The climate crisis is often discussed as a global problem which requires a collective mobilization of humanity. This can be inspiring. Against the backdrop of the fraught geopolitics of today, it can even be comforting to imagine that there are at least some problems that “we” have in common. As is brought out by the
As ever Adam a really interesting and well thought out piece. However I fear that your optimism, however well researched and interpreted will sadly fall upon fallow ground. As avarice in the top percentile continues it's upward trend and it's ability to purchase the world's media that happily pushes it's viral "nothing to see here, move along" message to the uninterested/gullible masses I fear we in the "advanced world" will only understand fully the consequences of our actions once we are through the door with no way back.
Sorry to be the merchant of doom but I really never thought I would see such blatant authoritarianism, (e.g. Trump, Johnson et.al.), rear it's ugly head around the supposedly civilised world the way it has and the obvious greed for wealth and power and the bear faced lies that go with it just fill me full of dread for my children's future.
Great piece. I began writing on the #climatedivide in The New York Times in 2007. Http://j.mp/climatedivide But you left out a critical fourth area of deep imbalance - in energy access. When you add that, the recent moves to stop financing all fossil development- even in Africa - can be seen as profoundly immoral. Even “planetary boundaries” pioneer Johan Rockstrom has made this point. https://twitter.com/revkin/status/1602346682045300737?s=46&t=NSdlg-25PEF03VHLsAWnjg
Mr. Edwards is correct. Might I suggest a brief reading of Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron for a slightly different take on enforced equality?
Also, anyone who simultaneously regards CO2 as an existential threat to humanity and thinks nuclear power is too risky to use to address the problem is not well enough informed to be worth listening to.
Really interesting article, but I feel the facts take us nowhere if the answer is creating a global bureaucracy that taxes wealth for $300bn? The only way to attack carbon emissions is to attack them at the source, here in the US, the west, etc, and the only way to do that right now is nuclear, natural gas, and through massively upgrading the grid and pipelines. Instead, our own bureacrats are attacking gas stoves and burning coal. Giving a global version of our own institutional idiots $300bn, or $3 trillion, will only feather a few corrupt nests at the expense of progress.
See what I mean guy's? There is a significant proportion of the world that still believes that the burning of natural gas is an answer to the issues created by warming! Gullible in the extreme. We're doomed I tell you, doomed°°
And some of us who think that way are Ivy league trained engineers. Let me help you with your fears. Please read Steven Koonin's book Unsettled. He was Obama's deputy secretary for science and a former provost at CalTech, so it;'s safe to say he's smarter than you and me put together. He's also my most trusted kind of writer - one who started on one side of the issue and was led by deep reading of primary sources into changing his mind. He demonstrates convincingly that the news and the "summary reports" from the IPCC do not accurately reflect the state of climate science, and will tell you exactly where to look in the 1600 pages of real science buried in the full documents for proof. Natural gas really does look better as an alternative to coal for generating electricity. The natural gas frac boom helped the US achieve what would have been its Kyoto goals had it signed on to that treaty. The only other country to do so was France, generating nearly 70% of its electricity from nuclear. Nuclear power is far better than either coal or gas in all ways - safety, environment and climate. Koonin doesn't address that, but there are only so many 3rd rails it's advisable to grasp in one book.
A great post. What about writing a book on this? The discussion on Climate Economics has been obscured by partisan ideology . And clear reasoning is far away from it. We’ve told every where about the costs of doing nothing to tangle Climate Change. What about the costs of doing something to fight climate change.? Who would pay the check? Please do right more about this issue . We need transparency on this . Tks
That heat-related mortality graph is interesting. Seems to imply that a lot of lives will be saved by climate change in Norway and Alaska. Are there really that many people freezing to death today?
Again the waters are being muddied, of course comparing gas to coal there is only one conclusion. But, do you know what you are doing? It's like being confronted by a mugger on the street's of NY/London and being offered death by knife or machete. They're both gonna kill you it's just one is far more scarey and is likely to get the job done quicker! Fella you're probably a believer in something called "blue hydrogen " as well, and possibly that Trump and Johnson aren't such bad fellows, just a bit misunderstood. Like I've said there is more than enough people like you around that means there is no solution other than, too late too late, see ya on the other side pal.
Just one question. Why would a global wealth tax be considered "equitable"? And I notice that you don't go so far as to call it "fair." IF (and this is a big IF) the wealth has already been appropriately taxed, why is double taxation equitable? If the problem lies in tax loopholes, fix those. (Obviously, this applies to legal income, in functioning states. The rest are a different problem altogether .)
Scientifically an appaling study but i understand why activist economists love the products of activist climate scientists i.e. out-of-control-modelers. They use RCP8.5 throughout the study, the climate scenario that is technically impossible (you need 30.000 coal fueled plants to produce the CO2 that ‘fuels’ the model. There are 7000 coal fueled plants on earth…It's still called bau 'business as usual' but i would like to rename it in bs as usual.
RCP8.5 has become a bit of a pain in the ass for the IPCC since it is used in thousands of studies annually because it produces such excellent final conclusions. (I.e. Booh!) They are now beginning to speak out against it, just like scientists and Nature.
‘The aggregate results suggest that a single day at 35◦C increases heat-related mortality by 10.1 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (relative to the minimum mortality temperature, which is dependent on the region). By 2100, these impacts will translate into heat-related mortality rates comparable in magnitude to the mortality effects of all types of cancer today (under RCP8.5)..
Under RCP8.5…Remember that around 5 mln people die globally from ‘weather’ and that 95% die from the cold (when US energy prices spike thousands of extra cold-deaths occur annually).
Fyi: the IPCC expects scenario RCP4.5 to become reality in 2100, having a temp bandwidth of 2 /3 degrees and with the most likely result around 2.5C. Half of that we’ve already had while Europe is above 2C already (Most ‘global’ warming comes from Europe and the arctic and my native NL has been above 2C since 2000).
The study makes claims the IPCC does not support:
‘Global warming has begun to noticeably influence the frequency and severity of extreme weather events including extreme heatwaves and droughts, as well as extended periods of extreme precipitation and flooding’
In the most recent IPCC report AR6 chapter 11 no trends or attribution are found for any event (hurricanes etc) while they are moderately certain of 1) increased precipitation (yet crossing the previous max for any given area does not automatically imply that there will be a flood), and 2) a greater chance of ‘fire weather’. But keep in mind that most fires are lit by humans and that a change in preservation like for instance happened in California and Canada (sic) where small fires are put out as fast as possible, means that more fuel is left for the less regular large scale fires.
Chapter 11: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate
‘The rate of increase from 2006 to 2015 was 2.5 times faster than the rise observed from 1901 to 1990. This acceleration is driven by the increasingly rapid loss of ice mass from the Antarctic and Greenland sheets, which is taking place at an unforeseen pace. Ice-mass loss from the Antarctic sheet was three times faster between 2007 and 2016 than in the preceding decade.
Antarctica is not warming - and hasn’t for generations - the only part that warms is the peninsula, which sticks out thousands of kilometres, that’s where ice loss is happening. Further, Utrecht university, 2021: Current climate model simulations overestimate future sea-level rise
Using for the first time a high resolution model they could model in ocean eddies: ‘The projected sea-level rise in 100 years is about 25% lower than expected from the current simulations.’
Climate Inequality Report 2023 continues:
‘By 2050, many small islands and coastal areas will be exposed to annual flooding events that were previously expected to occur just once in a century’
1mm above the max? 2 mm? How severe is this? Anyway, islands are not sinking, they’re growing. For some reason scientists forgot to think of the fact that more sea also means more sediment:
Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations
And then, when we’re thinking of lovely Pacific islands, we enter the Dreamtime:
‘The model results further suggest that, to achieve poverty eradication at US$1.9 through redistribution from the top, top global incomes would need to be cut at US$467,000 per year’
The futility of these studies…Btw: it’s billionaire’s billions that have driven climate fear & anxiety the past decades:
Sciences, Publics, Politics: Climate Philanthropy and the Four Billion (Dollars, That Is)
As ever Adam a really interesting and well thought out piece. However I fear that your optimism, however well researched and interpreted will sadly fall upon fallow ground. As avarice in the top percentile continues it's upward trend and it's ability to purchase the world's media that happily pushes it's viral "nothing to see here, move along" message to the uninterested/gullible masses I fear we in the "advanced world" will only understand fully the consequences of our actions once we are through the door with no way back.
Sorry to be the merchant of doom but I really never thought I would see such blatant authoritarianism, (e.g. Trump, Johnson et.al.), rear it's ugly head around the supposedly civilised world the way it has and the obvious greed for wealth and power and the bear faced lies that go with it just fill me full of dread for my children's future.
Great piece. I began writing on the #climatedivide in The New York Times in 2007. Http://j.mp/climatedivide But you left out a critical fourth area of deep imbalance - in energy access. When you add that, the recent moves to stop financing all fossil development- even in Africa - can be seen as profoundly immoral. Even “planetary boundaries” pioneer Johan Rockstrom has made this point. https://twitter.com/revkin/status/1602346682045300737?s=46&t=NSdlg-25PEF03VHLsAWnjg
Mr. Edwards is correct. Might I suggest a brief reading of Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron for a slightly different take on enforced equality?
Also, anyone who simultaneously regards CO2 as an existential threat to humanity and thinks nuclear power is too risky to use to address the problem is not well enough informed to be worth listening to.
Really interesting article, but I feel the facts take us nowhere if the answer is creating a global bureaucracy that taxes wealth for $300bn? The only way to attack carbon emissions is to attack them at the source, here in the US, the west, etc, and the only way to do that right now is nuclear, natural gas, and through massively upgrading the grid and pipelines. Instead, our own bureacrats are attacking gas stoves and burning coal. Giving a global version of our own institutional idiots $300bn, or $3 trillion, will only feather a few corrupt nests at the expense of progress.
See what I mean guy's? There is a significant proportion of the world that still believes that the burning of natural gas is an answer to the issues created by warming! Gullible in the extreme. We're doomed I tell you, doomed°°
And some of us who think that way are Ivy league trained engineers. Let me help you with your fears. Please read Steven Koonin's book Unsettled. He was Obama's deputy secretary for science and a former provost at CalTech, so it;'s safe to say he's smarter than you and me put together. He's also my most trusted kind of writer - one who started on one side of the issue and was led by deep reading of primary sources into changing his mind. He demonstrates convincingly that the news and the "summary reports" from the IPCC do not accurately reflect the state of climate science, and will tell you exactly where to look in the 1600 pages of real science buried in the full documents for proof. Natural gas really does look better as an alternative to coal for generating electricity. The natural gas frac boom helped the US achieve what would have been its Kyoto goals had it signed on to that treaty. The only other country to do so was France, generating nearly 70% of its electricity from nuclear. Nuclear power is far better than either coal or gas in all ways - safety, environment and climate. Koonin doesn't address that, but there are only so many 3rd rails it's advisable to grasp in one book.
Thanks for articulating this challenge in such stark clarity
Dear Adam,
A great post. What about writing a book on this? The discussion on Climate Economics has been obscured by partisan ideology . And clear reasoning is far away from it. We’ve told every where about the costs of doing nothing to tangle Climate Change. What about the costs of doing something to fight climate change.? Who would pay the check? Please do right more about this issue . We need transparency on this . Tks
That heat-related mortality graph is interesting. Seems to imply that a lot of lives will be saved by climate change in Norway and Alaska. Are there really that many people freezing to death today?
Again the waters are being muddied, of course comparing gas to coal there is only one conclusion. But, do you know what you are doing? It's like being confronted by a mugger on the street's of NY/London and being offered death by knife or machete. They're both gonna kill you it's just one is far more scarey and is likely to get the job done quicker! Fella you're probably a believer in something called "blue hydrogen " as well, and possibly that Trump and Johnson aren't such bad fellows, just a bit misunderstood. Like I've said there is more than enough people like you around that means there is no solution other than, too late too late, see ya on the other side pal.
As always, thanks for an interesting article.
Just one question. Why would a global wealth tax be considered "equitable"? And I notice that you don't go so far as to call it "fair." IF (and this is a big IF) the wealth has already been appropriately taxed, why is double taxation equitable? If the problem lies in tax loopholes, fix those. (Obviously, this applies to legal income, in functioning states. The rest are a different problem altogether .)
Thanks!
Climate change isn't real bro
Climate Inequality Report 2023
‘We own the science’...Or: ‘We own the rhetoric’?
Scientifically an appaling study but i understand why activist economists love the products of activist climate scientists i.e. out-of-control-modelers. They use RCP8.5 throughout the study, the climate scenario that is technically impossible (you need 30.000 coal fueled plants to produce the CO2 that ‘fuels’ the model. There are 7000 coal fueled plants on earth…It's still called bau 'business as usual' but i would like to rename it in bs as usual.
RCP8.5 has become a bit of a pain in the ass for the IPCC since it is used in thousands of studies annually because it produces such excellent final conclusions. (I.e. Booh!) They are now beginning to speak out against it, just like scientists and Nature.
‘The aggregate results suggest that a single day at 35◦C increases heat-related mortality by 10.1 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (relative to the minimum mortality temperature, which is dependent on the region). By 2100, these impacts will translate into heat-related mortality rates comparable in magnitude to the mortality effects of all types of cancer today (under RCP8.5)..
Under RCP8.5…Remember that around 5 mln people die globally from ‘weather’ and that 95% die from the cold (when US energy prices spike thousands of extra cold-deaths occur annually).
Fyi: the IPCC expects scenario RCP4.5 to become reality in 2100, having a temp bandwidth of 2 /3 degrees and with the most likely result around 2.5C. Half of that we’ve already had while Europe is above 2C already (Most ‘global’ warming comes from Europe and the arctic and my native NL has been above 2C since 2000).
The study makes claims the IPCC does not support:
‘Global warming has begun to noticeably influence the frequency and severity of extreme weather events including extreme heatwaves and droughts, as well as extended periods of extreme precipitation and flooding’
In the most recent IPCC report AR6 chapter 11 no trends or attribution are found for any event (hurricanes etc) while they are moderately certain of 1) increased precipitation (yet crossing the previous max for any given area does not automatically imply that there will be a flood), and 2) a greater chance of ‘fire weather’. But keep in mind that most fires are lit by humans and that a change in preservation like for instance happened in California and Canada (sic) where small fires are put out as fast as possible, means that more fuel is left for the less regular large scale fires.
Chapter 11: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate
https://bit.ly/41sWiBC
‘The rate of increase from 2006 to 2015 was 2.5 times faster than the rise observed from 1901 to 1990. This acceleration is driven by the increasingly rapid loss of ice mass from the Antarctic and Greenland sheets, which is taking place at an unforeseen pace. Ice-mass loss from the Antarctic sheet was three times faster between 2007 and 2016 than in the preceding decade.
Antarctica is not warming - and hasn’t for generations - the only part that warms is the peninsula, which sticks out thousands of kilometres, that’s where ice loss is happening. Further, Utrecht university, 2021: Current climate model simulations overestimate future sea-level rise
https://bit.ly/3H3JsSp
Using for the first time a high resolution model they could model in ocean eddies: ‘The projected sea-level rise in 100 years is about 25% lower than expected from the current simulations.’
Climate Inequality Report 2023 continues:
‘By 2050, many small islands and coastal areas will be exposed to annual flooding events that were previously expected to occur just once in a century’
1mm above the max? 2 mm? How severe is this? Anyway, islands are not sinking, they’re growing. For some reason scientists forgot to think of the fact that more sea also means more sediment:
Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations
https://go.nature.com/3Ch4B9H
And then, when we’re thinking of lovely Pacific islands, we enter the Dreamtime:
‘The model results further suggest that, to achieve poverty eradication at US$1.9 through redistribution from the top, top global incomes would need to be cut at US$467,000 per year’
The futility of these studies…Btw: it’s billionaire’s billions that have driven climate fear & anxiety the past decades:
Sciences, Publics, Politics: Climate Philanthropy and the Four Billion (Dollars, That Is)
https://bit.ly/3WZ09Ww
I quit reading after they pulled in heat & suicide but forgot to work on cold & suicide - who needs to know that?
Crap study but I guess feeling righteous afterwards makes all the work worth it. Economists working & living in theory.
Now onto the next study, economist’s mortgages have to be paid too.