Future Trends in Carbon-Free Energy Consumption in the US, Europe and China

At The Breakthrough Institute (where FYI I am a Senior Fellow) last December, Arthur Yip has produced a very nice analysis. The graph above shows the implications of various policy commitments for future trends in the proportion of energy consumption from carbon-free sources for the US, Europe and China. Such an analysis requires making a range of assumptions, which obviously could be made differently (e.g., Europe will be 11% nuclear in 2030).

The graph above shows that the US, Europe and China have expressed an intention to put into place policies that will support a continuation of a long-term trend in the decarbonization of energy consumption. However, even if these policies are 100% successfully implemented, they will only decrease the world’s reliance on fossil fuels by a small amount in 2030 (FYI, today’s proportion is about 87%, where it has been for about the past 20 years).

“Success” at the upcoming Paris negotiations has come to mean locking in this general approach. While people will no doubt continue to enjoy debating about and witnessing to climate policies, the fact is, at the meta-level, that debate is pretty much over. Climate policy has entered its middle aged years.

Yip’s full analysis, including a focus on China, goes into a lot more detail. Have a look here.

What Does the Peer-Reviewed Literature Say About Trends in East Coast Winter Storms?


The image above comes from a 2001 paper by Hirsch et al. (here in PDF) titled, An East Coast Winter Storm Climatology. The top curve shows all East Coast winter storms, and the bottom shows the most intense storms. for the period 1948 to 1997.

As the figure implies, they concluded in that analysis:

the frequency of ECWS show a downward tendency over the study period but at insignificant levels. One test found a decreasing trend in strong ECWS significant for an alpha = 0.10.

So there was no trend 1948 to 1997, or a slightly downward trend. This is interesting because over the latter half of that period one analysis (Willett et al. 2010) found an increase in the water content of the lower atmosphere over the US East Coast. So those who argue for a simple relationship between increasing water content of the atmosphere and storm strength, data do not support such a claim over this multi-decadal period, in this region.

In 2010 Frankoski and DeGaetano published an update to Hirsh et al. 2001, extending data through 2006. They concluded:

No significant time-dependent trends were identified for precipitation or snowfall from East Coast Winter Storms or for the percentage of precipitation or snowfall from East Coast Winter Storms.

Such research is likely why the IPCC AR5 concluded in 2013:

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.

What that means in climate-speak is that the detection of trends in winter storms has not been achieved. It also means that the IPCC has not attributed any trends to human influences. Detection and attribution are explained in some detail in my recent book.

You can of course find fringe views on both detection and attribution out there on the internet (carefully cherry picked).  There are also plenty of smart folks trying to do their own analyses without referencing the IPCC or the peer reviewed literature on the subject. Minority views and amateurs are legitimate and worth hearing, as they can add valuable new perspectives. But if these folks really wanted to contribute to scientific understandings they should seek to publish their alternative theories in the peer reviewed literature.

No one – least of all those who consider themselves professional journalists – should confuse these alternative perspectives for what is found in the peer-reviewed literature and the assessments of the IPCC.

For further reading, see Vose et al. 2014 and Wang et al. 2008.

Fascinating Climate Policy PhD of a Member of the European Parliament

Correction: Korhola’s term in the European Parliament ended in 2014. She is now “first alternate.”

Eija-Riitta Korhola is a rare politician. She was a long-serving member of the European Parliament from Finland as a member of the European People’s Party, the largest block in the legislature. She has also recently completed an academic dissertation for a PhD in a policy field that she specializes in – climate policy. I can’t recall ever hearing of another politician completing a PhD while in office. Rare indeed.

Korhola’s dissertation is titled, “The Rise and Fall of the Kyoto Protocol: Climate Change as a Political Process” and can be found here in PDF. It makes for fascinating reading. Below are a few excerpts from the preface.

On her early advocacy for climate policy as a politician:

I was not the only one, but without doubt,I was one of the first Finnish politicians to knowingly push the issue of climate change and its threats onto the political agenda. In 1994, I published my first effusions in Vihreä Lanka, a weekly green newspaper, to which I had contributed as a columnist for five years. In the 1999 European elections, my main topics were climate change and development issues. “It won’t pay off, these themes will not attract the public”, was the feedback, which I nonchalantly ignored with the thought of not wanting to make calculations about these kinds of issues. I was worried about the effects of climate change on nature and society. I read the warnings issued by various environmental organisations.

On her unique perspective:

I focus on the problem of climate change, because in this field,I hold, besides the status of a researcher,the position of an expert who has also gained some legislative experience. I start from the assumption that a dual role will not automatically degrade the quality of the research. At least, this dual experience could be utilised and tested as a rare opportunity: my experience of 15 years with an active role in the field of climate policy of the Union – which still perceives itself as a forerunner in combating climate change – constitutes a particular vantage point.I am thinking of the EU’s most important climate instrument, emissions trading, in particular. At its different stages, I have been serving in various key positions, and therefore, I am able to offer an insider’s view from a legislator’s point of view.

Things changed:

When I entered politics, I wondered why climate change was not discussed at all. The time then came when I began to wonder, if it was possible to talk about anything without being forced to mention climate change.

Her view on EU climate policy:

In my study I agree with those who regard the UN’s strategy – and the EU’s follow-up strategy – not only as ineffective but also harmful. The reason can be found in both the wickedness of the problem–i.e.the fact that it is hard to intervene in it in the first place – and that the selected problem-solving model has failed, as the problem’s wicked nature has not been recognised. The attempt to resolve it has been based on an assumption that it is a one-dimensional,tame problem. However, as the saying goes, a wicked problem requires wicked solutions. The matter has been worsened by a lack of knowledge and expertise. Because I was present, I can testify that, for instance, when the Members of the European Parliament(at that time altogether 632 MEPs) voted on issue of emissions trading, I could easily count the number of those who knew something about the matter with the fingers of my two hands.

Like many people who have critiqued climate policy, she finds that critique is not welcomed:

Unfortunately, the political atmosphere is ideological to such an extent that criticism towards the chosen means is very often interpreted as climate scepticism.

She has some hard words for European environmental groups:

Another conclusion of mine is as scathing as my previous reference to the 20-year delusion [of UN climate policy]. It concerns the environmental movement. I suggest that the movement has, above all, failed in its strategy to combat climate change, but also quite often in its other environmental policies. Again, good intentions do not guarantee a wise strategy. The environmental movement regards economic growth as an enemy of the environment although practice has proven that in precisely those quarters of the world where economic well-being prevails and basic needs are satisfied, people are more interested in taking care of their environment. Poverty, in its turn, is the biggest environmental threat,although it has been romanticised in environmentalist rhetoric.

She includes one of her blog posts in which she offers a view that policy making should be robust to scientific debates:

I have come to think that a good politician should rather be a ”climate agnostic”. In principle, it does not matter, what conclusion science comes to: if the legislation we make is good enough, one does not have to take sides; except the side of consideration and quality. Climate policy should be so robust, sturdy and of such good quality that it does not struggle with the uncertainty factors and differences of opinion within science.

This is a similar view to that which I express in The Climate Fix.

There is much, much more in the dissertation. For those wanting the bottom line, jump to pp. 291-296 for a concise summary of conclusions.

If you are interested in an insider’s perspective on European climate policy or just interested in how a real-world, elected decision maker grapples with the complexity of climate policy, the entire dissertation is well worth reading.

Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls, 1970-2014


Above is an update on the data first presented in Weinkle et al. 2013, courtesy of Ryan Maue (@ryanmaue). The graph shows the number of landfalling tropical cyclones worldwide for 1970 through 2014. The data is broken down into weak (S/S category 1 and 2) and strong (S/S categories 3+) storms. For the definition of a landfall and other methodological details, please see the paper.

Some interesting points:

  • 2014 had 10 total landfalls. This is second lowest (tied with 4 other years) since 1970. The lowest was 1978 with 7.
  • The past four years have seen 50 total landfalls, the lowest four-year total since 1982. 1978-1981 had the lowest, with 41.
  • The annual averages over 1970-2015 are: 15.3 total, 10.5 Cat 1&2, 4.7 Cat 3+.

If you are interested in more data on global tropical cyclone activity, please visit Ryan Maue’s Global Tropical Cyclone Activity page. From that page, below are trends in all tropical cyclones of hurricane strength, not just those that make landfall.


The US and Florida Intense Hurricane Drought, Continued


Above are some graphs for those of you interested in the remarkable, ongoing drought in intense hurricane landfalls in the US, which is stretching close to 10 years. The top graph shows the days in between intense (category 3+) landfalls in the US since 1900. The bottom graph shows the same information, but only for Florida landfalls.

You can see that for the US, the current “intense hurricane drought” is unprecedented in at least a century. For Florida, there have been other long stretches between intense hurricane landfalls. Over the past century the average time between intense landfalls in Florida has just about doubled, from about 3 years to 6 years.

Data, sources, discussion: Pielke (2014)

Top Five Climate Essays of 2014

Here is a list of what I am calling my top 5 climate essays of 2014. No doubt there are others that deserve mentioning, but these are the ones that come to mind this morning. These essays are chosen because the stand out to me in some way, which I describe below. All are focused in some way or another on the climate policy debate as it occurs in the public sphere. Were I to pick essays or papers on various aspects of climate science I’d have a different list. In the comments, I welcome suggestions for other essays of 2014 worth reading and remembering.

5. Dan Sarewitz, It’s the End of the World as We Prefer it and I Feel … Stupid.

In his characteristic style, ASU’s Dan Sarewitz explains that the debate on climate change has become intolerant and narrow. Climate change is important, but so too are other issues. Key excerpt:

…the climate-change-as-apocalypse orthodoxy thereby radically narrows the range of viewpoints we are willing to tolerate and the range of options we are willing to consider for dealing with complex challenges to our well-being like natural disasters and infectious disease and poverty and civil strife.

4. Matt Nisbet, Engaging in Science Policy Controversies

This is a long essay, adapted from a book chapter, from a leading scholar on communication in science and policy. Nisbet brings fresh thinking, empirical analyses and an unwillingness to be cowed to provide some sharp insights on the nature of the climate debate. Key excerpt:

no matter how knowledgeable and adept the expert community might be in applying research to their public engagement efforts; resolution of intensely polarized debates take years, if not decades to resolve; and requires the different sides in a debate to give ground, negotiate and compromise.

3. Martin Lewis, Eco-Authoritarian Catastrophism: The Dismal and Deluded Vision of Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

Lewis provides a devastating critique of a recent book, and in the process identifies much that has gone off kilter in the climate debate. Lewis recognizes that there are excesses on all sides of the climate debate, but he focuses his attention on those climate advocates who do much to hurt their cause. Key excerpt:

This essay addresses only one side of this spectrum, that of the doomsayers who think we must forsake democracy and throttle our freedoms if we are to avoid a planetary catastrophe. Although it may seem paradoxical, my focus on the green extreme stems precisely from my conviction that anthropogenic climate change is a huge problem that demands determined action. Yet a sizable contingent of eco-radicals, I am convinced, consistently discredit this cause.

2. Roger Pielke, Jr., Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change

I add this essay not because it is either novel (it wasn’t) or particularly well-written (ho-hum). Rather, as you probably know this essay prompted a coordinated backlash against FiveThirtyEight and me (sordid details here). It was an important experience for me and for my thinking about my desire to continue doing climate-related research (much diminished). Two direct consequences of the episode are this blog, where I can ring-fence my climate work, and a new book on disasters and climate change. The substance in the essay was straight out of the IPCC and thus scientifically solid. It was the response to it that makes it memorable for me.

Key excerpt, which looks solid after another year of below average global disaster losses:

When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not. All the apocalyptic “climate porn” in your Facebook feed is solely a function of perception. In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose — when an earthquake or flood occurs, more stuff gets damaged.

1. Richard Tol, Hot Stuff, Cold Logic

Richard Tol has written a clear and powerful essay on climate policy. It really deserves to be widely read. It is a challenging piece and sure to make you think, and may even make you angry. You can’t ask for much more than that. Key excerpt:

In sum, while climate change is a problem that must be tackled, we should not lose our sense of proportion or advocate solutions that would do more harm than good. Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes hard to find in the climate debate.

These are my top five. How about you?

The Hartwell Approach to Climate Policy

Beginning in 2010, shortly after the debacle that was the Copenhagen climate talks, researchers at Oxford University and LSE organized a series of meetings to  open up a broader discussion about climate policy. The most well-known of these efforts was the 2010 Hartwell Paper (here in PDF), so named for the English country house in Buckinghamshire where the meeting took place.  Now, Steve Rayner (Oxford) and Mark Caine (formerly LSE) have published a book called “The Hartwell Approach to Climate Policy.”

For faculty who teach climate politics, the book offers a nice compendium of thinking over the past 25 years which has been both critical of the mainstream approach to climate policy and largely on target in that critique. Here is the book blurb from Routledge:

The Hartwell Approach to Climate Policy presents a powerful critique of mainstream climate change policies and details a set of pragmatic alternatives based on the Hartwell Group’s collective writings from 1988-2010. Drawing on a rich history of heterodox but increasingly accepted views on climate change policy, this book brings together in a single volume a series of key, related texts that define the ‘Hartwell critique’ of conventional climate change policies and the ‘Hartwell approach’ to building more inclusive, pragmatic alternatives.

This book tells of the story of how and why conventional climate policy has failed and, drawing from lessons learned, how it can be renovated. It does so by weaving together three strands of analysis. First, it highlights why the mainstream approach, as embodied by the Kyoto Protocol, has failed to produce real world reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and delayed real meaningful progress on climate change. Second, it explores the underlying political, economic, and technological factors which form the boundary conditions for climate change policy but which are often ignored by policy makers and advocates. Finally, it lays out a novel approach to climate change guided centrally by the goal of uplifting human dignity worldwide—and the recognition that this can only succeed if pursued pragmatically, economically, and with democratic legitimacy.

With contributions from leading scholars in the field, this work presents a original critique of climate policy and a constructive primer for how to improve it.

And here are the contents:

  •  Introduction: Another Book on Climate Change Policy? Steve Rayner and Mark Caine

  • Part 1. The Road Not Taken

  • 1. Sections 1, 3, and 6 from Managing global climate change: a view from the social and decision sciences Steve Rayner

  • 2. Politics and the Environment Gwyn Prins

  • 3. A Cultural Perspective on the Structure and Implementation of Global Environmental Agreements Steve Rayner

  • 4. Global Climate Change: An Atmosphere of Uncertainty Dan Sarewitz

  • 5. Zen and the Art of Climate Maintenance Steve Rayner and Liz Malone

    Part 2. An Emerging Critique

  • 6. Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy Roger Pielke Jr.

  • 7. Prediction and Other Approaches to Climate Change Policy Steve Rayner

  • 8. Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock Dan Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr.

  • 9. Just Say No To Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets Frank Laird

  • 10. Social Science and the Absence of Nature: Uncertainty and the Reality of Extremes Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr

  • 11. How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse Dan Sarewitz

  • 12. Disasters, Death, and Destruction: Making Sense of Recent Calamities Roger Pielke Jr.

  • 13. What Drives Environmental Policy? Steve Rayner

  • 14. Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation Roger Pielke Jr. et al

    Part 3. The End of the Pipe: An Epistemological Break

  • 15. The Death of Environmentalism Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

  • 16. Time to Ditch Kyoto Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner

    Part 4. From Climate Crisis to Energy Challenge

  • 17. Dangerous Asumptions Roger Pielke Jr. et al

  • 18. Let the Global Technology Race Begin Isabel Galiana and Chris Green

  • 19. Intro to Why We Disagree About Climate Change Mike Hulme

    Part 5. The Hartwell Paper

  • 20. The Hartwell Paper Gwyn Prins et al

    Part 6. Beyond Hartwell

  • 21. A New Strategy for Energy Innovation John Alic et al

  • 22. Liberalism’s Modest Proposals Dan Sarewitz

  • 23. Climate of Failure Roger Pielke Jr.

  • Afterword Steve Rayner and Mark Caine