Because You Are Looking For Things To Do

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a study titled "Uncertainty in Analyzing Climate Change: Policy Implications".  Having riffled through it, I was more impressed than Tim Worstall was by the new study released by International Climate Change Taskforce titled "Meeting The Climate Challenge".  The "Climate Challenge" report was summarized by The Independent in the UK:

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

Look, if a guy is experiencing chest pains, shortness of breath, and tingling in his arms, don't tell him he ought to cut back on his cholesterol, quit smoking, and exercise more - get him to a hospital!

Or, if we really are likely to pass the point of climactic no return (oooh!) in ten years, why does this study recommend increased research and investment into renewable energy over the next twenty years?  And, as Tim notes, how does the Taskforce reach this conclusion without taking a position on the role of nuclear power?  (They can't say "nuclear"; that really scares me...).  Let's match the treatment to the symptoms, please.

Oh, well.  Here is an interesting tidbit on nuclear power in China:

In its anxiety to satisfy its seemingly bottomless demand for electricity, China plans to build reactors on a scale and pace comparable to the most ambitious nuclear energy programs the world has ever seen.

Current plans - conservative ones, in the estimation of some people involved in China's nuclear energy program - call for new reactors to be commissioned at a rate of nearly two a year between now and 2020, a pace that experts say is comparable to the peak of the United States' nuclear energy push in the 1970's.

...The problem with nuclear power, some experts say, is that China's energy needs are so immense - each year, by some estimates, the country plans to add generating capacity from all sources equivalent to the entire current energy consumption of Britain - that even the enormous expansion program will do little to offset the skyrocketing power demand.

China's eight nuclear reactors in operation today supply less than 2 percent of current demand. By 2020, assuming the national plan is fulfilled, nuclear energy would still constitute under 4 percent of demand.

Comments

[Paul Zrimsek]

I'm reminded of how in The Day After Tomorrow the whole catastrophe could have been averted if only they'd listened to the warning Dennis Quaid gave them just a few days beforehand. Or perhaps the old Onion piece where the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists accidentally sets the Doomsday Clock to a few minutes after midnight.

[J. Peden]

It is reassuring that over this decade or so of intense and feverish scientific endeavors no evidence of a beneficial effect of global warming has ever been uncovered. So we must be on the right track.

At the same time the protocol shows great balance in regard to not saying anything about nuclear, but rather letting nature take its course in this instance. It gives me a great glow inside.

[Greg F]

The zealots must sense time is running out on the global warming gravy train. 9/11 effectively pushed the environmental Malthusians off the front page, muffling their megaphone. They do what all good Malthusians do, make it scarier. The famous hockey stick has been compromised. As well, the economic assumptions have been shown to be pure fantasy. The climate models have never worked and the predicted lower Troposphere warming has failed to materialize. In spite of the reports statement, “While no amount of climate change is safe…”, climate has always changed. It changed before man existed and will change long after were gone. The report is garbage.

[Pat Curley]

Tom, spend a little time looking into the folks behind the ICCT report and you won't be quite as impressed. The Center for American Progress is a liberal lobbying group founded by John Podesta. Among their fellows are Eric Alterman, Gene Sperling and Ruy Texeira. In short, the ICCT report is a political document, not a scientific one.

The omission of any serious discussion of nuclear power is a red flag; instead they drone on about biomass and solar power, technologies that may show some promise but are not quite ready for prime time (curious given the "deadline" that is the focus of the report).

[TM]

Pat, I was betrayed by my clumsy grammar. (No relation to Kelsey Grammer). My thought was that I was more impressed by the CBO effort than Tim was by the political attack group's effort.

[Crank]

The nuclear thing is a dead giveaway that the authors are interested in political coalition-building rather than scientific inquiry.

[The Kid]

"(N)o evidence of a beneficial effect of global warming has ever been uncovered.??????

Tell that to the folks in Minnesota, Michigan, the Dakotas and Montana, not to mention Canuckistan. How about a longer growing season in the northern climes, or less snow over a shorter period? We’re talking Norway, breadbasket of Europe, no? Ever been to Duluth on the 4th of July? Hint: take a sweater.

Better yet, come to Wisconsin in January and smell our dairy air.