Pielke on Climate #2

2015-11-19-1447968585-1661590-6672156239_89c77d53d8_oWelcome to the second edition of my occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. As a reminder, my day-to-day research or writing is focused on sports governance and science policy. But I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy over the past 25 years, including two books and a boatload of academic papers, and I’m paying attention. So caveat lector!

A few things to say up front:

  • If you don’t like what I write or don’t like me, then don’t read it – no big deal, just a professor with a blog.
  • If you appreciate the perspective, consider the tip jar to your right. And thanks to those of you who visited it last month – much appreciated!
  • If you’d like to engage, consider a comment, a Tweet or an email. I am happy to discuss or debate.
  • If you choose to call me names or lie about me, oh so common in discussing climate, then you will be blocked or ignored.
  • With that, let’s see what I found interesting over the past month . . .

Climate and Energy Policies

  • Will he or won’t he? There has been much discussion of whether President Trump keeps the US in the Paris Agreement. If we are having this debate then Trump has already won.
  • Much of climate debate (at least in the US) is about symbols, and Trump has roundly routed his opponents on this turf (in fact, this may be the only turf that Trump cares about, but I digress).
  • Consider Adam Sieminski, President Obama’s appointee to head the US Energy Information Agency, who now says that opposing the Keystone XL was a mistake. Amy Harder at Axois writes: “symbolic climate politics won out over pragmatic energy policy.”
  • Trump made Keystone XL a feature of his campaign, upon taking office issued an Executive Order approving the project with no opposition from Congress or really anyone else (outside social media echo chambers).
  • Trump also held an event and signed some sort of symbolic document recognizing coal miners. As I wrote at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, this wasn’t about coal or energy policy, it was about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
  • So think of the Paris Agreement not as a policy framework, but rather as a potent political symbol.
  • As a symbol, here is how the politics works: Trump pulls out of Paris, Trump wins. Trump stays in, Trump wins. Fun game, huh?
  •  In a perceptive piece @jmcurtin writes: “The only White House climate debate is between those who want to use the Paris climate agreement as a branding and lobbying opportunity, and those who favour leaving it altogether.”
  • The rest of the world should preempt Trump and just kick the US out.
  • Similarly, President Trump has made a big deal of reversing Obama’s Clean Power Plan. This too is a symbolic action. According to EIA, the impact of the CPP is pretty marginal:main
  • In fact, its projected impact of the CPP is far less than market prices for fossil fuels, again according to EIA:chart4
  • Consider that the CPP would likely have been tied up in the courts during a Hilary Clinton administration and you get … symbolism.
  • Advocates for more aggressive climate action should use the opportunity afforded by the Trump presidency to fundamentally rethink climate policy in a way that would be politically robust.
  • I read and hear lots of smart people wondering, “How can we elect people who will support Paris and the CPP?”  This is backwards. The more pressing challenge is to come up with energy and climate policies that survive regardless of who is elected.
  • After all, if the world is going to decarbonize at a rate 2-3x historical averages, then it will need public support for policy action over many decades.  You don’t have to be a card-carrying political scientist to understand that political party control of government will change — a lot — over such a long time period.
  •  Bottom line: The Trump presidency reveals the utter failure of US climate policy — it crashed and burned on the first presidential transition. In fact, it may have contributed in some ways to the election of that president (again, I digress). Climate advocates have an opportunity to rethink what a “big tent” approach to climate policy might look like. But will they?

Climate Wars

  • Maybe I’m just an eternal optimist, but it does seem that the tide may finally be starting turning against the extremist views of leading climate scientists and their acolytes.
  • Sure, there were smart pieces by smart thinkers at CSPO and the Breakthrough Institute: @JasonGLloyd (great piece here) and @TedNordhaus (more awesomeness here).
  • But what really was encouraging was Nature magazine writing: “But name-calling and portraying the current political climate as a war between facts and ignorance simply sows division.”
  • Perhaps Nature’s editors noticed that in the US, public support for science funding, once a shared, bipartisan priority, has split on partisan lines:ft_17-04-28_sciencefunding_divides
  • Did the recent Science March help to bring people together? Early evidence says: probably not.
  • After failing to get Bret Stephens fired from the New York Times, the nation’s leading climate scientist, Michael Mann (@MichaelEMann) has focused his vitriol on cartoonist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (@ScottAdamsSays).
  • I can’t believe I just wrote that. (Seriously, if you are not yet blocked by Mann, go over and read his Twitter feed for a glimpse into the world view of the nation’s most important climate scientist.)
  • Pro tip: If you don’t want to be viewed as analogous to a religious fundamentalist, don’t go after cartoonists.

Some science

Lots of stuff on the cutting room floor, I’ll get to it next time. All for now!

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Pielke on Climate #2

  1. I want to say thank you for dipping your toes back in the climate waters again. Also, I’m sorry about the treatment you’ve received over the years, and continue to receive. I watched your recent testimony and nearly fell out of my chair when Mann said you were using outdated information. His treatment of Dr. Curry, and subsequent denial of that treatment when it was fully on display is something which still amazes me. What I don’t understand is why people refuse to call out Mann on his boorish behavior and why people continue to support him even when he’s clearly and demonstrably wrong on many of the things he says.

    I don’t require or expect a reply. I just want you to know that the whole world is not like Michael Mann and there are people who respect what you have to say in regard to climate and climate science, despite what it may feel like some days.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Good article and insight.
    Your climate blog is missed.

    May want to correct the typo that call it : “Obama’s Clan Power Plan”…
    (under Climate and Energy Policies)

    Like

  3. Science is supposed to be about induction, reasoning from observation, experimentation, etc. to conclusions. Debate is supposed to be about whether the methodology is applied correctly. If it is, then the conclusions are true. If not, conclusions are rejected.

    Leftists have tried to make science deductive, as in, conclusion oriented. Championed by Stalin’s pet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, debate is centered on whether proposed conclusions are acceptable to a specific ideological outlook. If politically correct, conclusions are accepted. If not, then conclusions are rejected and their proponents silenced — permanently.

    In the former Soviet Union, dissenting scientists were sent to the Gulag. In the U.S., leftists have to go through the motions of inductive research and settle for character assassination and/or legal harassment.

    Like

  4. See, part of me is cheering for the pending cold weather of the next half a century so I can just cherish that all these loons were so wrong and just money hungry whores. The other part of me is fearful of the pending cold weather and the loss of human lives that comes with it. So conflicted…

    I do know I will never donate to my university as long as Mann is there. Due to fear of being sued for libel from him, I will leave it at that. Go Lions!

    Like

    1. Roger,
      I realise that you and Michael Mann have an ongoing conflict, but comments like this are clearly nonsense and it would be nice to at least see you challenging this kind of stuff (each to their own, of course). Maybe you haven’t had a chance, so to save you the time I will simply point out that it’s utter nonsense to suggest that it’s been a long time since Michael Mann has done any real science. You just need to look at his publication record (which is not hard to fine) to see this.

      Like

  5. “…US climate policy — it crashed and burned on the first presidential transition.”

    As did foreign policy, environmental policy, immigration policy, and DOJ policy. Your point is getting lost in all the crashing and burning.

    Like

  6. Well, nyah! I predicted you’d be back just after the Nate Bronze thing, and it’s because, even though you’re a progressive and somewhat sympathetic to some of the political urges of the alarmists, you’ve got a very acute understanding, felt deeply in the welts in your flesh, of the fundamental disconnect between the alarmist narrative and reality.

    Please stick around, the fun has just begun.
    ================

    Like

  7. Bravo on your return.

    I missed Pielke on Climate #1, however in it, you provided evidence of some acceleration
    of global economic growth, which still dependent on energy, implies some acceleration of CO2 emissions.

    Rheinhart and Rogoff declared that ‘debt overhang’ from financial crises took about a decade to resolve, which would be consistent with accelerated growth.

    At the same time, each year, more and more countries are exhibiting declining working age populations. China has reached that situation now. Given the macro level relationship that economic growth is a function of population growth and productivity, the only way for economies to increase growth is to become more productive. And given that productivity tends to correspond with energy efficiency, it seems that both population and intensity argue for continuation of restrained emissions from secular factors.

    Related is this graphic of CO2 emissions by country, color coded for total fertility rate.

    Like

  8. Some points of your article really made me laugh, a highlight in this depressing CAGW tragedy. But probably humor is the best weapon in this hopeles discussion.

    Like

  9. Symbolic energy policies by Obama, like vetoing Keystone … Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

    Symbolic energy policies by Trump, like giving coal miners plastic fuzzy kudos ….. Goooooooood

    And that’s it , folks!

    Like

  10. Morbeau: “as did …” His point seems to be accentuated by “as did…”

    Roger, welcome back. I also am glad to see you writing again on climate change issues. Hope you do more policy posts.

    Like

  11. Totally agree on the need for a more robust policy that will continue no matter which side is in office — and on the huge mistake it has been to politicize science. I also agree with others that it’s good to see your perspective again, even if not very often.

    Regarding the first two figures, I think if you put them on the same scale you will see that the estimated effects of the Clean Power Plan are similar to the effects of energy prices, not far less.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s