Debating Climate Change – The Case for Caution

Consider this strong independent view from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus who likens the case for universal action on greenhouse gasses to totalitarianism–something he knows about.

FORA.tv – Uncommon Knowledge: Vaclav Klaus.

Global Warming Poll

The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com

The big issue of our day is the crisis of the global commons.  How should we think about the chatter and disagreement from global warming skeptics (there are a few competent voices out there)  and focus on facts?

Head over to Freakonomics.  The dynamic econ duy offers a quiz to help explain the arguments in term of science, econ and technology.  One sample quesiton:

TRUE / FALSE  2. Even when there is enormous uncertainty about the likelihood of future cataclysms, it makes sense to invest now in finding ways to avoid such cataclysms.

via The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com.

 

Maldives Government Dives for Climate Change – NYTimes.com

I’m sure there is a joke–insert Fallon/Letterman/O’Brian/Stewart here. But they made it into the NYT, so I guess it worked?!

In the Maldives, ministers in scuba gear met on the sea bed to draw attention to the dangers of global warming for the island nation.

via Maldives Government Dives for Climate Change – NYTimes.com.

The Kyoto Target

Sometimes an image really does speak more than a thousand words.  Cheers to the designer of this immensely useful info graphic:

Energy Sim

Calling all Sim City fans, its time to build Chevron’s Energyville (created by the Economist Intelligence Unit.) Chose the configuration of energy sources and compete with people around the world.  (Never mind that you can’t get above eighty-or-so percent capacity without including petroleum.)  This clever learning tool illustates the tough choices and tradeoffs–even is some will snigger at the oil-economy premise built in the game.

This U.N. Thing Is Better Than a Conference Call | The Big Money

Hot air?  Maybe…but this useful review from Slate will keep you up to speed on climate, GA, and G-20:

It’s conference-palooza this week. First came Monday’s climate change confab at the United Nations. Presidents of various nations—both developed and developing—gave speeches from the U.N.’s famous green marble lectern in New York vowing to help curb the effects of climate change. But how will it happen? Still largely unclear, according to the New York Times. Both Barack Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao were “guarded in their positions,” opting to go big on rhetoric instead. Hu did say China would increase the share of nuclear and nonfossil fuel in its energy portfolio to 15 percent by 2020. Obama didn’t offer many new details, despite an opportunity to push the stalled cap-and-trade bill in Congress, the passage of which would remake the American economy. The Washington Post wonders whether the lack of details means that there won’t be one overarching pact on climate change, but rather a quilt comprised of different countries’ self-motivated efforts.

There are more conferences still to come. This week we’ve still got the classic, more broad-ranging U.N. summit, the Clinton Global Initiative, and the G-20 meetings to go. The financial press is already looking ahead to the latter, with WaPo calling the G-20 “the leading international agenda-setting body.” In an informative curtain-raiser, the Post recognizes that G-20 nations have worked together to avert a global financial disaster but outlines the group’s new issues now that the crisis has ebbed: stimulus spending, regulatory reform, and inflation fears. Elsewhere, AFP drills deep and describes the nuanced discussions that will take place over bank-saving regulations. How much should a bank have in reserve in preparation of another crisis? The Wall Street Journal discusses the delicate debate over that question, offering a nice supplement to the AFP report. And as a supplement to their supplement, the Journal also offers a glimpse into Tim Geithner’s growth strategy for the global economy that he’ll unveil at the G-20.

via This U.N. Thing Is Better Than a Conference Call | The Big Money.

But hold on—Marty Peretz at TNR needs an editor and gets a C+ for prose–but you get the idea of his rant, which is a version of the “UN does nothing” argument out there:

The U.N. is a joke. If it weren’t in New York no one would come. As an instrument of peace it fails every time. At its best, it is mostly charade, like Ban Ki-moon designating Bill Clinton as the organization’s special envoy to Haiti. “Special envoy,” my foot.

But Susan Rice seems to feel at home at the United Nations. “Google” her and read any of her nonsense about the organization. Any of it. If you don’t laugh you’ll cry. Either way your response will be appropriate.

The president chaired a session of the Security Council, “unprecedented,” “blah, blah…”. The Council voted unanimously to begin universal disarmament in nuclear weapons. Sure. A unanimous council means something of which the New York Times will approve. It also means that nothing will happen.

Prep Com for Climate Framework Stalling

The negotiations for a new climate change agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December are badly stalled. With the agreement running more than 200 pages — including what negotiators estimate are a couple of thousand brackets denoting points of differences — diplomats and negotiators fear that the document is too unwieldy to garner a consensus in the coming months.

In convening the meeting, the United Nations is hoping that collectively the leaders can summon the will to overcome narrow national interests and give the negotiators the marching orders needed to cut at least the outline of a deal.

via No Climate Change Leader as Nations Meet – NYTimes.com.

How does that work?  Who goes first?  This is the trick inherent to any negotiation, especially where the collective benefits only come through collective action–and the individual benefit of freeloading are even higher.

They won’t do it one by one,” said Robert Orr, the United Nations assistant secretary general for policy planning. “Politically, they all have to jump together, and this is the essence of this summit. We will see if any governments are ready to say, ‘I am stepping through the door now; are you going to come with me?’ That would be a huge break.”

Perhaps it’ll take a fresh look at the issue–such as one provided by a well-known conservative Danish environment minister, Connie Hedegaard:

“People say environment is a soft issue, but it’s not,” she said recently, sitting in her spartan office in a pink sweater and neatly pressed slacks. “It’s about where we get our energy from, about security, about growing economies. I’m a conservative, I worry about that.”

Norman Borlaug dies at 95; revolutionized grain agriculture and won Nobel Peace Prize — latimes.com

Want to change the world? Become a scientist.  RIP Dr. Borlaug:

In the 1940s, when the specter of famine was stalking much of the world, Borlaug collected thousands of strains of wheat from around the globe and tediously crossbred them to produce varieties that were much higher yielding and resistant to the diseases that were destroying crops.

He spearheaded efforts to spread these new strains around the world, sparking an explosion in crop yields that helped lead devastated countries toward food self-sufficiency.

In 1960, before his techniques were widely adopted, the world produced 692 million tons of grain for 2.2 billion people. By 1992, largely as a result of Borlaug’s pioneering techniques, it was producing 1.9 billion tons for 5.6 billion people — using only 1% more land. India and Pakistan are now agriculturally self-sufficient as a result of his intervention.

via Norman Borlaug dies at 95; revolutionized grain agriculture and won Nobel Peace Prize — latimes.com.

UPDATE:  Hold on there…if he did revolutionize food science, then why do we still have so much hunger?

The answers are complex and involve everything from American farm politics and African corruption to war, poverty, climate change and drought, which is now the single most common cause of food shortages on the planet.

But David Beckmann, president of the antihunger group Bread for the World, boiled the causes down into one unifying theme — “a lack of give a damn.”

“It’s mainly neglect,” he said. “Political neglect.”

Is Water a Human Right?

Good question.  This review by Kendra Okonski in The New Atlantis tackles the issue, as well as two recent documentaries.  To sum up, take care how you approaches this (or any critical zero-sum) issue:

Ultimately, it is not these activists’ methods or love of street theater that is the problem. Nor is it even their lack of pragmatism or their factual omissions. The chief problem is that these activists’ ideas can genuinely harm the very people they mean to help. They find disenfranchised local people—people who truly suffer from government-induced water scarcity, for example—and exploit them for ideological ends. Well meaning though they may be, these water activists misunderstand or misstate the institutional deficiencies that contribute not just to water scarcity, but poverty in general.

Attacking corporations and lamenting globalization will not alleviate the water crisis. Nor will pretending that water is a human right. We require another paradigm of right—the right to property, and the institutions and practices that enforce that right—to put self-interested individual creativity in the service of managing, delivering, and preserving our world’s precious water.

via The New Atlantis » Is Water a Human Right?.