You can call me all the names you want. The simple fact is that I’m an extremely rare commodity in the climate change debate: I actually know what I’m talking about, and I’m honest. (Honesty being an expecially rare trait in the climate change debate.)

“Who cares what projections they use–climate change is a hoax!”

Please go to my global warming website, and show me where it says, “Climate change is a hoax!”

http://markbahner.50g.com/

“All kidding aside, I’m curious to know how you can ask “Do reductions in CO2 or methane create ‘tangible environmental benefits’ with a straight face…”

I don’t believe I asked whether they do…I said they don’t. Reductions in CO2 and methane emissions don’t create tangible environmental benefits, because CO2 and methane are not harmful.

“Because you surely know that one of the easiest ways of reducing CO2 emissions is fuel switching, for example from coal to natural gas-fired power plants.”

Yes, and surely you know that I can reduce my CO2 emissions (according to the IPCC) from heating my house to zero…by switching from my natural gas/hot water heating system to using many cords of wood in my fireplace.

Now, which do you think is more dangerous to my health and my neighbors’ health? In other words, which neighborhood would have higher levels of particulate (including carcinogenic polycyclic organic matter) and carbon monoxide…a neighborhood where everyone was heating their homes with fireplaces and wood stoves, or everyone was using natural gas furnaces?

In case you don’t know, you could look at the research of my former professor of Thermodynamics (way back when):

http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1986_July_August/Woodstove_Pollution

“In policy circles this type of happy coincidence is known as a “co-benefit” because you get to reduce your CO2 AND your smog precursors all in one go!”

You can get virtually the same benefit simply by putting very stringent particulate, SO2, and NOx controls on the coal-fired boiler. Or by building a coal-fired IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plant. And the side benefit would be that you would not be vulnerable to extreme rises in the cost of electricity when natural gas prices climbed. (Do you have any idea what would have happened to electricity prices this past winter, if we didn’t generate >50% of our electricity with coal…and instead used natural gas to generate all that electricity?

“Now we can argue whether or not such activities lead to “net benefits” in an economic sense,…”

Yeah, you take the “yes they do” side. I’ll take the “no they don’t” side. And we can get any 11 economists specializing in energy pricing as a jury. You’d be destroyed.

“Have I misunderstood your question?”

Like I wrote, it wasn’t a question. It was a simple statement of fact: CO2 and methane are not harmful to the health of humans, plants, or animals.

Roger Pielke Jr. constantly–and correctly–points out that the best way to reduce hurricane damage is not by reducing GHG emissions. But for some reason he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the other fact…that CO2 and methane are not harmful to the health of humans, plants, and animals. Ergo, reducing CO2 and methane emissions are NOT the best way to protect the health of humans, plants, or animals.

“Also, I’m curious to hear why you think we’ll experience less than 2C over the next century…”

Start here:

http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm

NOTE: In the ~3 years since I wrote that, I’ve revised my “50 percent probability” prediction up to approximately 1.2 degrees Celsius.

Then go to Slide #43 here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

Notice how the “Forcing Growth Rate” is ALREADY below the level of James Hansen’s “Alternative Scenario” that results in his projection of ***1 degree Celsius*** warming.

“…AND this will have minimal impacts…evidence?”

Go to “Global Crises, Global Solutions” (Bjorn Lomborg’s book on the “Copenhagen Consensus”). Even William Cline–a ridiculous climate alarmist–acknowledges that research indicates that there may even be net economic *benefit* from a warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius.

Why do you think a warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius WOULD have significant impacts? That’s less difference in annual temperature than going from Albuquerque to Roswell, NM.

Y

D

I’ve been following this blog (and your comments) for quite a while and it looks like this is the first time you’ve finally come out of the closet and revealed your climate skeptic inclinations (leaving aside your 1000+ posts on IPCC scenarios). Who cares what projections they use–climate change is a hoax! Congratulations — it must feel liberating.

All kidding aside, I’m curious to know how you can ask “Do reductions in CO2 or methane create ‘tangible environmental benefits’” with a straight face given your oft-stated training as an environmental engineer. Because you surely know that one of the easiest ways of reducing CO2 emissions is fuel switching, for example from coal to natural gas-fired power plants. In addition to reducing C02, such a switch leads to lower NOx, SOx, and PM emissions. In other words, less smog-forming emissions, which are known to have serious health impacts.

In policy circles this type of happy coincidence is known as a “co-benefit” because you get to reduce your CO2 AND your smog precursors all in one go!

Now we can argue whether or not such activities lead to “net benefits” in an economic sense, but as I’m sure you know this sort of question leads to all sorts of debate about discount rates, value of human life, magnitude of impacts from climate change, and market valuation of ecosystem services, to name but a few.

Have I misunderstood your question? Also, I’m curious to hear why you think we’ll experience less than 2C over the next century AND this will have minimal impacts…evidence?

Roger, I’m not exactly clear what you mean by “goal substitution…” but I definitely get the main point (reiterated artfully by Dano ) about jobs, money, and tangible environmental benefits. You can’t just mandate carbon emissions reductions without having zero- or low-emissions substitutes ready to go online. I hope to see nuclear (among other things) pick up some slack in the near future… we’ll see. Also, adaptation has to play a bigger role… and that, if done right, can be a win-win for reasons that Roger has argued very persuasively.

I also agree that “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is a hopelessly vague term… but that’s the wording in the bill, so I threw it in my post.

All this being said, I’m frustrated (and annoyed) by the rhetoric from those (e.g., Benny) who promise us that a strong economy, fewer government regulations and technological miracles will provide adequate solutions to avoid any threat from climate change. That “no-regrets” strategy is really a business as usual strategy; that is what we have been doing and it’s obviously not working (atmospheric concentrations continue to rise… as they will indefinitely under this approach). The idea that no one will have to make any sacrifices (in lifestyle, not life quality) to prevent environmental degradation sounds an awful lot like Bush’s suggestion, after 9-11, that Americans should stand up the terrorists by going shopping at the mall (Army recruiters will be standing by).

I digress…

Roger, thanks again for your thoughts and for providing this excellent forum for quality discussion. Hat’s off to you and others at this site.

Best, Mitch

Care to debate the question, “Do reductions in CO2 or methane create ‘tangible environmental benefits’?”

Reductions CO2 and methane do NOT create any “tangible environmental benefits,” because CO2 and methane are not in any meaningful way harmful…to humans, plants, or animals. (In fact, CO2 is very beneficial to plants.)

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

Dano responded, “A-men brother.

We were taught that if you can’t deliver WIFI, your plan’s going nowhere.”

Well, you both can view the subject of climate change that way, but the facts of the matter are:

1) Limiting CO2 and methane emissions have no substantial benefit even for FUTURE generations,**** because

2) “Business as Usual” will probably result in less than 2 degrees Celsius warming during the 21st century, and

3) Such a warming will result in “no net significant harm” (i.e., problems created won’t substantially exceed benefits created) even for FUTURE generations.****

So people who advocate for governments requiring their citizens to sacrifice to reduce CO2 emissions today not only harm their current citizens, they don’t even generate any meaningful benefits for future generations.****

The whole “climate change game” is based on a lie. The “projected” increase of “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius” is a lie…it should be “0 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.” If that truth were told, people would understand that their sacrifices in reducing CO2 emissions now will mean absolutely nothing in terms of the quality of life of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.****

****P.S. This is not to say that absolutely no one will be harmed in future generations. People who love polar bears, for example, may suffer. But the number of people harmed versus helped will “net out” at close to zero.

“but for the vast majority of people, they ask, what do I get for this reduction? If you can argue (properly) – jobs, money, tangible environemntal benefits, then you are on much more solid ground than something as abstract as “dangerous anthropogenic interference”! ”

A-men brother.

We were taught that if you can’t deliver WIFI, your plan’s going nowhere.

WIFI = “What’s Innit For I”. The English is bad, but you get the point.

Best,

D

It seems to me that a dynamic of what some academics call “goal substitution” is going on here. GHG emissions reductions are properly thought of as a means to other ends, but political dynamics being what they are, for many people GHG reductions have become the end in themselves, and the greater ends have been lost. So for some advocates of GHG reductions the reduction itself is the benefit, but for the vast majority of people, they ask, what do I get for this reduction? If you can argue (properly) – jobs, money, tangible environemntal benefits, then you are on much more solid ground than something as abstract as “dangerous anthropogenic interference”! I am sure people will complain about my stating this, but this is a reflection of how the world works, not how any of us might like it to be.

I wrote here in a post last fall the following:

“The asymmetry in the timing of costs and benefits makes it incredibly hard to justify action on mitigation – my tongue-in-cheek characterization of this approach to mitigation is “Please bear these costs but you personally will never see any benefits, other than the psychological benefits of aiding future generations.” Such arguments don’t work for social security and they won’t work here. . .

Again, the point here is not to throw up our hands and do nothing. But the asymmetry is costs and benefits suggest that we might think about different strategies, particular ones that have more of symmetry between the timing of costs and benefits. We’ve discussed such options frequently here as “no regrets” on both adaptation and mitigation – see these posts (here, here, here. I doubt that much action (i.e., actual emissions reductions, not aspirations) will happen on mitigation until action on decarbonization is framed in terms of its short term costs and benefits.”

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000504a_few_comments_on_to.html

Thanks!

The basic problem with the CSA, as I have tried to outline above, seems to be that its estimated negative impact on the US economy – and thus the detrimental effects on the US population as a whole – far exceeds any tangible benefits.

Any climate policy that fails to address this crucial problem is doomed to failure, sooner or later. That’s why a growing number of people in Europe and in other countries are beginning to regret the “no-regrets” Kyoto Protocol that is costing taxpayers billions of Euros

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/10/12/story722015960.asp

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29482/newsDate/11-Feb-2005/story.htm

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18157/story.htm

The key issue, in my view, is no so much whether or not to take political action on climate change. I, for one, am all in favour of taking political action. However, the crux of the matter is that any *effective* climate policy has to make political, social and economic sense.

People interested in such cost-effective actions might wish to read up on Jonathan Adler’s market-approach to this thorny issue

http://www.cei.org/pdf/1783.pdf

“No insurance policy is worthwhile if the cost of the premiums exceeds the protection purchased. For greenhouse insurance to be worthwhile, it must either reduce the risks of anthropogenic climate change or reduce the costs of emission reductions designed to achieve the same goal, without imposing off-setting risks, such as those which would result from policies that slow economic growth and technological advance. Currently proposed precautionary measures, such as the Kyoto Protocol, call for government interventions to control greenhouse-gas emissions and suppress the use of carbon-based fuels. Such policies would impose substantial costs and yet do little, if anything, to reduce the risks of climate change. Such policies cannot be characterized as cost-effective greenhouse “insurance.”

Rather than adopt costly regulatory measures that serve to suppress energy use and economic
growth, policy makers should seek to eliminate government interventions in the marketplace that obstruct emission reductions and discourage the adoption of lower emission technologies. Such an approach is a “no regrets” strategy, as these policy recommendations will provide economic and environmental benefits by fostering innovation and economic efficiency whether or not climate change is a serious threat. While fear of global warming may prompt the enactment of these reforms, they merit implementation even if we have nothing to fear from climate change…..