Before getting started, however, here's the headline account that Democracy Now! reported on Tuesday:
World Leaders: No Binding Deal on Climate Change Until 2010
President Obama and other world leaders have conceded that a binding deal to combat climate change won't be reached until at least next year. Asia-Pacific leaders, including President Obama, have backed a proposal to only reach an interim political agreement at next month's climate talks in Copenhagen while postponing contentious decisions on emissions targets, financing and technology transfer until sometime in 2010. The delay has frustrated those who feel time is running out to prevent calamitous levels of climate change. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described the compromise deal as a severe disappointment. He said the scientific consensus on global warming demands immediate action, not stalling tactics.
Let's now turn to the three fronts described in order, starting with the denialists.
The Denialist Front
There have been two developments on the denialist front that merit attention. One is the expanded push to misrepresent recent global temperature trends as showing a halt in global warming. I've written about this earlier this year ("George Will , Washington Post: Traitors To Humanity") but it's getting a much stronger push recently, and it's well worth revisiting, particularly given the other story--a would-be sensationalist "expose" of hacked emails supposedly showing a Michael Chriton-like global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetrate a hoax. Because it's novel, more sensationalist, and therefore more exploitable, I'll take up the "expose" story first.
As Andrew Leonard explains at Salon ("Climate-Gate!"), someone hacked into private emails from a climate research center, and know-nothing rightwingers have been reading sinister motives and actions into normal, innocent actions, which real scientists are now working hard to explain. This includes confusing the Richard Nixon/Karl Rover meaning of the word "trick" with the math/science culture use of the term, as in "the trick is to split the problem into three cases, not two." This is really nothing more than a rerun of confusing the lay use of the word "theory" as in "guess" or "hypothesis" with the scientific use of the term as "systematic explanation", such as "theory of gravity." Here's Leonard:
The climate-change obsessed blogosphere -- including both those who accept the science behind anthropogenic climate change and those who deny it -- is in an absolute uproar today after the revelation that an unknown party hacked into the computer system of an important climate research center and posted hundreds of private e-mails to a Russian FTP server.
To climate skeptics, the e-mails prove that global warming is a conspiracy theory....
RealClimate, a blog maintained by real climate scientists, is busy doing damage control. This story will no doubt rage for weeks, so I'm just going to pick one example of the back and forth before trying to take some time to go deeper, if merited.
Here's an e-mail that has gotten particular attention, with the supposedly damning language bolded:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Here's RealClimate's explanation:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the "trick" is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the "decline," it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem" -- see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while "hiding" is probably a poor choice of words (since it is "hidden" in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
So, the hacked emails actually reveal nothing more than the normal workings of science-something the rightwing blogosphere knows absolutely nothing about. But it sure looks like witch-craft to them! Burn them all! Burn them all!
The irony here is that one particularly silly line of rightwing argument over the years is that global warming is just a makework boondoggle, as if climate scientists would be washing cars if there were no global warming to research. What these letters show is the real source of work that keeps scientists busy, the un-sensational reality of solving hard problems, cracking the complexities of understanding the real world-complexities that would still exist, regardless of whether the planet was growing hotter or not. Without global warming, these same scientists would be doing the same sorts of things, but within a different organization framework, and with a different set specific problems. But they'd still be trying to make sense of how different sets of data related to one another, how to resolve seeming contradictions, etc. And they'd still be using words like "trick" and "hiding" when talking to one another.
Also via Salon comes the latest on pretending that global warming has stopped (Did you know that the temperature drops at least once a day for hours on end, virtually everywhere on Earth!-Well, no, it's not that stupid. But close.): "Scientists baffled by global warming's time-out" This is a piece reprinted from Der Spiegel which really ought to know better, with the sub-head "Temperatures haven't risen this decade, as climatologists expected. Is it sunspots? Ocean currents? Secret volcano?"
The reality? Here's a chart I used in my diary earlier this year:
A similar chart can be found at Climate Progress in the post "Very warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history by far*".
What's more, the first 10 months of 2009 were hotter than 2008 by an average of 0.08891 degrees Celsius. (Raw data here).
So, with the denialist non-news out of the way, onto the actual news. First nuclear, then coal.
The Nuclear Illusion: Nuclear Power Not A Global Warming Solution
Report: Nuclear power won't solve global warming
MADISON, Wis. - A new report says nuclear power plants would take too long to build and are too expensive to make any impact on global warming.
The report, released by Wisconsin Environment, an environmental advocacy organization, notes scientists believe developed nations must reduce emissions dramatically by 2020 to limit global warming.
The report says the first new nuclear reactor in the United States probably won't be completed until at least 2016. Money that would go to new plants would be better spent on renewable sources.
State Rep. Mike Huebsch, a West Salem Republican, has pushed to repeal Wisconsin's moratorium on nuclear power. He says groups like Wisconsin Environment are still living off the hysteria of 1970s meltdowns and will do anything to delay nuclear plant construction.
Going straight to the source, we quickly find that it's Huebsch who's living in the 70s, with his antiquated understanding of where the real cutting edge is these days. From the
executive summary of the report "Generting Failure" (pdf):
Far from being a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution. Nuclear power is too slow and too expensive to make enough of a difference in the next two decades. Moreover, nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul.
The up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors could prevent twice as much pollution over the next 20 years if invested in energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy instead. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, a clean energy path would deliver as much as five times more progress for the money.
Early action matters in the fight against global warming.... - Reducing emissions from power plants holds large potential for early progress. The share of the U.S. emissions budget available to electric power plants could be as little as 34 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2010 cumulatively through 2050.
New nuclear reactors would be built too slowly to reduce global warming pollution in the near term, and would actually increase the scale of action required in the future. - No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. The nuclear industry will not complete the first new reactor until at least 2016, optimistically assuming construction will take four years after regulatory approval.
- However, it is likely that no new nuclear reactors could be online until 2018 or later. During the last wave of nuclear construction in the United States, the average reactor took nine years to build. New reactors are likely to experience similar delays. For example, a new reactor now under construction in Finland is at least three years behind schedule after a series of quality control failures.
- The American nuclear industry is not ready to move quickly. No American power company has ordered a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and all reactors ordered after the fall of 1973 ended up cancelled. As a result, domestic manufacturing capability for nuclear reactor parts has withered and trained personnel are scarce.
- Even if the nuclear industry managed to complete 100 new reactors in the United States by 2030 - the level of construction advocated by supporters of nuclear power - new nuclear power plants could still only reduce cumulative power plant emissions by 12 percent over the next two decades, leading to a higher and later peak in pollution. As a result, America would burn through its 40-year electric sector carbon budget in just 15 years. (See Figure ES-1.)
In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can make an immediate contribution toward reducing global warming pollution. - Clean energy can begin cutting emissions immediately. Energy efficiency programs are already reducing electricity consumption by 1-2 percent below forecast levels annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms, and growing rapidly.
- With the up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could prevent twice as much pollution in the next 20 years by investing in clean energy instead. (Midpoint estimate, see Figure ES-1 and page 21 of the full report for more details.) ....
Nuclear power is expensive and will divert resources from more cost-effective energy strategies. - Building 100 new nuclear reactors would require an up-front capital investment on the order of $600 billion (with a possible range of $250 billion to $1 trillion), diverting money away from cleaner and cheaper solutions. Any up-front investment in nuclear power would lock in additional expenditures over time.
- Over the life of a new reactor, the electricity it produces could cost in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, or more. In contrast, a capital investment in energy efficiency actually pays us back several times over with ongoing savings on electricity bills, and an investment in renewable power can deliver electricity for much less cost.
- Per dollar spent over the lifetime of the technology, energy efficiency and biomass co-firing are five times more effective at preventing carbon dioxide pollution, and combined heat and power (in which a power plant generates both electricity and heat for a building or industrial application) is greater than three times more effective. In 2018, biomass and land-based wind energy will be more than twice as effective, and offshore wind power will be on the order of 30 percent more effective per dollar of investment, even without the benefit of the renewable energy production tax credit. (See Figure ES-2.)
- By 2018, and possibly sooner, solar photovoltaic power should be comparable to a new nuclear reactor in terms of its per-dollar ability to prevent global warming pollution. Some analyses imply that thin film solar photovoltaic power is already more cost-effective than a new reactor. And solar power is rapidly growing cheaper, while nuclear costs are not likely to decline.
There's a lot more. But the bottom line is clear: nuclear is a failed technology of the past Forget the operating risks. The problem of long-term waste storage has not been solved in over 60 years. That means that the life-cycle operation of nuclear power has never been achieved. This is not a solution to global warming-it's the way of creating a whole new environmental problem that would last tens of thousands of years.
Coal's True Cost
While coal advocates push forward with the fantasy of "clean coal", a new report from Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), "Coal's Assault on Human Health", shows that coal is not just a bad idea for all of us, it is worst for those who are closest to it, due to the enormous externalized costs to public health-costs that have been excluded from the public debate about global warming, just as they have been excluded from the debate about health care. This detailed analysis of the health impacts of coal re-emphasizes a point made by a study earlier this year, showing that Appalachian coal-mining communities lose far more in public health costs thanthey gain in cash income.
From the PSR press release:
Coal Pollution Damages Human Health at Every Stage of Coal Life Cycle, Reports Physicians for Social Responsibility
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 PRNewswire-USNewswire -- Physicians for Social Responsibility today released a groundbreaking medical report, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. By examining the impact of coal pollution on the major organ systems of the human body, the report concludes that coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in the U.S. and is responsible for increasing the incidence of major diseases already affecting large portions of the U.S. population. A copy of the full report can be found at http://www.psr.org/coalreport.
"The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave," said Alan H. Lockwood, MD FAAN, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.
"These stark conclusions leave no room for doubt or delay," said Kristen Welker-Hood, SCD MSN RN, PSR's director of environment and health programs. "The time has come for our nation to establish a health-driven energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives. Business as usual is extracting a deadly price on our health. Coal is no longer an option."
Also participating in the report's release were the American Lung Association and the American Nurses Association.
Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal's contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.
Viewed in this way, the totality of coal's impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.
- Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect normal lung development in children.
- Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality.
- Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. Coal pollutants also act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.
- Global Warming: Even people who do not develop illnesses from coal pollutants will find their health and wellbeing impacted due to coal's contribution to global warming. The discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with burning coal is a major contributor to global warming and its adverse effects on health and wellbeing worldwide, such as heat stroke, malaria, declining food production, scarce water supplies, social conflict and starvation.
In addition to the impacts from pollutants emitted during coal combustion, the report pinpoints negative health consequences at each step of the coal life cycle. Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries and is associated with chronic health problems among miners. In addition to the miners themselves, communities near coal mines may be adversely affected by mining operations due to the effects of blasting, washing, leakage from "slurry ponds," the collapse of abandoned mines, damage done to streams and waterways, and the dispersal of dust from coal trucks during transportation. Slurry injected underground can release arsenic, barium, lead and manganese into nearby wells, contaminating local drinking water supplies. The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health. There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S., and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies at dozens of sites. While every stage of the coal life cycle impacts human health, the combustion phase exacts the greatest toll....
As for the earlier report mentioned about, Scholars and Rogues reported:
A new study out of the Institute for Health Policy Research at West Virginia University and published in Public Health Reports looked at this discrepency and found that, even using conservative assumptions, the economic costs of coal mining in Appalachian communities far outweighed the benefits from having a coal mine in the community.
The study reached this conclusion by gathering publicly available data from various government databases and then calculating how much economic benefit coal mines produced in Appalachian communities vs. how much the coal mines cost in early deaths. As a result, the study had to prove that there were unusual deaths in coal communities, and they did so using statistical analyses designed to account for the effects of "smokin, race, poveryt, physician supply, education, and other variables." And even after adjusting for all these variables and removing their effects on early mortality, the study found that there was nearly 3000 excess deaths in coal-heavy Appalachian counties as compared to the rest of the US.
Multiply the number of excess deaths caused by "chronic forms of heart, respiratory, and kidney disease, as well as lung cancer" by the official value of statistical life (VSL, the amount of money that each life is worth for cost-benefit analyses performed by the federal government) and you have a conservative estimate of the costs of coal mining. Similarly, use an old 1997 estimate of the economic benefits to Appalachian communites, adjust for yearly inflation, unemployment since the start of the study period, add tax income and subtract government subsidies, and you get a reasonable estimate for the value of coal in Appalachia.
The result: just over $8 billion in estimated benefits to Appalachian communities, but at cost of $51 billion in lost economic power due just to the early deaths of people living in coal communities. Put another way, since 1997, Appalachian coal communities have lost $43 billion dollars that they would have kept in their communities had they thrown the coal companies out.
Conclusion
Collectively, what these stories shows is that the debate over global warming policy is still taking place in a fantasy world, deeply at odds with reality. The true costs of a major contributor to global warming-the coal industry-have been completely excluded from consideration, even as a fantasy of "clean coal" is being touted to justify yet more business as usual. The opportunity costs of a failed replacement technology-nuclear-are likewise being ignored. And ludicrous denialist fantasies are being treated as if they constituted a serious challenge to our most basic understanding of the global threat now facing humanity.
While it's vitally important to fight legislative battles within Congress, the larger battle has to be to change the fundamental terms of debate, and that can only be done by engaging in across-the-board hegemonic struggle. |
