walter Russell Mead's take on the story gets to the heart of the matter,
"our concerns about the climate movement center on its weakness for cockamamie policy ideas and its propensity to over hype the evidence. Alarmist predictions become a tool for stampeding the public toward crazy policy ideas with large costs and little hope of success."
Speaking of no success, the guys behind the Breakthrough Institute report that emissions are declining in the U.S. but not in Europe,
"It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. was cast as the global climate villain, refusing to sign the Kyoto accord while Europe implemented cap and trade.
"But, as we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade, while Europe's cap and trade system has had no measurable impact on emissions. Even the supposedly green Germany is moving back to coal.
"Why? The reason is obvious: the U.S. is benefiting from the 30-year, government-funded technological revolution that massively increased the supply of unconventional natural gas, making it cheap even when compared to coal."
And the lesson for policy makers?
"The contrast between what is happening in Europe and what is happening in the U.S. challenges anyone who still thinks pricing carbon and emissions trading are more important to emissions reductions than direct and sustained public investment in technology innovation."
It's all about making clean energy cheaper, not conventional energy more expensive.
Now comes Republican weatherman Paul Douglas, in part 2 of his series, doubling down on the "old" Lovelockian climate view. Douglas asks,
"When will American business wake up to the scientific reality of climate change?"
Which reality, Paul? The circa 2006 view of apocalyptic climate change that Lovelock was promoting then, or the new, pragmatic view that Lovelock admits to today?
Not keeping up with current events, Douglas continues to recommend the same-old-same-old,
"If we don’t jump on these new opportunities we risk conceding leadership to China, Asia and Europe, where there has been no substantial “debate” about climate science for years. They have accepted the facts as facts."
Oh, well. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Walter Russell Mead's take on the story gets to the heart of the matter,
"our concerns about the climate movement center on its weakness for cockamamie policy ideas and its propensity to over hype the evidence. Alarmist predictions become a tool for stampeding the public toward crazy policy ideas with large costs and little hope of success."
Speaking of no success, the guys behind the Breakthrough Institute report that emissions are declining in the U.S. but not in Europe,
"It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. was cast as the global climate villain, refusing to sign the Kyoto accord while Europe implemented cap and trade.
"But, as we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade, while Europe's cap and trade system has had no measurable impact on emissions. Even the supposedly green Germany is moving back to coal.
"Why? The reason is obvious: the U.S. is benefiting from the 30-year, government-funded technological revolution that massively increased the supply of unconventional natural gas, making it cheap even when compared to coal."
And the lesson for policy makers?
"The contrast between what is happening in Europe and what is happening in the U.S. challenges anyone who still thinks pricing carbon and emissions trading are more important to emissions reductions than direct and sustained public investment in technology innovation."
It's all about making clean energy cheaper, not conventional energy more expensive.
Now comes Republican weatherman Paul Douglas, in part 2 of his series, doubling down on the "old" Lovelockian climate view. Douglas asks,
"When will American business wake up to the scientific reality of climate change?"
Which reality, Paul? The circa 2006 view of apocalyptic climate change that Lovelock was promoting then, or the new, pragmatic view that Lovelock admits to today?
Not keeping up with current events, Douglas continues to recommend the same-old-same-old,
"If we don’t jump on these new opportunities we risk conceding leadership to China, Asia and Europe, where there has been no substantial “debate” about climate science for years. They have accepted the facts as facts."
Oh, well. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
No comments:
Post a Comment