G20 draft communiqué
Introduction
1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty met, for a second time, in London on 2 April.
Over the last half century strong growth and increasing international trade has brought untold jobs and prosperity to our citizens. We now face the greatest challenge to the world economy in modern times, a crisis affecting the lives of ordinary men, women, and children around the world. A global crisis requires a global solution.
2. We believe that an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions will ensure a sustainable globalisation with rising prosperity for all. We are determined to restore growth now, resist protectionism, and reform our markets and our institutions for the future. We have agreed actions to meet these challenges as part of an integrated strategy that will restore confidence and ensure a lasting global recovery. We are determined to ensure that this crisis is not repeated.
Restoring global growth now
3. We are taking unprecedented and concerted fiscal actions to support growth and jobs. Acting together we strengthen the impact of this fiscal expansion, which amounts to a stimulus of more than [$x trillion] this year and next and is expected to increase output by more than [2] percentage points and employment by over [20] million jobs1. We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth while ensuring long-run fiscal sustainability.
4. Our central banks have also taken exceptional action, cutting interest rates aggressively and to close to zero in many advanced economies. Our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies as long as needed, using the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional policy instruments, consistent with price stability.
5. We are taking comprehensive action to strengthen our financial institutions in order to restore domestic lending and international capital flows. We have made available over [$x trillion] of support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalise financial institutions, and address the problem of impaired assets. We are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions, acting within the agreed G20 Framework for Restoring Lending. These measures underpin and strengthen the impact of our fiscal and monetary policy actions.
6. Emerging and developing countries, which have been the engine of recent world growth, are now facing shocks which threaten stability and jeopardise the global economy. It is imperative that capital continues to flow to them. We have therefore agreed to make [$x] of resources available through the international financial institutions. This will finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalisation, infrastructure, trade finance, debt rollover, and social support. To this end:
• we have agreed to increase the resources available to the IMF to $[x] through bilateral borrowing from members of $[x] subsequently replaced by an expanded New Arrangements to Borrow of $[x] and borrowing in the market of up to $[x] if necessary;
• we support a substantial increase in lending of $[x] by the Multilateral Development Banks;
• we will make available $[x] over the next two years to support trade finance through our export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs. We have asked our regulators to make use of available flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.
7. We will ensure these resources can be used effectively to meet the needs of emerging and developing countries. The IMF should implement rapidly its new Flexible Credit Line for countries with strong policies and its reformed lending and conditionality framework. It should also double access to its low income country facilities.
8. We have agreed a general SDR allocation of $[x] to strengthen global liquidity.
9. The world’s poorest are most at risk from the crisis and we are resolved to support them. We remain committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals and to achieving our ODA pledges including commitments on Aid for Trade. We are making available $[x] in social protection for the poorest countries, alongside investing in food security, and we support the World Bank’s Vulnerability Financing Framework.
We call on the UN to establish an effective mechanism to monitor the impact of the crisis on the poorest and most vulnerable. We have also asked the IMF to bring forward, by the Spring Meetings, proposals to use the proceeds of agreed gold sales to support low income countries.
10. These actions together constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus, the most comprehensive support programme for the financial sector, and the greatest mobilisation of resources to support global financial flows in modern times. Our objective is that they will enable the global economy to expand by [x] by the end of 2010. We have taken and will continue to take the measures necessary to deliver this outcome. We call on the IMF to assess regularly the actions taken and the actions required.
An open global economy
11. World trade is falling for the first time in [25 years]. We need to sustain the benefits of globalisation and open markets, and promote trade as a crucial driver of growth in the world economy. Therefore:
• we reaffirm the commitment made in Washington not to raise new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, including within existing WTO limits, not to impose new trade restrictions, and not to create new subsidies to exports.
We will rectify promptly any such measures. We extend this pledge for a further 12 months;
• we will notify promptly governments and other relevant institutions of any measures which have the potential to cause direct or indirect trade distortions;
• we will minimise any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions including action in support of the financial sector. We will not retreat into financial protectionism;
• we commit to conduct our economic policies responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and to refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies.
12. We call on the WTO, together with the IMF and other international bodies as appropriate, to report on our adherence to these undertakings on a quarterly basis.
13. We are committed to reaching rapid agreement, on the basis of progress already made, on modalities leading to a successful conclusion of the Doha Round which would boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum.
Reforming financial systems for the future
14. We recognise that weaknesses in the financial sector and in financial regulation and supervision were fundamental causes of the crisis. To ensure no such crisis occurs again we have taken, and will continue to take, action to build a stronger supervisory and regulatory framework for the future, in line with the commitments we made in Washington. The financial system must support sustainable global growth and serve the needs of business and citizens.
15. We recognise the importance of ensuring our domestic regulatory systems are strong. But a globalised financial system also requires much greater consistency and systematic cooperation between countries, based on high and internationally agreed standards. Future regulation and supervision must promote transparency, guard against systemic risk, dampen rather than amplify the financial and economic cycle, reduce reliance on risky sources of financing, and discourage excessive risk-taking.
Regulators must ensure that their actions support market discipline, avoid adverse impacts on other countries, including regulatory arbitrage, and support competition, dynamism, and innovation in the marketplace.
16. To this end, we have taken forward the Washington Action Plan. We set out the detailed reforms in our attached statement, “Strengthening the Financial System”, and the updated action plan. In particular, we have agreed:
• to expand the Financial Stability Forum to include all G20 countries and to reestablish it with a stronger mandate as the [Financial Stability Board]. It will drive the development of common principles and standards of regulation, strengthen international co-operation between regulators and policymakers, and, together with the IMF, identify and report on the build up of macroeconomic and financial risks;
• to work closely and systematically, in accordance with the Financial Stability Forum framework, to supervise cross-border institutions and to complete the establishment of colleges of supervisors for all significant cross-border financial firms;
• to improve over time the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system. Capital requirements should not be strengthened until a significant and sustained economic recovery is assured and the transition managed to ensure that the extension of credit is not constrained. Regulation should limit leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times which banks can draw down when conditions deteriorate;
• to extend regulation or oversight to all financial markets, instruments, and institutions, including hedge funds, which are individually or collectively of systemic importance, so as to limit the risk to financial stability from gaps in our systems;
• to endorse the FSF’s common principles on pay and compensation in financial institutions. These ensure compensation structures reward actual performance, support sustainable growth, and avoid excessive risk-taking. We have asked our supervisors to implement these principles;
• to take action to identify non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens, and to stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. We have today published a list of jurisdictions that have not committed to the international standard for exchange of information on tax. We call on the Global Forum, the FATF, and the [Financial Stability Board] to identify, for the next meeting of our Finance Ministers, jurisdictions not implementing the relevant international standards;
• that standard setters should work with supervisors and regulators to achieve consistency of valuation methods and a single set of accounting standards;
• to extend regulatory oversight and registration to Credit Rating Agencies whose ratings are used for regulatory purposes to ensure they meet international codes of good practice to prevent conflicts of interest.
17. We instruct our Finance Ministers to complete the implementation of these decisions in line with the timetable set out in the action plan. We have asked the [Financial Stability Board] and the IMF to monitor progress, working with the FATF and the Global Forum, and to provide a report to the next meeting of our Finance Ministers.
Reforming the International Financial Institutions for the future
18. Inclusive and sustainable globalisation requires relevant, effective, and legitimate international financial institutions. These should provide strengthened and independent surveillance of the world economy and of the interaction of countries’ economic policies, prevent and resolve crises, and promote growth and poverty reduction. We are agreed that their mandates and governance must be reformed to reflect changes in the world economy. Emerging and developing economies, including the poorest, must have greater voice and representation. This must be accompanied by action to increase the credibility and accountability of the institutions through better strategic oversight and decision making. To this end:
• we commit to implementing the package of IMF quota and voice reforms agreed in April 2008. In addition, we call on the IMF to launch the next review of quotas at the 2009 Annual Meetings and commit to complete the process of quota reform by January 2011;
• we agree that as part of the future mandate and governance reforms a Ministerial Council should be established to provide strategic direction to the IMF and to increase its accountability;
• each of us commits to candid, even-handed, and independent IMF surveillance of our economies and financial sectors, of the impact of our policies on others, and of risks facing the global economy;
• we commit to implementing the package of World Bank voice reforms agreed in October 2008. We call on the World Bank to make concrete recommendations by the Annual Meetings on shareholding, voting, voice, and internal governance, taking account of the development mandate of the Bank, and guided by the principles of shared and common responsibility. These reforms should be completed by the Spring Meetings in 2010;
• the heads and senior staff of the IFIs should be appointed through open, meritbased selection processes.
Building a sustainable global recovery
19. We remain resolute in the need to ensure fiscal sustainability and price stability and are committed to put in place exit strategies from the necessary expansionary policies, working together to avoid unintended impacts on others.
20. We will do everything possible to mitigate the social and environmental impact of the crisis.
21. Strengthening labour market and social protection policies will give real help now to those most in need, make the downturn shorter, and the recovery stronger and more sustainable. We welcome the report of the London Jobs Conference and the key principles it proposed2. We will support employment by stimulating demand, investing in education and training, and through active labour market policies. We will support disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, including those most affected by the crisis, through social safety nets. We call on the ILO and OECD, working with other organisations, to assess the actions taken and those required for the future.
22. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable and green recovery. We will make the transition towards innovative, resource efficient, technologies and infrastructure, and drive new low carbon business opportunities.
We encourage the Multilateral Development Banks to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will work together to explore further measures to promote low carbon growth and build sustainable economies.
23. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Tension Mounts and the World Yawns
Two days to go before the G20 and tension is mounting. Sarkozy is threatening to walk out if he doesn’t get his way, according to The Times. Nothing new there – his petulance and latent aggression shows every time he speaks. He is insisting on tough financial system regulation - something the G20 has already agreed to and which is likely the only major thing that will come out of this.
Obama is still pushing the need for more cash to be injected into the global system – both in terms of direct spending by Governments but also in terms of aid for struggling countries. He will fail in the first ambition, but the EU has already agreed to boost IMF funds (partly because several EU countries may need them). Angela Merkel will make sure that there are no spending commitments – no one can now really afford them.
Tax havens, which is not a massive issue, will dominate part of the seven hour meeting. In part this is because it is one of those things it is easy for socialists to talk about. In part because the G20 can agree on this, since not one of them is a tax haven (in fact, they are tax hells). Of course, the only people interested in tax havens actually at the meeting are the Russians, since most of the politburo use them. No tax haven countries will be there and the only way they can be outlawed is if all G20 nations enact similar and very complex tax laws. This will take for ever and have no bearing whatsoever on the current financial crisis.
Big spending on climate change adaptation will be put off to Copenhagen, and this is looking more and more problematic, as members of the US congress take a cold hard look at the $665 billion cap and trade scheme Obama has proposed and wonder what impact this will have on the very fragile US economy.
What will happen at the G20 is that reputations of the G20 leaders will decline. Gordon Brown, who billed this as a "last chance saloon kind of event", will look, well, silly. Obama will spin out of this and everyone else will look, well, silly.
Its only $35 million an hour folks. You get what you pay for.
Obama is still pushing the need for more cash to be injected into the global system – both in terms of direct spending by Governments but also in terms of aid for struggling countries. He will fail in the first ambition, but the EU has already agreed to boost IMF funds (partly because several EU countries may need them). Angela Merkel will make sure that there are no spending commitments – no one can now really afford them.
Tax havens, which is not a massive issue, will dominate part of the seven hour meeting. In part this is because it is one of those things it is easy for socialists to talk about. In part because the G20 can agree on this, since not one of them is a tax haven (in fact, they are tax hells). Of course, the only people interested in tax havens actually at the meeting are the Russians, since most of the politburo use them. No tax haven countries will be there and the only way they can be outlawed is if all G20 nations enact similar and very complex tax laws. This will take for ever and have no bearing whatsoever on the current financial crisis.
Big spending on climate change adaptation will be put off to Copenhagen, and this is looking more and more problematic, as members of the US congress take a cold hard look at the $665 billion cap and trade scheme Obama has proposed and wonder what impact this will have on the very fragile US economy.
What will happen at the G20 is that reputations of the G20 leaders will decline. Gordon Brown, who billed this as a "last chance saloon kind of event", will look, well, silly. Obama will spin out of this and everyone else will look, well, silly.
Its only $35 million an hour folks. You get what you pay for.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Energy Poverty
A growing number of families are threatened by a relatively ambiguous, but long-standing issue. While not easily categorized; a commonly-used, but misleading term for this condition is fuel (or energy) poverty which refers to the challenge some households face accessing adequate, affordable energy.
Energy poverty is linked to a number of issues like unemployment, inflation, and rising energy and utility prices. It can also be tied to building standards and codes which have a direct correlation to home energy efficiency. Subsidized energy pricing does not encourage efficiency and conservation. Government subsidies appear to discourage responsible energy consumption and use of efficient products, which in turn skews the true market price of natural gas and electricity through the simple laws of supply and demand. Energy is a tradable commodity and subject to market and other external forces which regulate price.
Energy prices are forecast to gradually rise faster than household income creating the potential for this issue to grow to epidemic levels. A free energy market is a potential cause and solution to the rise (and fall) of energy poverty.
In North America, energy poverty is mainly addressed by government through inconsistent multi-jurisdictional public policy. The framework has proved ineffective in identifying and dealing with the root causes of energy poverty poverty itself. In the US, the federal and some state governments provide relief through the welfare system. The previous Bush Administration released $5.1 billion in fuel assistance to the states last fall. Approximately 5.8 million American households received some form of assistance last winter with about 2 million more families expected to receive heating assistance this year.
In Canada, most provinces offer a mix of energy subsidies such as rebates and fixed credits. In Ontario, both public and private initiatives are available. The Ontario Power Authority has been mandated by the provincial government to eliminate the plight of the fuel poor within 10 years, while the charitable Share the Warmth program has provided over $2 million in assistance to qualified households. Alberta, however, has just ended its energy subsidy program on the grounds that gas prices are now so low that the price trigger is unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future.
Subsidized Energy and Energy Poverty
Countruies which subsidize wind and solar energy and mandate the portion of renewables which must be in the energy mix have found that the net impact of these two measures is to increase energy costs. Ironically, supporting renewables increases energy poverty.
In addition, supporting renewables comes at a taxation cost – someone has to pay for the subsidies which the rent seekers secure for wind and solar energy. This generally results in higher taxation which, in addition to higher energy costs, increases energy poverty.
As Spain has found, a significant renewable energy commitment also leads to job displacement. For every new green job between 2 and 3.5 jobs elsewhere in the economy are displaced: renewable energy leads to job loss under certain conditions.
Poverty in the Developed World is Deliberate
The emergence of energy poverty as a developed world problem as a result of green energy policies is a deliberate strategy of environmentalists to change the nature of the economies of the developed world. As we can see from UN documents prepared for the Copenhagen summit in December, energy poverty will increase as a result of the policies proposed. Additional subsidies, taxes and regulation together with cap and trade will make conventional energy on which the global economy will rely for a considerable time much more expensive.
The full socio-economic impact of environmentally focused policies is incomplete, but the consequences of actions already taken are clear. Bio-fuel standards increased costs of living in the poorest countries, renewable energy will increase energy poverty globally.
Still Time to Cancel the G20 Summit
Subject of an interview on the World Tonight on CHQR Radio
It has already started. The lowering of expectations for the G20 summit, which takes place over just seven hours this week at a cost of around $31 million an hour. The Toronto Star notes today that, instead of a consensus on the need to open their wallets, “the G20 leaders – including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper – are expected to agree on the importance of avoiding trade protectionism, increasing support for developing nations battered by the recession and coordinating international efforts to tighten regulation of banks and investment houses”. In other words, a replica of the meeting of the G20 held last November.
Gordon Brown, who has staked his political future on this summit, is the biggest loser. He has been wandering in the wilderness of Latin America, the US and Europe trying to persuade attendees to spend more and tax less and has been rebuffed by all. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has firmly put him in his place as has the Governor of the Bank of England.
Someone has to pay for all of this debt and it will lead to less government (just when the UN has published its agenda for Copenhagen’s climate change summit in December which seeks the largest range of government intervention on a global scale in the history of the planet), more taxation and more poverty.
What is also the case is that someone has to lend the money to fuel the spending and support the debt. Everyone looks to China, but they signaled last week that they weren’t too sure how much more debt they want to buy. George Soros, not exactly Britain’s friend and an unlikely guru, has suggested that the G20 better be good since otherwise supporting debt will get more difficult. In this he is right. The failure of the UK to secure buyers for its debt (other than banks fully owned by the Government) was a signal last week.
I suspect the only new thing the G20 will discuss is the ending of tax havens – Cayman Islands, Bermuda etc. Big deal. This will make a massive difference to Ethel and Jo Public who, wondering where their next slice of bread was going to come from, were also pondering whether to deposit their fuel allowance in an offshore account.
So I still say it’s not too late to cancel the G20 summit – save us all a lot of air time, nonsense and posing.
It has already started. The lowering of expectations for the G20 summit, which takes place over just seven hours this week at a cost of around $31 million an hour. The Toronto Star notes today that, instead of a consensus on the need to open their wallets, “the G20 leaders – including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper – are expected to agree on the importance of avoiding trade protectionism, increasing support for developing nations battered by the recession and coordinating international efforts to tighten regulation of banks and investment houses”. In other words, a replica of the meeting of the G20 held last November.
Gordon Brown, who has staked his political future on this summit, is the biggest loser. He has been wandering in the wilderness of Latin America, the US and Europe trying to persuade attendees to spend more and tax less and has been rebuffed by all. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has firmly put him in his place as has the Governor of the Bank of England.
Someone has to pay for all of this debt and it will lead to less government (just when the UN has published its agenda for Copenhagen’s climate change summit in December which seeks the largest range of government intervention on a global scale in the history of the planet), more taxation and more poverty.
What is also the case is that someone has to lend the money to fuel the spending and support the debt. Everyone looks to China, but they signaled last week that they weren’t too sure how much more debt they want to buy. George Soros, not exactly Britain’s friend and an unlikely guru, has suggested that the G20 better be good since otherwise supporting debt will get more difficult. In this he is right. The failure of the UK to secure buyers for its debt (other than banks fully owned by the Government) was a signal last week.
I suspect the only new thing the G20 will discuss is the ending of tax havens – Cayman Islands, Bermuda etc. Big deal. This will make a massive difference to Ethel and Jo Public who, wondering where their next slice of bread was going to come from, were also pondering whether to deposit their fuel allowance in an offshore account.
So I still say it’s not too late to cancel the G20 summit – save us all a lot of air time, nonsense and posing.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Greens Too Yellow to Admit they are Red Come Clean
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental meeting next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
But just what does the UN document suggest? This is the list:
What all this looks like – and I encourage you to read the document – is the most radical agenda since the Communist Manifesto. While using the cloak of science, this document makes clear that you cannot just look at climate change mitigation without rethinking the social and economic order of the world. Quite. It's the new world order, stupid!
But just what does the UN document suggest? This is the list:
- Carbon Taxes coupled with Cap and Trade - intended to price fossil fuels highly to reduce consumption
- Additional Subsidies for green energy technology - intended to develop industries which otherwise would not be viable (strongly supported by grant farmers and rent seekers)
- Regulatory and procurement requirements for green energy ensuring demand at guaranteed prices for commodities which otherwise wouldn't be there like biofuels, wind power and solar
- Protective tariffs to protect green emerging industries - going against free trade, these tariffs would inhibit the export of fossil energy
- International offsets which have to be purchased at borders to offset carbon footprint (imagine that!)
- Carbon impact labeling for all goods - showing what the carbon footprint looks like, which will be very difficult to do since there are no agreed rubrics for doing this..local meat has a higher carbon footprint than imported lamb from New Zealand, for example, since we have to divide CO2 costs by volumes..
- Wealth transfer from rich to poor countries to help that adjust, catch up and develop - this is the equity component..pure socialism
- Technology cooperation but focused on agreed technology strategies - already in place, but needs additional investment
What all this looks like – and I encourage you to read the document – is the most radical agenda since the Communist Manifesto. While using the cloak of science, this document makes clear that you cannot just look at climate change mitigation without rethinking the social and economic order of the world. Quite. It's the new world order, stupid!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Europe at the Crossroads
Europe does not really exist. Despite the best efforts of several generations of politicians to create a strong sense of a united Europe, it remains a fragmented, divided and often difficult place. Made worse, at least at the moment, by the political theatre being played out against a back drop of real hardship and squalor.
Poverty is growing in Europe. In part this is because many were in transition still from a former Soviet style economy to a more market driven economy and are now in the process of finding that they are living in a growingly socialist Europe. The rules that were in force just a year ago are no longer the rules of the game and this has caught many out, leaving them homeless, without work and in poverty. But it is also a consequence of the “green” policies forced on many countries by the European Union – policies that have increased energy costs and the number of people who now live in energy poverty.
It is also a very divisive place. The free movement of labour has meant that many of the “new” workers in Britain, for example, are from Poland, France and Germany have been, for many years, dependent on immigrant labour. At a time of high unemployment, this creates some tensions. There have been street protests in Britain demanding “British jobs for British workers”. Holland has found the growth of its muslim population difficult to deal with – it has led to racially motivated protests and assassinations.
Corruption is also rife. The black economy has grown in Europe as the complexity of over-regulated and over-taxed business has got too much for many, who have taken to doing work for cash in a large and very effective underground economy. Corruption is also present in the work of government, especially the commission – the auditors of the EU have refused to sign off the accounts for several years on the grounds that many of the funds allocated to activities are not fully accounted for.
There is a lot of cynicism. When countries were voting on the new EU constitution, it was defeated by a vote in Ireland. The EU has proceeded as if this did not matter and has enacted many, though not all, of the provisions of the constitution without a clear mandate to do so. There has been cynical manipulation of issues, especially the green agenda, for purely political purposes and the people of Europe are, in general, sick of it. There is waste, duplicity, duplication, denial and many other challenges, but by far the most serious is the lack of trust and palpable cynicism about the way governments now think about and treat citizens.
Then there is the gao between the rhetoric of Europe and the reality. Europe is commited to Kyoto, but does little about it. Europe is committed to eliminating poverty within the EU twenty seven member countries, but it increases. Europe is committed to transparency, but it is really difficult for ordinary citizens to find out what is happening. The disdain for politics is widespread and the lack of engagement of people in their European parliament is an example of this.
All of this shows itself in protests marches, small acts of defiance against EU regulations (of which there are legion), editorial columns in the media and law suits taken by individual citizens trying to stop the machine from rolling over them.
It also shows itself in the refusal of governments, especially France, to obey rulings of the EU commission – leading to defiance of orders from the European Court. Such defiance leads to fines, which they also do not pay each time they are handed down. Another source of cynicism.
These tensions and difficulties are writ large right now, as Europe lurches from one crisis to another. This week it is Ukraine, technically now bankrupt having defaulted on its IMF arrangements. Next week it will be the real disagreement of the European members at the G20 summit – it will be “papered” over, but the differences and disagreements are nonetheless real.
When Europe discovers the implications of the current round of “stimulus” spending for the debt levels of Europe and the requirement to cut programs and increase taxation, finger pointing and blame will be commonplace. Ireland already has debt equivalent to 11% of GDP and it has lost a major employer – Dell, which accounted for one in six jobs in Ireland. Spending stimulus money with a lowered tax base will lead to significant program cuts – politically difficult. This is why Germany is backing away from spending more and from “bail out” funds for struggling industries.
This will translate into significant reductions in social spending and increased consumption taxes, which is why the EU as a whole is angry about the UK’s decision to cut VAT (the equivalent of GST in Canada). I suspect that some fundamental questions will also be asked about Europe and its future. The fact that it is truly leaderless and disjointed will make the EU vulnerable. It will be an interesting place to keep an eye on.
Poverty is growing in Europe. In part this is because many were in transition still from a former Soviet style economy to a more market driven economy and are now in the process of finding that they are living in a growingly socialist Europe. The rules that were in force just a year ago are no longer the rules of the game and this has caught many out, leaving them homeless, without work and in poverty. But it is also a consequence of the “green” policies forced on many countries by the European Union – policies that have increased energy costs and the number of people who now live in energy poverty.
It is also a very divisive place. The free movement of labour has meant that many of the “new” workers in Britain, for example, are from Poland, France and Germany have been, for many years, dependent on immigrant labour. At a time of high unemployment, this creates some tensions. There have been street protests in Britain demanding “British jobs for British workers”. Holland has found the growth of its muslim population difficult to deal with – it has led to racially motivated protests and assassinations.
Corruption is also rife. The black economy has grown in Europe as the complexity of over-regulated and over-taxed business has got too much for many, who have taken to doing work for cash in a large and very effective underground economy. Corruption is also present in the work of government, especially the commission – the auditors of the EU have refused to sign off the accounts for several years on the grounds that many of the funds allocated to activities are not fully accounted for.
There is a lot of cynicism. When countries were voting on the new EU constitution, it was defeated by a vote in Ireland. The EU has proceeded as if this did not matter and has enacted many, though not all, of the provisions of the constitution without a clear mandate to do so. There has been cynical manipulation of issues, especially the green agenda, for purely political purposes and the people of Europe are, in general, sick of it. There is waste, duplicity, duplication, denial and many other challenges, but by far the most serious is the lack of trust and palpable cynicism about the way governments now think about and treat citizens.
Then there is the gao between the rhetoric of Europe and the reality. Europe is commited to Kyoto, but does little about it. Europe is committed to eliminating poverty within the EU twenty seven member countries, but it increases. Europe is committed to transparency, but it is really difficult for ordinary citizens to find out what is happening. The disdain for politics is widespread and the lack of engagement of people in their European parliament is an example of this.
All of this shows itself in protests marches, small acts of defiance against EU regulations (of which there are legion), editorial columns in the media and law suits taken by individual citizens trying to stop the machine from rolling over them.
It also shows itself in the refusal of governments, especially France, to obey rulings of the EU commission – leading to defiance of orders from the European Court. Such defiance leads to fines, which they also do not pay each time they are handed down. Another source of cynicism.
These tensions and difficulties are writ large right now, as Europe lurches from one crisis to another. This week it is Ukraine, technically now bankrupt having defaulted on its IMF arrangements. Next week it will be the real disagreement of the European members at the G20 summit – it will be “papered” over, but the differences and disagreements are nonetheless real.
When Europe discovers the implications of the current round of “stimulus” spending for the debt levels of Europe and the requirement to cut programs and increase taxation, finger pointing and blame will be commonplace. Ireland already has debt equivalent to 11% of GDP and it has lost a major employer – Dell, which accounted for one in six jobs in Ireland. Spending stimulus money with a lowered tax base will lead to significant program cuts – politically difficult. This is why Germany is backing away from spending more and from “bail out” funds for struggling industries.
This will translate into significant reductions in social spending and increased consumption taxes, which is why the EU as a whole is angry about the UK’s decision to cut VAT (the equivalent of GST in Canada). I suspect that some fundamental questions will also be asked about Europe and its future. The fact that it is truly leaderless and disjointed will make the EU vulnerable. It will be an interesting place to keep an eye on.
Friday, March 27, 2009
PONZIBAMA
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and the way in which the UK or the US is handling its debt?
Think about this for a moment: the Government spends money it doesnt have. It borrows money with a promise of interest to bond holders and then spends this money too. It then uses some newly borrowed money to pay back the old borrowers as it continues to spend beyond its means. A classic Ponzi.
In the UK it is more like a super Ponzi. Now that more and more appear reluctant to buy debt, the government are using UK banks (which they own) to buy debt which they then use to lend to the banks...
Bernie Madoff should become Assistant Secretary to the US Treasury - he could teach them a thing or two here.
Think about this for a moment: the Government spends money it doesnt have. It borrows money with a promise of interest to bond holders and then spends this money too. It then uses some newly borrowed money to pay back the old borrowers as it continues to spend beyond its means. A classic Ponzi.
In the UK it is more like a super Ponzi. Now that more and more appear reluctant to buy debt, the government are using UK banks (which they own) to buy debt which they then use to lend to the banks...
Bernie Madoff should become Assistant Secretary to the US Treasury - he could teach them a thing or two here.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Waffle SS
Political correctness now moves to a new era: the lunch box stasis or, as one newspaper called it, the Waffle SS.
Here is the story: staff at a British primary school have decided that they have the right to inspect the lunch boxes which children bring from home and to remove from these boxes any food which is deemed to be “unhealthy”. This would include “fizzy drinks” (larger, gin and tonics etc), fatty foods (foie gras, remoulade) or crisps (what Canadians call potato chips). Teachers will give these back at the end of the school day to a parent, but only if they ask.
The right to do this? The school released a simple statement. It says “At Danegrove School: We are following the Government's healthy lunches guidelines for school meals and packed lunches.” So its Gordon Brown’s fault – and the development of a culture which permits one group of “do gooders” to impose their view of the world on everyone else (typical of the new human rights kind of movement in which such things are imposed on others). The Headmistress, in a tone you know from watching various St. Trinnian movies, says “We were finding that some children could be bringing in crisps, a Mars bar and can of Coke with their lunches. This stance is trying to work with parents to provide a healthy meal for their children”. Righteousness writ large.
This is motivated by one of these great twenty first century narratives that has emerged – the one that says that there is an obesity epidemic and only intervention by responsible people (i.e. parents cannot be trusted) can make a difference. This is what is behind the Waffle SS and also the idea that children who are obese should be removed from their parental homes and placed in care.
Where will this end, one asks?
Here is the story: staff at a British primary school have decided that they have the right to inspect the lunch boxes which children bring from home and to remove from these boxes any food which is deemed to be “unhealthy”. This would include “fizzy drinks” (larger, gin and tonics etc), fatty foods (foie gras, remoulade) or crisps (what Canadians call potato chips). Teachers will give these back at the end of the school day to a parent, but only if they ask.
The right to do this? The school released a simple statement. It says “At Danegrove School: We are following the Government's healthy lunches guidelines for school meals and packed lunches.” So its Gordon Brown’s fault – and the development of a culture which permits one group of “do gooders” to impose their view of the world on everyone else (typical of the new human rights kind of movement in which such things are imposed on others). The Headmistress, in a tone you know from watching various St. Trinnian movies, says “We were finding that some children could be bringing in crisps, a Mars bar and can of Coke with their lunches. This stance is trying to work with parents to provide a healthy meal for their children”. Righteousness writ large.
This is motivated by one of these great twenty first century narratives that has emerged – the one that says that there is an obesity epidemic and only intervention by responsible people (i.e. parents cannot be trusted) can make a difference. This is what is behind the Waffle SS and also the idea that children who are obese should be removed from their parental homes and placed in care.
Where will this end, one asks?
Cancel the G20 Summit?
A version of this post appeared in both the Waterloo Record and Guelph Mercury, Ontario on March 30th
As Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, dashes around the Americas hell-bent on positioning himself as the savior of the world, the G20 summit to be held for a few hours next week is looking increasingly problematic.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, said this week that additional borrowing to fund additional stimulus or tax cuts would be “unwise” – code for not possible. An attempt to fund UK debt on the markets by selling gilts failed, with buyers showing themselves unwilling to partner with Government in the pursuit of long term debt based society. The UK is now using banks it owns to buy debt it created funded by the debt itself. A sure sign of trouble to come.
The President of the EU and the leaders of France and Germany have all signaled that additional stimulus would be unacceptable to them with the EU President suggesting that additional stimulus in the US was “the road to hell”. They are concerned at the mounting level of indebtedness of the EU. Ukraine has just defaulted on the terms of an IMF loan and is technically bankrupt and several eastern European countries who are members of the European union are in serious financial and political trouble – the Czech government, for example, failed in a confidence vote on its handling of the economic crisis this last week.
Yet the US President is pushing additional stimulus as one of his conditions for success at the G20 summit. Prepare to lose this one President Obama.
There is strong talk, especially in the US and in parts of Europe, on the need to better regulate the financial system, especially derivatives and sub-prime activities. The US Treasury Secretary has asked for strong additional legislative power and the UK are reviewing all financial systems regulations, including regulations relating to insurance companies and non banking financial services and hedge funds. Included in this is a strong desire to end tax havens. On this all seem agreed, though it is worth pointing out that the G20 already agreed to all of this at its meeting in November and committed to having a new regulatory framework in place by next Tuesday. The April G20 summit is this likely to reaffirm what it has already done.
What the G20 will not talk about is probably more interesting than what they will talk about. They will not talk about what to do about failed states – Iceland and Ukraine. They will not talk about the toxic debt which several countries are building up, including the US which cannot even get its estimate of debt right (the President and the Office of Budget are disagreeing to the tune of $2.3 trillion and both are underestimates according to most commentators). In fact, US debt is already at $10 trilling and growing (personal debt is another $13 trillion). The G20 will increase subventions to the IMF and boost its role and then promptly knock at its door and ask for its money back. Lowering debt levels to less than 2-3% of GDP should be the discussion, but will not be.
The protectionism of the G20 will also not be discussed. The World Bank reported last week that some forty seven countries, including seventeen of the G20, have enacted protectionist measures since the G20 last met. This has occurred despite the oft repeated rhetoric that protectionism is not a response to a global economic crisis. This kind of talk should now seen as code for “this is exactly what we intend to do”.
The third thing that will not be talked about is the folly of green jobs. Obama and Brown are pushing the idea that this is the moment to renew a commitment to greening the economy – focus on renewable energy and create a new economy. As the experience of other countries has shown (see the story about Spain and wind power elsewhere in this blog), this is code for job loss from other industries, higher energy costs and increased debt as all of the renewable industries depend on grants and subsidy over a very long period of time to be viable. The post-modern narrative beats evidence and reality every time, but there enough cynics and evidence based economists around to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
So pointless is the coming G20 summit that some are calling for it to be cancelled. It will cost close to $250 million US and will take place for a day and a half. Don’t hold your breath for anything really exciting.
As Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, dashes around the Americas hell-bent on positioning himself as the savior of the world, the G20 summit to be held for a few hours next week is looking increasingly problematic.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, said this week that additional borrowing to fund additional stimulus or tax cuts would be “unwise” – code for not possible. An attempt to fund UK debt on the markets by selling gilts failed, with buyers showing themselves unwilling to partner with Government in the pursuit of long term debt based society. The UK is now using banks it owns to buy debt it created funded by the debt itself. A sure sign of trouble to come.
The President of the EU and the leaders of France and Germany have all signaled that additional stimulus would be unacceptable to them with the EU President suggesting that additional stimulus in the US was “the road to hell”. They are concerned at the mounting level of indebtedness of the EU. Ukraine has just defaulted on the terms of an IMF loan and is technically bankrupt and several eastern European countries who are members of the European union are in serious financial and political trouble – the Czech government, for example, failed in a confidence vote on its handling of the economic crisis this last week.
Yet the US President is pushing additional stimulus as one of his conditions for success at the G20 summit. Prepare to lose this one President Obama.
There is strong talk, especially in the US and in parts of Europe, on the need to better regulate the financial system, especially derivatives and sub-prime activities. The US Treasury Secretary has asked for strong additional legislative power and the UK are reviewing all financial systems regulations, including regulations relating to insurance companies and non banking financial services and hedge funds. Included in this is a strong desire to end tax havens. On this all seem agreed, though it is worth pointing out that the G20 already agreed to all of this at its meeting in November and committed to having a new regulatory framework in place by next Tuesday. The April G20 summit is this likely to reaffirm what it has already done.
What the G20 will not talk about is probably more interesting than what they will talk about. They will not talk about what to do about failed states – Iceland and Ukraine. They will not talk about the toxic debt which several countries are building up, including the US which cannot even get its estimate of debt right (the President and the Office of Budget are disagreeing to the tune of $2.3 trillion and both are underestimates according to most commentators). In fact, US debt is already at $10 trilling and growing (personal debt is another $13 trillion). The G20 will increase subventions to the IMF and boost its role and then promptly knock at its door and ask for its money back. Lowering debt levels to less than 2-3% of GDP should be the discussion, but will not be.
The protectionism of the G20 will also not be discussed. The World Bank reported last week that some forty seven countries, including seventeen of the G20, have enacted protectionist measures since the G20 last met. This has occurred despite the oft repeated rhetoric that protectionism is not a response to a global economic crisis. This kind of talk should now seen as code for “this is exactly what we intend to do”.
The third thing that will not be talked about is the folly of green jobs. Obama and Brown are pushing the idea that this is the moment to renew a commitment to greening the economy – focus on renewable energy and create a new economy. As the experience of other countries has shown (see the story about Spain and wind power elsewhere in this blog), this is code for job loss from other industries, higher energy costs and increased debt as all of the renewable industries depend on grants and subsidy over a very long period of time to be viable. The post-modern narrative beats evidence and reality every time, but there enough cynics and evidence based economists around to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
So pointless is the coming G20 summit that some are calling for it to be cancelled. It will cost close to $250 million US and will take place for a day and a half. Don’t hold your breath for anything really exciting.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Earth Hour
Earth hour is an example of how ignorance breeds odd developments. The idea is this: cities around the world turn off as many lights and appliances as possible for one hour this coming Saturday so as to have an impact on global warming. The underlying assumption is that lowering energy demand will reduce CO2 emissions and this in turn will have some sort of impact on the climate some eight hundred years from now. More significantly, according to the organizers, switching off your lights for one hour will be a "vote to save the planet" - something that can be taken to the world's leaders in Copenhagen in December. A symbolic "lights off for our future!".
Its not a bad thing to reduce energy consumption and it will be fun to have the concert and all that transport used to get people to the celebration (which will probably counter the savings). But the idea that this will have an impact on the planet is, well, simply naive.
Apart from the fact that most CO2 is absorbed quickly and that the life-time of the remaining CO2 is 4-7 years, the evidence that minor and symbolic changes to behaviour have an impact in climate is currently zero.
Further, when others have done this – Britain had a day recently when it asked the population to systematically reduce energy demand – no discernible difference was seen in energy consumption across the nation.
So, don’t expect things to change when you sit in the dark for an hour next Saturday between 8.30pm and 9.30pm.
Also, don't expect the politicians to be influenced some eight or nine months from now either.
Its not a bad thing to reduce energy consumption and it will be fun to have the concert and all that transport used to get people to the celebration (which will probably counter the savings). But the idea that this will have an impact on the planet is, well, simply naive.
Apart from the fact that most CO2 is absorbed quickly and that the life-time of the remaining CO2 is 4-7 years, the evidence that minor and symbolic changes to behaviour have an impact in climate is currently zero.
Further, when others have done this – Britain had a day recently when it asked the population to systematically reduce energy demand – no discernible difference was seen in energy consumption across the nation.
So, don’t expect things to change when you sit in the dark for an hour next Saturday between 8.30pm and 9.30pm.
Also, don't expect the politicians to be influenced some eight or nine months from now either.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Coldest March in 100 Years...
March 2009 is amongst the coldest in the last 100 years in Alberta – another sign that the planet is cooling. In February 2009 Malta experienced both the coldest and wettest February in the last thirty years and Germany also had the coldest winter in 100 years. Its been cold in China, but last year, 2008, China had the coldest March in 100 years.
So what happened to global warming? Most climate scientist do not publicize this much, but there has been no net warming since 1998 in the global climate.
What disturbs climate alarmists most here is that CO2 emissions have continued to rise while the temperature falls or remains the same. Worse, most of the real climatologists think that this cold period will last for some twenty five to thirty years.
So much for the direct link between CO2 and the earth’s average temperature, though we shouldn't confuse weather (which is what this is about) and climate.
So what happened to global warming? Most climate scientist do not publicize this much, but there has been no net warming since 1998 in the global climate.
What disturbs climate alarmists most here is that CO2 emissions have continued to rise while the temperature falls or remains the same. Worse, most of the real climatologists think that this cold period will last for some twenty five to thirty years.
So much for the direct link between CO2 and the earth’s average temperature, though we shouldn't confuse weather (which is what this is about) and climate.
A Letter to The Psychologist
The February edition of The Psychologist contained a series of papers dealing with climate change and the role psychology could play in relation to supporting the work of response to the perceived climate crisis. The March edition also includes a short letter on the subject, adding new aspects of psychology which might be appropriate starting points for the study of human behaviour with respect to climate.
Both sets of contributions start from the assumption that anthropomorphic climate change is a given, citing the politically driven findings of the IPCC as a basis for this status claim. In fact, the Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), which is supported by far more scientists than the IPCC, reaches a different conclusion, namely that man made greenhouse gas emissions contribute hardly at all to cyclical changes in the climate.
We should be careful not to fall into the political trap of claiming that "the science is settled" and then labeling as deviants in need of a psychological explanation those who take a contrary view. We should be just as interested in the groupthink of alarmists and the naive view of those who think that small changes in human behaviour can have a major impact on solar systems, sun spots, ocean currents and other factors which contribute far more to climate variability than CO2 emissions.
Science is not a democracy. It proceeds through dissent, disclosure, debate and discovery. The fact that some scientists take one view and others take another provides the praxis on which knowledge develops. The science is never “settled” – we are still debating whether Einstein’s theory of relativity is accurate in all of its details and the conditions under which it is not. We have rejected the former consensus over eugenics.
It is a characteristic of post-modern politics that the narrative is more important than the facts. For example, the narrative of the critical importance of Kyoto is more important than the fact that almost none of the countries who committed to it have compiled. It is interesting that the narrative concerning the nature of science with respect to global warming conveniently neglects both evidence – the earth has not warmed since 1998 – and reality – there are some 3,200 qualified scientists who do not accept the hypothesis that man is the primary cause of changes in climate. While it is acceptable for Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Barrack Obama to speak glowingly of the green economy and how the new world order will rely heavily on renewable, it is clear to dispassionate observers that this too is another post modern Mandelsonian discourse divorced from the realty of such schemes, which cost jobs, increase energy poverty and cause increases in taxation to pay for subsidy.
For the psychological study of scientific discourse and its impact on individual and group behaviour, it would help if those who have already closed their minds to the science understood that others have not yet done so. It would also help for them to understand the socio-economic context of this debate as well as the complex and emerging science of climatology.
Both sets of contributions start from the assumption that anthropomorphic climate change is a given, citing the politically driven findings of the IPCC as a basis for this status claim. In fact, the Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), which is supported by far more scientists than the IPCC, reaches a different conclusion, namely that man made greenhouse gas emissions contribute hardly at all to cyclical changes in the climate.
We should be careful not to fall into the political trap of claiming that "the science is settled" and then labeling as deviants in need of a psychological explanation those who take a contrary view. We should be just as interested in the groupthink of alarmists and the naive view of those who think that small changes in human behaviour can have a major impact on solar systems, sun spots, ocean currents and other factors which contribute far more to climate variability than CO2 emissions.
Science is not a democracy. It proceeds through dissent, disclosure, debate and discovery. The fact that some scientists take one view and others take another provides the praxis on which knowledge develops. The science is never “settled” – we are still debating whether Einstein’s theory of relativity is accurate in all of its details and the conditions under which it is not. We have rejected the former consensus over eugenics.
It is a characteristic of post-modern politics that the narrative is more important than the facts. For example, the narrative of the critical importance of Kyoto is more important than the fact that almost none of the countries who committed to it have compiled. It is interesting that the narrative concerning the nature of science with respect to global warming conveniently neglects both evidence – the earth has not warmed since 1998 – and reality – there are some 3,200 qualified scientists who do not accept the hypothesis that man is the primary cause of changes in climate. While it is acceptable for Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Barrack Obama to speak glowingly of the green economy and how the new world order will rely heavily on renewable, it is clear to dispassionate observers that this too is another post modern Mandelsonian discourse divorced from the realty of such schemes, which cost jobs, increase energy poverty and cause increases in taxation to pay for subsidy.
For the psychological study of scientific discourse and its impact on individual and group behaviour, it would help if those who have already closed their minds to the science understood that others have not yet done so. It would also help for them to understand the socio-economic context of this debate as well as the complex and emerging science of climatology.
The Current Politics of Climate Change and CO2
The political movement to change our economies from carbon based to a more balanced energy based economies which make more use of renewables has experienced several setbacks.
First, while governments continue to talk the rhetoric of climate change and a commitment to renewables, the recession and credit crunch is making the achievement of targets less likely, especially in those economies (Ireland, Britain, Spain and France) whose government debts are higher than 5% of GDP. In Britain alone, their commitment to renewable energy as 15% of energy sold will cost in excess of $175 billion over the next eight years, with subsidies costing even more over a longer period of time. Governments are looking at the costs and are slowing development down.
Second, while the US President has committed to cap and trade and a strong renewable energy strategy, congress is beginning to get cold feet. It’s part of a general reaction to Obama’s bold, big strategy – “too much, too expensive and too complex” say many. With such a big deficit already and massive government debts (over $10 trillion), many in the House and Senate are looking for optional items to drop and cap and trade is one of them. Obama intended to use the $665 billion revenue from cap and trade to fund his green jobs through renewable strategy – if cap and trade goes, then the whole green plan is vulnerable.
Third, the science is getting more problematic. A study of the 1918 El Nino, published recently, suggests it was much more powerful than previously understood. The implication for the theory of anthropomorphic global warming are serious: complex computer modeling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation. What is more, the effect of this El Nino persisted for longer than previously thought. Adding this component to the computer climate simulations each time these have occurred significantly reduces the CO2 impacts on climate.
Finally, even some ardent campaigners have recognized that the reducing CO2 strategy – the core of Kyoto – Is not working, with few attempts to curb CO2 emissions having any real bite. They openly now talk of Plan B – a focus on adaptation and new technology, which is where many wanted to be in the first place (like the Government of Alberta).
So what’s next for the politics of climate change?
As we get nearer to the battle of Copenhagen in December where the world will look to our leaders for the next Kyoto protocol, we can expect three things. The first is for the calls for action to become shriller. We have already had the Prince of Wales suggesting that we have just 100 months “to save the planet” and Dr James Hansen, scientist turned polemicist and prophet, told President Obama in a letter that he had to act immediately otherwise the game was up. James Lovelock, who developed the Gai concept, thinks its already too late and we will now lose up to five billion people as a result of climate change. This is just the start.
Second, we can expect the science to find more dramatic evidence that the end is nigh. That is, those building models will find evidence that action is urgently required. It has already started. There is a claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years – yet CO2 atoms in the atmosphere don’t come with date stamps (i.e. it’s a model based guess). There are claims that the arctic melt is so rapid that the arctic will be ice free (nonsense). And this will go on.
Finally, we will experience a new level of rhetoric from politicians. They will tell stories and start to build myths and fantasies which they actually believe. Obama really believes he can create five million jobs by going green in America, despite good evidence from Spain that every green jobs leads to significant job losses elsewhere in the economy and increases national debt. Gordon Brown really believes that Britain can achieve its wind power targets, despite the opposite view coming from his own public servants. But it is a characteristic of post-modern politics that the independent reality of facts and evidence is not the basis for action: it’s the narrative and the story that drives policy.
It will be interesting to observe this unfold between now and Christmas. Watch this space.
First, while governments continue to talk the rhetoric of climate change and a commitment to renewables, the recession and credit crunch is making the achievement of targets less likely, especially in those economies (Ireland, Britain, Spain and France) whose government debts are higher than 5% of GDP. In Britain alone, their commitment to renewable energy as 15% of energy sold will cost in excess of $175 billion over the next eight years, with subsidies costing even more over a longer period of time. Governments are looking at the costs and are slowing development down.
Second, while the US President has committed to cap and trade and a strong renewable energy strategy, congress is beginning to get cold feet. It’s part of a general reaction to Obama’s bold, big strategy – “too much, too expensive and too complex” say many. With such a big deficit already and massive government debts (over $10 trillion), many in the House and Senate are looking for optional items to drop and cap and trade is one of them. Obama intended to use the $665 billion revenue from cap and trade to fund his green jobs through renewable strategy – if cap and trade goes, then the whole green plan is vulnerable.
Third, the science is getting more problematic. A study of the 1918 El Nino, published recently, suggests it was much more powerful than previously understood. The implication for the theory of anthropomorphic global warming are serious: complex computer modeling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation. What is more, the effect of this El Nino persisted for longer than previously thought. Adding this component to the computer climate simulations each time these have occurred significantly reduces the CO2 impacts on climate.
Finally, even some ardent campaigners have recognized that the reducing CO2 strategy – the core of Kyoto – Is not working, with few attempts to curb CO2 emissions having any real bite. They openly now talk of Plan B – a focus on adaptation and new technology, which is where many wanted to be in the first place (like the Government of Alberta).
So what’s next for the politics of climate change?
As we get nearer to the battle of Copenhagen in December where the world will look to our leaders for the next Kyoto protocol, we can expect three things. The first is for the calls for action to become shriller. We have already had the Prince of Wales suggesting that we have just 100 months “to save the planet” and Dr James Hansen, scientist turned polemicist and prophet, told President Obama in a letter that he had to act immediately otherwise the game was up. James Lovelock, who developed the Gai concept, thinks its already too late and we will now lose up to five billion people as a result of climate change. This is just the start.
Second, we can expect the science to find more dramatic evidence that the end is nigh. That is, those building models will find evidence that action is urgently required. It has already started. There is a claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years – yet CO2 atoms in the atmosphere don’t come with date stamps (i.e. it’s a model based guess). There are claims that the arctic melt is so rapid that the arctic will be ice free (nonsense). And this will go on.
Finally, we will experience a new level of rhetoric from politicians. They will tell stories and start to build myths and fantasies which they actually believe. Obama really believes he can create five million jobs by going green in America, despite good evidence from Spain that every green jobs leads to significant job losses elsewhere in the economy and increases national debt. Gordon Brown really believes that Britain can achieve its wind power targets, despite the opposite view coming from his own public servants. But it is a characteristic of post-modern politics that the independent reality of facts and evidence is not the basis for action: it’s the narrative and the story that drives policy.
It will be interesting to observe this unfold between now and Christmas. Watch this space.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Poem: Climate Change
It’s snowing,. It’s April. It’s cold.
Its snowing. Its May. It’s cold.
Whatever happened to global warming?
Maybe it was too cold for it to begin or too many people protested, so the earth has cooled.
I have certainly cooled.
In fact, I am frozen and I just fell on the ice. And it’s June.
Its snowing. Its May. It’s cold.
Whatever happened to global warming?
Maybe it was too cold for it to begin or too many people protested, so the earth has cooled.
I have certainly cooled.
In fact, I am frozen and I just fell on the ice. And it’s June.
Is the Euro Finished?
A version of this will appear shortly in the Winnipeg Free Press
A report released last week by the Bruges Group – a right leaning European think-tank – suggests that the current global financial crisis could see the end of the Euro – the single currency for sixteen of the European Union’s member States, including Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Germany.
Each of the eurozone economies are very different – they have different structures, a different mix of industries, unique histories and cultures and access to varied markets. Yet, the underlying assumption of the single currency is that a single interest rate and a single exchange rate against other currencies will work equally well for all member economies. In times like these, it clearly doesn’t. Industrial output in the eurozone is now the lowest it has been since records began. Unemployment is also growing fast in the eurozone countries
So much political capital was invested in securing the agreement to create the single currency that abandoning it now seems impossible, according to most analysts. Yet the challenge of saving the euro will come at a heavy price. Stronger economies amongst the sixteen – France, Netherlands and Germany - will have to bail out the weaker ones, driving up borrowing costs across the EU and slowing the pace of economic recovery. Exchange rates will likely remain weak for a considerable time, making import costs higher. Pressure for protectionism, already a reality in seventeen of the G20 nations according to the World Bank, will become more intense. Overall, it will mean that recovery from recession will be impaired.
This euro currency challenge comes at a tough time for many of the EU leaders. France is experiencing massive protests against President Sarkozy’s response to the recession. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, faces a tough election later this year and may have to choose between saving the Euro or retaining her position as Chancellor The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is facing rapidly rising unemployment and a threat to the stability of the country. BusinessEurope, a European employers' organisation, expects 4.5 million more European jobs to disappear this year - nearly two million of them in Spain alone.
Reacting to the developments, Jean –Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the leader of the euro group of finance ministers, said last week that “the credibility of monetary union is at stake.” He also revealed that the planned expansion of the euro had been “put on ice”.
The situation is affecting global financial markets. Central banks in Asia and the Middle East are rapidly reducing their exposure to the euro, though this has not stopped the single currency rising in value, notably against the pound. Figures from the European Central Bank (ECB), showing a collapse of investment from foreign buyers into euro-denominated assets that began in mid-2007 also show that the worlds financial markets are being more than cautious. Although there was a huge spike in the issue of euro-denominated bonds late last year, hardly any of the debt was bought by investors from outside the eurozone. What is more, governments are now issuing bonds and certificates seemingly faster than parking tickets in the busiest city.
The G20 summit begins on the 2nd if April. One can expect at least some temporary resolution of the eurozone challenge before then – IMF-like loans or “bail outs” to the most affected countries from the larger eurozone economies and relaxation of some of the European Central Bank restrictions on the debt levels held by countries and their economic policies. There will also be movements by each of the EU central banks to prop up the currency. But the emerging challenge from these issues is the difference between Europe and the US on the recession recovery strategy.
There is not much appetite for additional stimulus expenditure in Europe over and above the commitments already made. Instead, the focus, led by Angela Merkel of Germany, is on better regulation of the financial system. Despite the fact that the last G20 meeting committed to establishing a new regulatory framework last November, it is likely that this commitment will be recycled at the upcoming meeting. The US, in contrast, are likely to be pushing for additional stimulus, as President Obama seeks to expand the US economy and stimulate growth through debt based government spending.
Some commentators in Europe are already writing off the summit, with Britain’s The Spectator – one of the longest running right wing commentary magazines - calling for it to be cancelled. After all, the G20 summit, which will cost over $100 million, is basically a one day event. There will be no new world order, and the US preparations have been sidetracked by events in Washington. Political theatre will no doubt replace economic action, as the G20 leaders look towards the electorate and upcoming elections or votes in congress.
These issues reveal another. Europe is without a political leader. Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer spoke twice in England last week. On both occasions he lamented the lack of focused political leadership within Europe which, he said, not only threatens the future of the Euro but also threatens the solidarity of Europe itself. “The absence of focused political leadership”, he said, has encouraged “the emergence and growth of popularist parties, often nationalistic, protectionist and against big government”.
The challenge of the Euro is a symbolic challenge for the nature of Europe itself. It was founded as a trade and economic cooperative and has struggled with its identity ever since. The current crisis highlights the question: “what is the European Union for”? The inability of Europe’s political leadership to answer this question in a convincing way tells us that the struggle for the over future of European Union will continue.
A report released last week by the Bruges Group – a right leaning European think-tank – suggests that the current global financial crisis could see the end of the Euro – the single currency for sixteen of the European Union’s member States, including Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Germany.
Each of the eurozone economies are very different – they have different structures, a different mix of industries, unique histories and cultures and access to varied markets. Yet, the underlying assumption of the single currency is that a single interest rate and a single exchange rate against other currencies will work equally well for all member economies. In times like these, it clearly doesn’t. Industrial output in the eurozone is now the lowest it has been since records began. Unemployment is also growing fast in the eurozone countries
So much political capital was invested in securing the agreement to create the single currency that abandoning it now seems impossible, according to most analysts. Yet the challenge of saving the euro will come at a heavy price. Stronger economies amongst the sixteen – France, Netherlands and Germany - will have to bail out the weaker ones, driving up borrowing costs across the EU and slowing the pace of economic recovery. Exchange rates will likely remain weak for a considerable time, making import costs higher. Pressure for protectionism, already a reality in seventeen of the G20 nations according to the World Bank, will become more intense. Overall, it will mean that recovery from recession will be impaired.
This euro currency challenge comes at a tough time for many of the EU leaders. France is experiencing massive protests against President Sarkozy’s response to the recession. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, faces a tough election later this year and may have to choose between saving the Euro or retaining her position as Chancellor The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is facing rapidly rising unemployment and a threat to the stability of the country. BusinessEurope, a European employers' organisation, expects 4.5 million more European jobs to disappear this year - nearly two million of them in Spain alone.
Reacting to the developments, Jean –Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the leader of the euro group of finance ministers, said last week that “the credibility of monetary union is at stake.” He also revealed that the planned expansion of the euro had been “put on ice”.
The situation is affecting global financial markets. Central banks in Asia and the Middle East are rapidly reducing their exposure to the euro, though this has not stopped the single currency rising in value, notably against the pound. Figures from the European Central Bank (ECB), showing a collapse of investment from foreign buyers into euro-denominated assets that began in mid-2007 also show that the worlds financial markets are being more than cautious. Although there was a huge spike in the issue of euro-denominated bonds late last year, hardly any of the debt was bought by investors from outside the eurozone. What is more, governments are now issuing bonds and certificates seemingly faster than parking tickets in the busiest city.
The G20 summit begins on the 2nd if April. One can expect at least some temporary resolution of the eurozone challenge before then – IMF-like loans or “bail outs” to the most affected countries from the larger eurozone economies and relaxation of some of the European Central Bank restrictions on the debt levels held by countries and their economic policies. There will also be movements by each of the EU central banks to prop up the currency. But the emerging challenge from these issues is the difference between Europe and the US on the recession recovery strategy.
There is not much appetite for additional stimulus expenditure in Europe over and above the commitments already made. Instead, the focus, led by Angela Merkel of Germany, is on better regulation of the financial system. Despite the fact that the last G20 meeting committed to establishing a new regulatory framework last November, it is likely that this commitment will be recycled at the upcoming meeting. The US, in contrast, are likely to be pushing for additional stimulus, as President Obama seeks to expand the US economy and stimulate growth through debt based government spending.
Some commentators in Europe are already writing off the summit, with Britain’s The Spectator – one of the longest running right wing commentary magazines - calling for it to be cancelled. After all, the G20 summit, which will cost over $100 million, is basically a one day event. There will be no new world order, and the US preparations have been sidetracked by events in Washington. Political theatre will no doubt replace economic action, as the G20 leaders look towards the electorate and upcoming elections or votes in congress.
These issues reveal another. Europe is without a political leader. Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer spoke twice in England last week. On both occasions he lamented the lack of focused political leadership within Europe which, he said, not only threatens the future of the Euro but also threatens the solidarity of Europe itself. “The absence of focused political leadership”, he said, has encouraged “the emergence and growth of popularist parties, often nationalistic, protectionist and against big government”.
The challenge of the Euro is a symbolic challenge for the nature of Europe itself. It was founded as a trade and economic cooperative and has struggled with its identity ever since. The current crisis highlights the question: “what is the European Union for”? The inability of Europe’s political leadership to answer this question in a convincing way tells us that the struggle for the over future of European Union will continue.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Taking Command of the Islands
The British government is taking direct control of the colony of the Turks and Caicos Islands because, according to the BBC, ‘a report found a climate of political amorality and incompetence’. How does that distinguish Turks and Caicos from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The United States of America or Iceland? One might think that suddenly deciding that integrity is important is a breakthrough, but I suspect someone has discovered a large gas field just off the coast of the islands or, better, a safe haven for Gordon Brown when he leaves office at the next election.
If the basis for regime change is political "amorality and incompetence" why didn't Britain take back the US colony during Bush 43's reign?
If the basis for regime change is political "amorality and incompetence" why didn't Britain take back the US colony during Bush 43's reign?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thank You Natasha Richardson and Fond Farewell
Natasha Richardson, a film star, Tony-winning stage actress and member of the famed Redgrave acting family, died Wednesday after suffering injuries in a ski accident, according to a family statement. She was 45. She fell on a beginners' slope in Canada.
Richardson's family released a statement saying, "Liam Neeson, his sons, and the entire family are shocked and devastated by the tragic death of their beloved Natasha. They are profoundly grateful for the support, love and prayers of everyone, and ask for privacy during this very difficult time."
This is sad. I saw her perform on the stage in London with her mother, Vanessa Redgrave. She was due to perform with her on Broadway in the near future. She has worked steadily since she began acting at the age of four and was especially good in the film The White Countess. It is always sad when someone talented and skilled dies young – in this case, from what appeared to be a very normal beginning ski accident. She will be missed.
Richardson's family released a statement saying, "Liam Neeson, his sons, and the entire family are shocked and devastated by the tragic death of their beloved Natasha. They are profoundly grateful for the support, love and prayers of everyone, and ask for privacy during this very difficult time."
This is sad. I saw her perform on the stage in London with her mother, Vanessa Redgrave. She was due to perform with her on Broadway in the near future. She has worked steadily since she began acting at the age of four and was especially good in the film The White Countess. It is always sad when someone talented and skilled dies young – in this case, from what appeared to be a very normal beginning ski accident. She will be missed.
Post Modern Politics in Action
My good friend Brian Peckford has drawn my attention to an interesting set of facts from the World Bank which demonstrate the truth of my post earlier today about the difference between political reality and the real world (we used to call this integrity).
Since G-20 leaders signed a pledge in November 2008 to avoid protectionist measures, several countries, including 17 of the G-20, have implemented 47 measures that restrict trade at the expense of other countries, the World Bank study shows.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, officials have proposed and/or implemented roughly 78 trade measures, according to the World Bank’s monitoring list of trade and trade-related measures. Of these, 66 involved trade restrictions, and 47 trade-restricting measures eventually took effect. The effects of these measures are likely minor relative to the size of unaffected markets but they have a significant negative effect on particular exporters shut out of markets.
More importantly, they reveal the double-speak of modern politics. Lets have other examples (but not global warming, it is too easy!).
Since G-20 leaders signed a pledge in November 2008 to avoid protectionist measures, several countries, including 17 of the G-20, have implemented 47 measures that restrict trade at the expense of other countries, the World Bank study shows.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, officials have proposed and/or implemented roughly 78 trade measures, according to the World Bank’s monitoring list of trade and trade-related measures. Of these, 66 involved trade restrictions, and 47 trade-restricting measures eventually took effect. The effects of these measures are likely minor relative to the size of unaffected markets but they have a significant negative effect on particular exporters shut out of markets.
More importantly, they reveal the double-speak of modern politics. Lets have other examples (but not global warming, it is too easy!).
The Doors
My friend, Michael Hill, takes (amongst other things) photographs of doors. Here is a door from New York in the Village.
The New Post Modern Politics - Living in an Alternative Reality
Peter Osborne, who writes for The Spectator, gave the 2009 Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture for the Centre for Policy Studies recently and its well worth reading (see here for a copy). In particular, there is a key idea which he explores which is worth repeating.
There is a new kind of politics which has emerged post Bush (41) and John Major which involves what might be termed a post-modern view of facts. Politicians and the chattering class has abandoned the idea that there is an independent reality “out there” which can be independently verified and assessed. The new political epistemology moves us from truths that can be proven and verified or falsified to narratives that can be constructed.
Lord Mandelson, the British cabinet Minister (for the third time) and ex EU Commissioner, speaks of the need to “create the truth” - of building a story that is compelling and enables the government to act. For him, narrative has the appearance of reality. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (school standards, emission reporting, global warming, number unemployed) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. Even such simple things as the tracking of temperature from monitoring stations across the world are “adjusted” to fit the narrative of climate change.
What happens when this occurs is that Government lives in a parallel universe from those of us who still think that there is an independent reality out there that can be verified and that we seek to understand through science. They pursue policies – whether about climate change or schools, health care or grizzly bears – which are based on their own narratives and their own “fitted” data.
Barrack Obama is looking like a master of this skill. His “green economy” and the creation of millions of new jobs is an example of this. As experience elsewhere has shown – see my blog post on Spain below – each green job usually leads to the loss of between 3 and 4 jobs elsewhere in the economy and also increases either government expenditure or debt and leads to higher energy costs and more energy poverty. But the narrative sounds good and, there is no doubt, Obama believes it. There will be an army of public servants committed to demonstrating that the narrative is true, whatever it takes it terms of manipulation of data.
Margaret Thatcher made the point in her Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture some years ago that “integrity lies in the conviction that it is only on the basis of truth that power should be won – or indeed can be worth winning”. With the new truth’s based on post-modern narratives, ordinary citizens are now doing the work of public servants in ferreting out the truth and making clear what, as far as they can tell, the facts are. For me, this means a genuine focus on a few things that matter and the exploration of these “as if” my task as a writer was the pursuit of truth. It is what used to be the guiding principle of the public service which, in this new age, appears to lose its way in an attempt to appease the current master as opposed to serving the public. While this view of the public service is not true for all (and there are notable exceptions to this view), it is true often enough to be a cause for concern.
There is a new kind of politics which has emerged post Bush (41) and John Major which involves what might be termed a post-modern view of facts. Politicians and the chattering class has abandoned the idea that there is an independent reality “out there” which can be independently verified and assessed. The new political epistemology moves us from truths that can be proven and verified or falsified to narratives that can be constructed.
Lord Mandelson, the British cabinet Minister (for the third time) and ex EU Commissioner, speaks of the need to “create the truth” - of building a story that is compelling and enables the government to act. For him, narrative has the appearance of reality. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (school standards, emission reporting, global warming, number unemployed) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. Even such simple things as the tracking of temperature from monitoring stations across the world are “adjusted” to fit the narrative of climate change.
What happens when this occurs is that Government lives in a parallel universe from those of us who still think that there is an independent reality out there that can be verified and that we seek to understand through science. They pursue policies – whether about climate change or schools, health care or grizzly bears – which are based on their own narratives and their own “fitted” data.
Barrack Obama is looking like a master of this skill. His “green economy” and the creation of millions of new jobs is an example of this. As experience elsewhere has shown – see my blog post on Spain below – each green job usually leads to the loss of between 3 and 4 jobs elsewhere in the economy and also increases either government expenditure or debt and leads to higher energy costs and more energy poverty. But the narrative sounds good and, there is no doubt, Obama believes it. There will be an army of public servants committed to demonstrating that the narrative is true, whatever it takes it terms of manipulation of data.
Margaret Thatcher made the point in her Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture some years ago that “integrity lies in the conviction that it is only on the basis of truth that power should be won – or indeed can be worth winning”. With the new truth’s based on post-modern narratives, ordinary citizens are now doing the work of public servants in ferreting out the truth and making clear what, as far as they can tell, the facts are. For me, this means a genuine focus on a few things that matter and the exploration of these “as if” my task as a writer was the pursuit of truth. It is what used to be the guiding principle of the public service which, in this new age, appears to lose its way in an attempt to appease the current master as opposed to serving the public. While this view of the public service is not true for all (and there are notable exceptions to this view), it is true often enough to be a cause for concern.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Feyerabend's Delight - The Nature of Science
Developments in science rarely proceed quickly. They go in stages. It varies by discipline, but the underlying process is basically the same. Someone, using their knowledge of a phenomena, suggests a theory and a number of hypothesis that would enable the theory to be tested. Experiments are then conducted which advance the theory – not necessarily “proving” or disproving it, but requiring refinements. As evidence accumulates, the theory either advances or is discarded. Sometimes, a plethora of direct observation (evidence from measurement) suggest a hypothesis which is a part of a theory and this can also lead to advancement.
We refer to this view of science as empiricism (after the Vienna circle) which also requires falsification (after Karl Popper). When Michael Apter, Ken Smith, Sven Svebak and several others (including myself) developed the theory of psychological reversals we had a grand theory of psychology and psychobiology which could be tested empirically by means of a number of different experiments. As each experiment was completed it either confirmed the theory or provided a basis for us having to rethink the theoretical framework, which we did constantly for some twenty five years. We also asked others, especially those who found our theory problematic, to look at the data and to challenge our interpretations both at the level of the data itself (do you get the same result when you analyze these data) and at the level of theory (given this result, can you offer a more comprehensive interpretation than we can?).
Most theorists hope to achieve a paradigm shift (after Khun) as a result of their work. For example, when the proponents of the germ theory of disease finally won widespread acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century, they achieved a paradigm shift in our understanding of disease and changed medical practice. We now know that the germ theory of disease is only partial – new developments in genomics and in the understanding of psychosomatics suggest that there are other basis for “disease”. Equally, the breakthrough in the acceptance of tectonic plates as an explanation of a variety of geological events was also a paradigm shift.
Science, it must be said, is not a democratic pursuit but rather a pursuit for truth. The term “scientific consensus” is generally a red flag to a scientist - a sign that someone is seeking to control the debate or to close an argument. For example, when Einstein proposed his E = MC2 few accepted it as anything more than a hypothesis. When told that some 200 eminint physicists objected to this formulation, Einstein suggested that it took only one “with proof” to make clear that he was wrong. Science, unlike politics, is not a numbers game. Over time, some basic ideas become accepted as cornerstones of science, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. Such things are rare. Even then, we do not talk of “consensus”, but of generally accepted principles (meaning that there are exceptions and some still wish to argue the Laws themselves).
Recently, following Paul Feyerabend, there has emerged an approach to science which suggest that the boundary between science as a form of logical reasoning based on evidence and polemics needs to be blurred, since what matters in scientific understanding in the service of social aims. Using a variety of examples, he suggests that they have in common the fact that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in these cases and that the progress of science itself would have been impeded had it not been for the anarchistic view of science promoted. One of his examples is the Copernican revolution. Feyerabend is a radical and he sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if it leads to an advancement of understanding. Feyerabend also advocated that science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.
I have rehearsed these different view of science for a reason. We are challenged to make sense of the science of climate change, which is in fact a collection of different sciences. We have no theory of climate, just a set of hypothesis with a very strong focus on the following:
1. There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect in which the presence of certain volumes of gasses and water vapour have a forcing impact on the earth’s temperature.
2. CO2 is a primary cause of the greenhouse effect, despite it being a small presence in the atmosphere. This warming will have major implications for life-systems.
3. Even though humans emit only a fraction of the CO2 present in the atmosphere, humans are the primary cause of greenhouse gasses and warming.
4. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions, being a cause of warming, will have an impact on the ice sheets which in turn will affect sea levels significantly over time.
5. By lowering anthropomorphic CO2 emissions we can impact climate over time, despite the role of other factors such as the sun, water vapour, oceans etc.
More recently, it has been suggested that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere may be present for thousands of years.
All of these are hypothesis. Each of them has been subject to a variety of evidence reviews and the jury is out, despite the political desire to call “consensus” and "time". There is evidence to suggest that the climate is a more complex phenomenon than these basic hypothesis suggest and that there is no rush to judgment needed.
Further, a collection of related hypothesis do not represent a theory. A theory offers a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, in this case climate. We do not have a theory of the climate which would pass the basic tests of a theory – logical consistency, consistent with observations, having a grounding in empirical evidence, be economical in the number of assumptions, explain the phenomena, provide a basis for making predictions which can be verified by evidence, be falsifiable and testable, be correctable and be refinable. Several hundred experienced and qualified scientists dispute all or some or some aspects of the hypotheses outlined here.
We do have a set of proxies for such a theory in the form of computer climate change models, but these are generally accepted as incomplete and emerging (accept by those who built them). Climate is clearly complex, dynamic and somewhat chaotic and difficult to model. Extrapolating consequences from such models – models which do not include variables for human adaptability, technological innovation and ingenuity – seems a strange thing to be doing.
Rather than develop a theory, what some climate change scientists have done (and this is the basis of the work of the political UN organization the IPCC) is to develop scenarios. Scenarios are different views of a possible future based upon a combination of facts, opinions, ideas and speculation. They are very helpful to get one thinking about options, but only if all the scenarios are viewed as equally possible.
What we have with climate change “science” is anarchy masked by democracy – a Feyerabend's delight. The IPCC alarmists have, in their own minds, a comprehensive scenario for the future which they seek to use to influence public policy. They use evidence is it appears to them to show that they are right and they seek to deny access to policy makers and public opinion those who take a different view – the “deniers” who, in the words of some, are “traitors” who should have no access to public media. On the other side, there are those who see themselves as climate realists who, looking at the evidence as they see it, see something very different from the alarmists. In Popperian terms, they can readily falsify some of the thinking (especially the idea of a linear equation between man made CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature) and provide alternative hypothesis.
What we have is a clash of methodology (observations versus models) and ideology (Karl Popper and the Vienna School versus Feyerabend). There will be no reconciliation since the two fundamental different views of science and its purpose appear irreconcilable. But the debate is important, not least in terms of the philosophy of science and the nature of the scientific endeavor.
It is a sad fact that there will be no debate between these differing views of climate change and climate science, since one side has closed the door on science seeing all of the issues as settled or only settle-able by members of their own "team". Even Feyerabend would have loved a debate.
We refer to this view of science as empiricism (after the Vienna circle) which also requires falsification (after Karl Popper). When Michael Apter, Ken Smith, Sven Svebak and several others (including myself) developed the theory of psychological reversals we had a grand theory of psychology and psychobiology which could be tested empirically by means of a number of different experiments. As each experiment was completed it either confirmed the theory or provided a basis for us having to rethink the theoretical framework, which we did constantly for some twenty five years. We also asked others, especially those who found our theory problematic, to look at the data and to challenge our interpretations both at the level of the data itself (do you get the same result when you analyze these data) and at the level of theory (given this result, can you offer a more comprehensive interpretation than we can?).
Most theorists hope to achieve a paradigm shift (after Khun) as a result of their work. For example, when the proponents of the germ theory of disease finally won widespread acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century, they achieved a paradigm shift in our understanding of disease and changed medical practice. We now know that the germ theory of disease is only partial – new developments in genomics and in the understanding of psychosomatics suggest that there are other basis for “disease”. Equally, the breakthrough in the acceptance of tectonic plates as an explanation of a variety of geological events was also a paradigm shift.
Science, it must be said, is not a democratic pursuit but rather a pursuit for truth. The term “scientific consensus” is generally a red flag to a scientist - a sign that someone is seeking to control the debate or to close an argument. For example, when Einstein proposed his E = MC2 few accepted it as anything more than a hypothesis. When told that some 200 eminint physicists objected to this formulation, Einstein suggested that it took only one “with proof” to make clear that he was wrong. Science, unlike politics, is not a numbers game. Over time, some basic ideas become accepted as cornerstones of science, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. Such things are rare. Even then, we do not talk of “consensus”, but of generally accepted principles (meaning that there are exceptions and some still wish to argue the Laws themselves).
Recently, following Paul Feyerabend, there has emerged an approach to science which suggest that the boundary between science as a form of logical reasoning based on evidence and polemics needs to be blurred, since what matters in scientific understanding in the service of social aims. Using a variety of examples, he suggests that they have in common the fact that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in these cases and that the progress of science itself would have been impeded had it not been for the anarchistic view of science promoted. One of his examples is the Copernican revolution. Feyerabend is a radical and he sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if it leads to an advancement of understanding. Feyerabend also advocated that science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.
I have rehearsed these different view of science for a reason. We are challenged to make sense of the science of climate change, which is in fact a collection of different sciences. We have no theory of climate, just a set of hypothesis with a very strong focus on the following:
1. There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect in which the presence of certain volumes of gasses and water vapour have a forcing impact on the earth’s temperature.
2. CO2 is a primary cause of the greenhouse effect, despite it being a small presence in the atmosphere. This warming will have major implications for life-systems.
3. Even though humans emit only a fraction of the CO2 present in the atmosphere, humans are the primary cause of greenhouse gasses and warming.
4. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions, being a cause of warming, will have an impact on the ice sheets which in turn will affect sea levels significantly over time.
5. By lowering anthropomorphic CO2 emissions we can impact climate over time, despite the role of other factors such as the sun, water vapour, oceans etc.
More recently, it has been suggested that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere may be present for thousands of years.
All of these are hypothesis. Each of them has been subject to a variety of evidence reviews and the jury is out, despite the political desire to call “consensus” and "time". There is evidence to suggest that the climate is a more complex phenomenon than these basic hypothesis suggest and that there is no rush to judgment needed.
Further, a collection of related hypothesis do not represent a theory. A theory offers a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, in this case climate. We do not have a theory of the climate which would pass the basic tests of a theory – logical consistency, consistent with observations, having a grounding in empirical evidence, be economical in the number of assumptions, explain the phenomena, provide a basis for making predictions which can be verified by evidence, be falsifiable and testable, be correctable and be refinable. Several hundred experienced and qualified scientists dispute all or some or some aspects of the hypotheses outlined here.
We do have a set of proxies for such a theory in the form of computer climate change models, but these are generally accepted as incomplete and emerging (accept by those who built them). Climate is clearly complex, dynamic and somewhat chaotic and difficult to model. Extrapolating consequences from such models – models which do not include variables for human adaptability, technological innovation and ingenuity – seems a strange thing to be doing.
Rather than develop a theory, what some climate change scientists have done (and this is the basis of the work of the political UN organization the IPCC) is to develop scenarios. Scenarios are different views of a possible future based upon a combination of facts, opinions, ideas and speculation. They are very helpful to get one thinking about options, but only if all the scenarios are viewed as equally possible.
What we have with climate change “science” is anarchy masked by democracy – a Feyerabend's delight. The IPCC alarmists have, in their own minds, a comprehensive scenario for the future which they seek to use to influence public policy. They use evidence is it appears to them to show that they are right and they seek to deny access to policy makers and public opinion those who take a different view – the “deniers” who, in the words of some, are “traitors” who should have no access to public media. On the other side, there are those who see themselves as climate realists who, looking at the evidence as they see it, see something very different from the alarmists. In Popperian terms, they can readily falsify some of the thinking (especially the idea of a linear equation between man made CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature) and provide alternative hypothesis.
What we have is a clash of methodology (observations versus models) and ideology (Karl Popper and the Vienna School versus Feyerabend). There will be no reconciliation since the two fundamental different views of science and its purpose appear irreconcilable. But the debate is important, not least in terms of the philosophy of science and the nature of the scientific endeavor.
It is a sad fact that there will be no debate between these differing views of climate change and climate science, since one side has closed the door on science seeing all of the issues as settled or only settle-able by members of their own "team". Even Feyerabend would have loved a debate.
Average of Averages - A Great Basis for Public Policy?
What is an average global temperature?
This may sound like an odd question, but it is worth a moment. Each location in the world has a temperature. This temperature depends on a range of variables, which are quite complex. They include wind patterns, proximity to oceans, mountains and rivers, population and building density and so on. In fact, we all know that there are such things as regional and very local micro-climates – Napa Valley, Okanagan Valley in Canada are all microclimates, ideal for wine growing. Some regions are historically hotter than others – proximity to the earth’s central regions and others are colder than others – the Arctic and Antarctic, for example. At any one moment in time, the temperature at all of these locations is different. We average them and get a global temperature average. We take averages over a period of time at each location (like a year) and then average all of these – an average of averages.
A parallel that occurs to me is to average everyone’s cell phone number to get a global average cell phone number. While this would be totally meaningless – you could use the number for reporting, but what does it really represent? - you can’t actually call anyone with it and it tells us nothing – but it is the same basic idea.
What matters when we take the measures is where the data comes from. A lot of the earthbound temperature monitoring stations are in locations where there are people – Universities, car parks, meteorological stations and so on. Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing). In some of the major indexes (e.g. CRU,NOAA), there appears to be varying attempts to adjust for urbanization. GISS does report an effort to adjust for urbanization in some cases, but their ability to do so depends on the existence of nearby rural stations, which are not always available. Thus, there is a real concern that the need for urban adjustment is most severe in the very areas where adjustments are either not made or not accurately made. Then we are not comparing like with like over time.
Once we have an average global mean temperature, what can we do with it? As far as I can tell, nothing. It means very little. Yet, it is being used as a basis for some of the campaigning and polemics of climate change alarmists. They are concerned that the average may go up by 2-4 degree C by 2100. This would imply, they claim, massive warming of the earth. But lets look at this for a moment.
Today it is -15C here in Edmonton and +12 in London, UK. When add these up we get an average of -1.5. If the temperature in London remains roughly +12 but that in Alberta moves to -5 the average is now +3.5 which looks like a massive warming, but we’re still bloody cold and nothing has changed in London.
Two physicists have recently looked in depth at this issue and conclude, as I have done, that the only climate that matters is regional/local and that we should be seeking to understand global climate as a chaotic collection of local climates. They also see global mean temperatures as a fiction.
This may sound like an odd question, but it is worth a moment. Each location in the world has a temperature. This temperature depends on a range of variables, which are quite complex. They include wind patterns, proximity to oceans, mountains and rivers, population and building density and so on. In fact, we all know that there are such things as regional and very local micro-climates – Napa Valley, Okanagan Valley in Canada are all microclimates, ideal for wine growing. Some regions are historically hotter than others – proximity to the earth’s central regions and others are colder than others – the Arctic and Antarctic, for example. At any one moment in time, the temperature at all of these locations is different. We average them and get a global temperature average. We take averages over a period of time at each location (like a year) and then average all of these – an average of averages.
A parallel that occurs to me is to average everyone’s cell phone number to get a global average cell phone number. While this would be totally meaningless – you could use the number for reporting, but what does it really represent? - you can’t actually call anyone with it and it tells us nothing – but it is the same basic idea.
What matters when we take the measures is where the data comes from. A lot of the earthbound temperature monitoring stations are in locations where there are people – Universities, car parks, meteorological stations and so on. Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing). In some of the major indexes (e.g. CRU,NOAA), there appears to be varying attempts to adjust for urbanization. GISS does report an effort to adjust for urbanization in some cases, but their ability to do so depends on the existence of nearby rural stations, which are not always available. Thus, there is a real concern that the need for urban adjustment is most severe in the very areas where adjustments are either not made or not accurately made. Then we are not comparing like with like over time.
Once we have an average global mean temperature, what can we do with it? As far as I can tell, nothing. It means very little. Yet, it is being used as a basis for some of the campaigning and polemics of climate change alarmists. They are concerned that the average may go up by 2-4 degree C by 2100. This would imply, they claim, massive warming of the earth. But lets look at this for a moment.
Today it is -15C here in Edmonton and +12 in London, UK. When add these up we get an average of -1.5. If the temperature in London remains roughly +12 but that in Alberta moves to -5 the average is now +3.5 which looks like a massive warming, but we’re still bloody cold and nothing has changed in London.
Two physicists have recently looked in depth at this issue and conclude, as I have done, that the only climate that matters is regional/local and that we should be seeking to understand global climate as a chaotic collection of local climates. They also see global mean temperatures as a fiction.
A Testing time for the Minister of Education in Alberta
The Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed resolution 503 yesterday which asks the Government of Alberta to end mandatory testing of all Grade 3 (8 year old) students in Alberta. The Government is not required to act on this motion, but must take it into consideration.
This is a welcome development. It means that the House is conscious of a need for change in the accountability regime. It will now be a test for Dave Hancock - the best Education Minister in a decade or more - to respond creatively. It's my hope that this provides a basis for him to start a process of change.
Here is my recommendation:
1. Announce quickly the intention to move away from census base testing to sampling for all Provincial achievement tests - this will meet the requirement to show Albertan's what they are getting for their money.
2. Replace Grade 3 tests with diagnostic testing at the start of Grade 3 which will help identify not just the learning challenges of these eight year old's, but also their gifts and opportunities. Lets use the process as one of talent finding and developing. Here, Dave should bear in mind the lessons of similar work on the UK on primary school testing.
3. Ask each school to develop performance indicators of what matters most to them through a rigorous school development planning cycle. That is, in addition to maths, science and native language skills, what is most important for these kids - emotional and social intelligence, critical thinking, creativity etc - and what are you going to do and what are the measures of success you will use and how will you report them? Break away from the curriculum strangle-hold on the school and give teachers a chance to teach.
4. Commit to reducing the size of Alberta Education from 700 FTE staff (plus 100 FTE contract and consulting staff) to 250 by 2012 - we don't need them.
5. Partner with the ATA on the rethinking of school based accountability.
This could make Alberta a North American leader in focusing on children and real learning, not just test results.
This is a welcome development. It means that the House is conscious of a need for change in the accountability regime. It will now be a test for Dave Hancock - the best Education Minister in a decade or more - to respond creatively. It's my hope that this provides a basis for him to start a process of change.
Here is my recommendation:
1. Announce quickly the intention to move away from census base testing to sampling for all Provincial achievement tests - this will meet the requirement to show Albertan's what they are getting for their money.
2. Replace Grade 3 tests with diagnostic testing at the start of Grade 3 which will help identify not just the learning challenges of these eight year old's, but also their gifts and opportunities. Lets use the process as one of talent finding and developing. Here, Dave should bear in mind the lessons of similar work on the UK on primary school testing.
3. Ask each school to develop performance indicators of what matters most to them through a rigorous school development planning cycle. That is, in addition to maths, science and native language skills, what is most important for these kids - emotional and social intelligence, critical thinking, creativity etc - and what are you going to do and what are the measures of success you will use and how will you report them? Break away from the curriculum strangle-hold on the school and give teachers a chance to teach.
4. Commit to reducing the size of Alberta Education from 700 FTE staff (plus 100 FTE contract and consulting staff) to 250 by 2012 - we don't need them.
5. Partner with the ATA on the rethinking of school based accountability.
This could make Alberta a North American leader in focusing on children and real learning, not just test results.
There is no Greenhouse Effect!
A new and comprehensive review of the literature concerning the greenhouse effect - the idea that certain gasses in the atmosphere replicate a greenhouse for the eary and cause "warming" as measured by average global temperature - was published in January 2009 by two German physicists - Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner (link here to the actual paper).
They find no compelling evidence in physics for the greenhouse effect and cast doubt on the meaning of the average global temperature, something I have always puzzled about. When I asked a climatologist about this measure he provided a good analogy. Imagine taking everyone's cell phone number in the world and then averaging it. We would then have a global average cell phone number. Great! What could we do with it? Nothing! What does it mean? Nothing.
Just as the bush fires and house fires were ravaging Melbourne, there were floods in Northern Australia - on the same day. Today, it is -15C here in Edmonton, but +11 in London. The average of these two temperatures is -2 - what does this tell us?
I think this is a very important paper (difficult to read, unless you are a physicist or a mathematician) and full of useful insights. The key message: don't assume that tne greenhouse effect is a reality before you have read this paper.
They find no compelling evidence in physics for the greenhouse effect and cast doubt on the meaning of the average global temperature, something I have always puzzled about. When I asked a climatologist about this measure he provided a good analogy. Imagine taking everyone's cell phone number in the world and then averaging it. We would then have a global average cell phone number. Great! What could we do with it? Nothing! What does it mean? Nothing.
Just as the bush fires and house fires were ravaging Melbourne, there were floods in Northern Australia - on the same day. Today, it is -15C here in Edmonton, but +11 in London. The average of these two temperatures is -2 - what does this tell us?
I think this is a very important paper (difficult to read, unless you are a physicist or a mathematician) and full of useful insights. The key message: don't assume that tne greenhouse effect is a reality before you have read this paper.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Good Lord Speaks
Some observations about global climate change from Lord Monckton:
1. For the last seven years global temperatures have been cooling at the rate equivalent to 2.1degrees C/century.
2. Observed increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is well below the IPCC estimate for this time period – if the current trend continues, CO2 concentrations will be app. 575 ppm by 2100 as opposed to the IPCC’s 836 ppm – a difference of 32%. This despite continued increases in emissions.
3. There is compelling evidence that much of the warming that did occur in the 20th century was due to solar activities. During the period 1645-1715 the sun was less active than it had been for the past 10,000 years. Then the sun increased its activities for some 300 years until, during the 70 years 1925-1995, the sun was as active as at anytime during the past 11,400 years – peaking in 1960. The International Astronomical Union (2004) concluded that the sun, not CO2, was responsible for warming patterns seen over the last 25- years and that solar activity was now likely to decline. Other studies suggest that the sun caused 68% of the warming that occurred in the twentieth century, which ended in 1998.
4. Sea ice in the arctic winter shows little real change over the last thirty years – any changes are well within patterns of natural variability over time. The arctic was in fact warmer in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s than it is now.
5. In the Antarctic sea ice reached a record high in 2007 – and again shows little change in winter levels over a thirty year period.
6. Glaciers have been melting slowly since 1800-1820 – no acceleration of the trend since this time has been observed.
7. Northern hemisphere snow cover, on which 40% of the world’s population depends for water, reached a record high in 2007/8.
8. Global temperatures were warmer by some 7C than the present throughout most of the past half billion years; 5C warmer in each of the last four interglacial periods; 2-3 degrees warmer than in most of the last 10,000 years and 1-3C warmer in the medieval warm period.
1. For the last seven years global temperatures have been cooling at the rate equivalent to 2.1degrees C/century.
2. Observed increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is well below the IPCC estimate for this time period – if the current trend continues, CO2 concentrations will be app. 575 ppm by 2100 as opposed to the IPCC’s 836 ppm – a difference of 32%. This despite continued increases in emissions.
3. There is compelling evidence that much of the warming that did occur in the 20th century was due to solar activities. During the period 1645-1715 the sun was less active than it had been for the past 10,000 years. Then the sun increased its activities for some 300 years until, during the 70 years 1925-1995, the sun was as active as at anytime during the past 11,400 years – peaking in 1960. The International Astronomical Union (2004) concluded that the sun, not CO2, was responsible for warming patterns seen over the last 25- years and that solar activity was now likely to decline. Other studies suggest that the sun caused 68% of the warming that occurred in the twentieth century, which ended in 1998.
4. Sea ice in the arctic winter shows little real change over the last thirty years – any changes are well within patterns of natural variability over time. The arctic was in fact warmer in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s than it is now.
5. In the Antarctic sea ice reached a record high in 2007 – and again shows little change in winter levels over a thirty year period.
6. Glaciers have been melting slowly since 1800-1820 – no acceleration of the trend since this time has been observed.
7. Northern hemisphere snow cover, on which 40% of the world’s population depends for water, reached a record high in 2007/8.
8. Global temperatures were warmer by some 7C than the present throughout most of the past half billion years; 5C warmer in each of the last four interglacial periods; 2-3 degrees warmer than in most of the last 10,000 years and 1-3C warmer in the medieval warm period.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Met Office Tells Scientists to Cool It
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre, says scientists should be careful not to exaggerate the evidence for climate change:
“The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change. This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.”
She cites the fuss over dwindling Arctic sea ice cover (or extent) as "just one example" of going beyond what the data really say:
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of summer sea ice much later this century.”
So the Hadley Centre recognizes that some of the claims made in the name of client science by scientists are exaggerated! She ends her Guardian piece with this:
"Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
“The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change. This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.”
She cites the fuss over dwindling Arctic sea ice cover (or extent) as "just one example" of going beyond what the data really say:
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of summer sea ice much later this century.”
So the Hadley Centre recognizes that some of the claims made in the name of client science by scientists are exaggerated! She ends her Guardian piece with this:
"Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
Industry Buys Climate Change Reseacrhers?
Some two thousand researchers who study climate change gathered in Copenhagen this last week to look at the most recent data and findings. This was billed as a scientific precursor to the “battle” of Copenhagen which will occur in December when the politicians will seek to agree a successor to Kyoto – a well known (and very failed) inter-governmental agreement.
The scientific conference was sponsored by a variety of rent-seekers and business interests, including oil and gas companies. These included Vestas Wind Systems (they have installed over 35.000 wind turbines in 63 countries – every one of them earning subsidies from Government no doubt), Velux (securing work in part through grant farming customers), Rockwood International, Novozymes, Maersk Oil, DONG Energy and of the leading engineering groups in Europe - COWI.
After criticism climate realists for receiving funds from the corporate world, it suddenly appears that it is appropriate for the climate alarmists to receive corporate support too.
Interestingly, a conference of climate change realists being held in New York at the same time was not sponsored by any corporations.
The scientific conference was sponsored by a variety of rent-seekers and business interests, including oil and gas companies. These included Vestas Wind Systems (they have installed over 35.000 wind turbines in 63 countries – every one of them earning subsidies from Government no doubt), Velux (securing work in part through grant farming customers), Rockwood International, Novozymes, Maersk Oil, DONG Energy and of the leading engineering groups in Europe - COWI.
After criticism climate realists for receiving funds from the corporate world, it suddenly appears that it is appropriate for the climate alarmists to receive corporate support too.
Interestingly, a conference of climate change realists being held in New York at the same time was not sponsored by any corporations.
Noel Coward on Honesty and Deceit
In Blithe Spirit, which I saw on Broadway on Thursday, there is a wonderful line:
"It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit" (Act 1, Scene 1).
- he could have been talking about the "science" (sic) of global warming.
"It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit" (Act 1, Scene 1).
- he could have been talking about the "science" (sic) of global warming.
Sea Level Rises by 2100
Question: How much will the sea level rise be by 2100?
Response: Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth suggested 20 feet eventually (he does not refer to this in terms of 2100 – making this just a guess that at sometime in the future it could be..). Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute suggests it will be 39 feet (at other times he has suggested 16 feet). The IPCC 4th Assessment in 2007 suggested that it would be 23 inches – much lower than the IPCC previously suggested. The Deltacommissie (Holland) gives 55-110 cm for global sea level rises for 2100, and the bit more for Holland (executive summary, p. 10, 2nd paragraph) - 0.65-1.30 metres relative sea level rise by 2100, 2-4 metres by 2200.
Hansen has also said:
“In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters [6.6 feet] is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.”
Fact: Satellites show a declining ocean level since the end of 2006, partly due to La Niña conditions, but still going on now. Also, the Maldives Sea Level Project (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm ), there has been no sea level change in the last 30 years.
Question: Is this another example of the models not fitting actual data?
Response: Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth suggested 20 feet eventually (he does not refer to this in terms of 2100 – making this just a guess that at sometime in the future it could be..). Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute suggests it will be 39 feet (at other times he has suggested 16 feet). The IPCC 4th Assessment in 2007 suggested that it would be 23 inches – much lower than the IPCC previously suggested. The Deltacommissie (Holland) gives 55-110 cm for global sea level rises for 2100, and the bit more for Holland (executive summary, p. 10, 2nd paragraph) - 0.65-1.30 metres relative sea level rise by 2100, 2-4 metres by 2200.
Hansen has also said:
“In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters [6.6 feet] is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.”
Fact: Satellites show a declining ocean level since the end of 2006, partly due to La Niña conditions, but still going on now. Also, the Maldives Sea Level Project (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm ), there has been no sea level change in the last 30 years.
Question: Is this another example of the models not fitting actual data?
Timing, Timing
The most common position among climate change alamrists is that we need to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm). That is, for instance, the target range endorsed by Nicholas Stern. It is also thought by many to be compatible with the EU goal of generating less than two degrees Celsius of temperature increase by 2100, though that is only really plausible at the low end of this range.
In recent Congressional testimony, James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that we actually need to cut concentrations from the present 385ppm to 350ppm or less. Basically, his argument is that even stabilization at the present level would have unacceptable consequences: both directly, in terms of impacts on physical and biological systems, and by kicking off feedback loops that will further worsen things. The distinction between the numbers may seem abstract to those not familiar with climate policy, but the practical differences between stabilizing between 550, 450, or 350ppm are massive.
Where do these numbers come from? They come from flawed and partial computer models which assume that any rise in the volume of CO2 leads to a rise in temperature. This is the basis of the view that we have less than 100 months left to “save the planet”.
So some history. CO2 levels are currently low, relative to other periods of climate history. Atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher)in past climate history. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol’s irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc. There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years. Further, temperature levels are a precursor to levels of CO2 (the temperature of the oceans affects absorption levels) and the extent to which CO2 is absorbed is a function of complex processes, not the simple dynamics of the models used to create the scare scenarios.
So why would such relatively small amounts of CO2 suddenly become a critical factor now? Do you think it may have something to do with a new President, a meeting of the G20 in April and the political moment – an attempt to use climate “catastrophe” (it is no longer global warming) as a basis for rolling back development?
In recent Congressional testimony, James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that we actually need to cut concentrations from the present 385ppm to 350ppm or less. Basically, his argument is that even stabilization at the present level would have unacceptable consequences: both directly, in terms of impacts on physical and biological systems, and by kicking off feedback loops that will further worsen things. The distinction between the numbers may seem abstract to those not familiar with climate policy, but the practical differences between stabilizing between 550, 450, or 350ppm are massive.
Where do these numbers come from? They come from flawed and partial computer models which assume that any rise in the volume of CO2 leads to a rise in temperature. This is the basis of the view that we have less than 100 months left to “save the planet”.
So some history. CO2 levels are currently low, relative to other periods of climate history. Atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher)in past climate history. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol’s irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc. There is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years. Further, temperature levels are a precursor to levels of CO2 (the temperature of the oceans affects absorption levels) and the extent to which CO2 is absorbed is a function of complex processes, not the simple dynamics of the models used to create the scare scenarios.
So why would such relatively small amounts of CO2 suddenly become a critical factor now? Do you think it may have something to do with a new President, a meeting of the G20 in April and the political moment – an attempt to use climate “catastrophe” (it is no longer global warming) as a basis for rolling back development?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)