Archives par mot-clé : Climate Policy

Truth(?) in testimony and convincing policy makers

by Judith Curry , June 28, 2019 in WUWT


Some reflections, stimulated by yesterday’s Congressional Hearing, on the different strategies of presenting Congressional testimony.

Yesterday’s Hearing provided an ‘interesting’ contrast in approaches to presenting testimony, when comparing my testimony with Michael Mann’s.

What are the purposes of expert testimony?

There is an interesting document entitled A Guide to Expert Testimony for Climate Scientists, funded by the US National Science Foundation.  Most of this is related to court room hearings, but some is relevant for Congressional Hearings.  Excerpts:

 

Experts may do one or more of the following:

  • Provide the decision-maker with factual information and background to provide the decision-maker with an adequate context for the decision.
  • Apply expert knowledge to the facts of a case and render an opinion about the facts, such as whether certain conditions actually caused an effect.
  • Explain scientific principles and theories to the decision-maker.
  • Extrapolate from the actual facts or hypothetical facts and rendering an opinion regarding the likelihood of an event or occurrence. Experts may speculate on events or occurrences because of their special knowledge or training.
  • Provide an opinion that contradicts or undermines the opinions or conclusions of an expert who testified for the opposing party.

If you are assigned to cross-examine an expert, you should prepare questions that test and challenge the witness on the following subjects :

  • Lack of thoroughness in investigating the facts or data;

  • Insufficient testing of the facts or data;

  • Lack of validity and reliability in testing of facts or data;

  • Existence of other causes or explanations for conclusions or outcomes;

  • Show differences of opinion among experts

The challenge of re-using the CO2

by Prof. Samuele Furfari, June 7, 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


In its Special Report n° 15 “Global warming of 1.5°C” (SR15) [1], IPCC proposes four scenarios  to limit Earth temperature increase to 1.5°C. In all  scenarios COemissions are kept at virtually zero by 2050. These scenarios are based on the technology called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) that will remove COto compensate COanthropic emissions.

All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 Gt CO2  over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of Gt COis subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred Gt COwithout reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence)” (page 19).

   IPCC defines   Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)” as follows : Anthropogenic activities removing CO2  from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage but excludes natural COuptake not directly caused by human activities” (page 26).

The fourth scenario recognizes the logical and inevitable increase of COemissions if the world  continues its growth to remove poverty and allow Asia and Africa countries to develop. Therefore, this scenario is based on a massive use of the CDR techniques as the report says: “Emissions reductions are mainly achieved through technological means, making strong use of CDR“.

   Indeed, CDR is just rebranding of the CCS concept that is a cul-de-sac technology for a lack of economy, a lack of available adapted geological sinks on the production sites and also a lack of population acceptance.

Interview with Samuele Furfari: European elections

by European Scientist, May 21, 2009


In the context of the European elections, European Scientist is bringing you an series of views from experts from different countries on various topics around science and science policy in Europe, to provide an overview and analysis, which will be useful for the next commission.

 

ES: What is your assessment of energy policy in Europe? What have the major achievements of the outgoing commission been?

The greatest success of the outgoing commission is to have developed a policy to support gas interconnections by financing projects of common interest. The aim is that every single methane molecule that enters the territory of the Union can circulate to any other location. This will help to diversify gas supply sources, particularly from the south of the Union (thanks to more gas arriving as LNG and via the Southern Corridor).

 

ES: There is a wide disparity in energy policy between different countries (e.g. France and Germany). Do you think it is necessary to harmonise policy or on the contrary is it preferable to maintain diversity?

EDITORIAL: A CLIMATE-CHANGE DRUBBING IN AUSTRALIA

by GWPF from WallStreetJ, May 19, 2019


The right in Australia won on the sharp contrast with the left on taxes, growth and climate change.

If American Democrats want a warning about the consequences of embracing the Green New Deal, look no further than Saturday’s election shocker in Australia. The opposition center-left Labor Party had led in the polls for months but lost as voters rejected its move left on taxes, spending and above all on climate change.

The ruling Liberal-National Coalition had been divided and tossed out two prime ministers during its nearly six years in power. Scott Morrison, the compromise choice as Prime Minister last year, managed to unite conservatives around a platform that stressed economic growth, tax cuts and support for the country’s energy producers.

Labor leader Bill Shorten promised to raise taxes on the “wealthy,” but his main theme was curbing climate change. Labor promised to cut carbon emissions nearly in half by 2030 compared to 2005 levels while subsidizing wind and solar. Mr. Shorten and Labor refused to support a job-producing coal mine in Queensland, and their candidates were routed in the resource-rich province.

Bill Shorten, leader of the Labor Party of Australia, reacts as he concedes defeat during the Labor party election night event in Melbourne, Australia, on Saturday, May 18, 2019. PHOTO: CARLA GOTTGENS/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Germany, Poland snub EU appeal for greater climate ambition

by Frédéric Simon, May 7, 2019 in Euractiv


The governments of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg have launched an appeal to boost EU climate action ahead of a major summit on the future of Europe taking place in Romania next Thursday (9 May).

A leaked “non-paper” by the eight countries calls on the European Union to step up the fight against climate change and sign up to a European Commission plan to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “by 2050 at the latest”.

Germany, Italy and Poland were notably absent from the list of signatories of the leaked document, obtained by EURACTIV, echoing divisions at a recent EU summit.

The stark reality of CO2 emissions reduction, in one graph

by Anthony Watts, March 22, 2019 in WUWT/BjornLomborg


Bjorn Lomborg‏ writes on Twitter:

“Wishful thinking: This graph starkly shows what power the 1.5°C target The black line is CO₂ emission increase last 118 years (last year was highest ever) The blue lines indicate the emissions necessary to ensure the widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit”.

 

Summit leak reveals EU rift on climate change

by Frédéric Simon, March 21, 2019 in Euractiv


Confidential documents prepared in advance of a two-day EU summit in Brussels have exposed an East-West divide in Europe on climate change, with Germany siding with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in their refusal to commit to climate neutrality by 2050.

The leaked documents, seen by EURACTIV, show the amendments proposed by each country in preparation for the final statement of the leaders summit that opens in Brussels on Thursday (21 March).

And when it comes to climate action, the papers reveal a growing rift between two distinct groups of countries.

On the one hand, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Denmark have all backed a European Commission plan to decarbonise the EU by 2050, linking it specifically to the Paris Agreement objective of keeping global warming below 1.5°C.

A French proposal, for instance, underlines that Europe should strive for climate neutrality “by 2050, in line with the 1.5 degree objective of the Paris Agreement”.

It then calls on EU member states “to prepare a discussion in the European Council in June to define the announcements of the EU at the September Climate Summit in New York”. Both amendments were rejected in the final draft.

On the other hand, Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have refused to specifically link EU climate action with the 1.5°C objective. They also oppose any time-bound commitment to the EU’s climate neutrality objective, deleting any reference to 2050 for reaching that goal.

Une Belgique trop ambitieuse sur le climat

by Prof. Samuel Furfari, 6 mars 2019 in L’Echo


En Belgique francophone, l’intérêt pour la question climatique ne cesse de croître. A la faveur du succès remporté par les écolos aux élections communales d’octobre dernier, les partis francophones se sont lancés dans une surenchère de promesses. A cela viennent se greffer les marches pro-environnement enthousiastes mais néanmoins naïves de lycéens qui, en matière d’énergie et de climat, connaissent très peu de choses. Avec un peu plus de connaissances, ils demanderaient des fenêtres hermétiques et à double vitrage dans leurs classes, au lieu de panneaux photovoltaïques, on y reviendra. En quelques jours on est passé d’un gouvernement critiqué pour être timide à une proposition de loi climat qui n’a pas d’équivalent dans le reste du monde. Car ne nous y trompons pas, la frénésie climatique est belge. Même si on ne devrait pas être étonné que Trump n’ait pas prononcé le mot climat dans son récent discours de l’Union, ce que j’observe professionnellement dans le monde ne correspond en rien à ce que vit la Belgique. Il y a lieu de s’interroger sur les motifs réels de ce déferlement ; ce n’est pas audible pour l’instant mais on devra y répondre un jour.

 

Top German MP Warns Of Climate Law Dictatorship

by Benny Peiser, February 23, 2019 in GWPF


You know we have overcome the dictatorship of the proletariat here in East Germany, and now we are facing a dictatorship of the climate law. I do not consider this law to be compatible with a market economy. –Andreas Lämmel, CDU member of the German Bundestag, Deutschlandfunk, 23 February 2019

Climate policy is increasingly splitting German’s coalition government of Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD). The coal exit was supposed to be part of a comprehensive climate law. But if and when that comes no one knows. That’s because the coalition committee has actually stopped the far advanced legislative project of Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD), according to the government.  —Andreas Mihm, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 February 2019

Does the IPCC say we have until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming?

by Patrick T. Brown, January 12, 2019 in WUWT


In late 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts associated with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels (as of 2019 we are at about 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels) as well as the technical feasibility of limiting global warming to such a level. The media coverage of the report immediately produced a meme that continues to persist. The meme is some kind of variation of the following:

The IPCC concluded that we have until 2030 (or 12 years) to avoid catastrophic global warming

However, these headlines are essentially purveying a myth. I think it is necessary to push back against this meme for two main reasons:

1) It is false.

2) I believe that spreading this messaging will ultimately undermine the credibility of the IPCC and climate science more generally.

Taking these two points in turn:

1) The IPCC did not conclude that society has until 2030 to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Ignoring Climate Alarmists, UK Government Promises More Flights And Bigger Airports

by P. Homewood, December 18, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


The Department for Transport publishes a long-awaited aviation strategy today that pledges to deliver “greater capacity at UK airports”.

It raises the prospect of airports other than Heathrow growing and accepting more flights if tough environmental and noise restrictions are met.

The strategy also outlines plans for the biggest overhaul of Britain’s airspace in more than 50 years to create new flight paths into the biggest airports. GPS-style technology will allow aircraft to fly along more accurate paths below 30,000ft instead of being led by ground beacons, which space planes out over a wide arc several miles across.

It will mean a considerable increase to the 600 or so dedicated flight paths that are in operation today

Max Planck Institute Director: “Low Probability” CO2 Reductions Will Have Impact On Climate Next 20 Years!

by P. Gosselin, December 19, 2018 in NoTricksZone


(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Jochem Marotzke, director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM), wondered whether CO2 savings could really have a direct influence on the temperature in the near future. In a new paper (Marotzke 2018), the Hamburg-based climate researcher simulates the temperature profile of the 2030s predicted by climate models and uses once again a conventional emission profile (Scenario RCP 4.5), and once a politically reduced emission scenario.

Conclusion: Most likely, there would probably be no difference as natural climate variability prevails over these time scales. The paper was published in WIRE’s Climate Change and can be downloaded free of charge as a pdf:

 …

Accord de Paris sur le climat : aucun pays de l’UE n’a tenu parole, pas un

by Dominique Dewitte, 31 octobre 2018 in ExpressBusiness


Pas un seul État membre de l’UE ne figure parmi les 16 pays sur 197 qui, selon une étude réalisée par un centre de recherche américain et deux centres de recherche britanniques, ont pris les mesures politiques appropriées promises dans le cadre de l’accord de Paris sur le climat.

La Norvège, le Monténégro et la Macédoine sont les seuls pays européens à avoir pris les mesures politiques appropriées pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre correspondant aux promesses faites lors de la signature de l’accord de Paris sur le climat.

L’étude du think tank américain World Ressources Institute et de deux centres de recherche britanniques (le Grantham Research Institute et le Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy), qui font partie de la London School of Economics, en apporte la preuve .

À Paris, plus de 197 pays se sont portés volontaires pour réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre lors de la conférence COP21 en décembre 2015.