A little, tiny bit of optimism

How the pope is saving Earth - Los Angeles Times

Despite the title, it is basically about the importance of (and relative ease) of saving rain forests to reduce CO2 emissions.

It even ends with this surprising claim:

Bush already has approved several significant tropical forest conservation projects in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and elsewhere. With this deal, Bush could legitimately claim that he'd done far more, far sooner, for far less money to stop global warming than either the Kyoto Protocol or the failed congressional climate bill would have.

The Carbon Wars

I like to think that I might be the first blogger in the world to suggest limited global warfare as a cure for greenhouse gases, although I am probably wrong in that assumption. The suggestion is meant to be amusing, but all the same, if temperatures did go up suddenly in the next 30 years, and China was by then clearly the biggest emitter, is it entirely outside the realms of possibility? Seems to me that there's a half baked basis for some speculative fiction there.

So, this has got me thinking: what would it take to reduce CO2 if you were going to let warfare be part of the cure? Some immediate thoughts: submarines take out coal-exporting ships; cruise missiles for coal fired power stations; electro magnetic pulse weapons to take out power infrastructure. Encourage an insurgency by those hoards of young, sexually frustrated Chinese men who can't find a wife to overthrow the government. (They'll be so crazy they'll want to turn the country back into an agrarian society that does not have access to abortion or birth control, just so there can be women again!)

Of course, the other way of dealing with this is to let a mad ex-military character with a Captain Nemo complex run a private navy of nuclear submarines to do the West's dirty work for them. Just have to leave the gates of a nuclear submarine base open, with a little sign on the front "gone to lunch, please do not steal the submarines."

Ah, I'm amusing myself too much. Must go do some work before the tax office drags me away.

News Limited and global warming

Is Rupert Murdoch having doubts about greenhouse gas and global warming? Given his widely reported acknowledgement of the problem a couple of years ago, it seems surprising that News Limited papers here have been giving prominence to global warming sceptics recently, just at the time the government is seeking to convince everyone about its plans to reduce CO2.

I suppose it can be seen as confirmation that Rupert is more hands off than most people on the Left have previously assumed.

[Speaking of the Green Paper and the Left, it's been an odd sensation to be posting comments at Larvatus Prodeo on side with the lefty idealists in criticising Rudd for wimping out and not coming up with effective plans, instead of the political pragmatists who are simply happy that the fact that an ETS, any ETS, is coming. As I said at LP, the problem with schemes that are all spin and no substance is that they lull people into thinking a problem is being tackled, when in fact it continues to get worse, and the political cause of getting more serious action can be made all the more difficult.]

As for Brisbane, this winter has been quite damp and not terribly cold, and I note that quite a few spring flowering plants are starting their bloom already. (Azaleas, some peach tree the neighbour has.) The forecast temperature for the weekend is mid-20's, which is quite warm for July. Not sure how its going down south, but it seems an early spring here.

The Quiggin mystery

What happened to John Quiggin earlier this week? As the prominent centre Left economist with a big interest in environmentalism, I've been waiting for his view on the government's Green Paper. But on the day it was issued, his website mysteriously disappeared. It has now re-appeared, but no mention of the Green Paper.

I suspect that operatives for Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have been holding him captive in a basement somewhere in a Commonwealth owned building in Brisbane, threatening to never let him grow a beard again unless he comes out strongly in support of their plans.

Just a theory.

Garden project of the future

Tardis Garden Sheds - outwitting snails one space warp continium at a time - The Red Ferret Journal

Geez, one of these would really impress my son. Pity it seems you can't buy them off the shelf.

Nurse!

The Road to Surfdom � Blog Archive � Crackers!

Louvre goes Islam

Culture: Louvre draws a veil over artistic neglect with bold new Islamic wing

Interesting story on the Louvre's new section for Islamic art.

More disaster talk

Death in the deep: Volcanoes blamed for mass extinction

The suggestion is that it was massive underwater volcanism that led to the anoxic oceans and mass extinctions of 95 million years ago.

If true, I suppose it is half-way encouraging that high levels of atmospheric CO2 alone might not lead to anoxic oceans. But, this is not something I feel particularly inclined to run the risk on.

The Nature article I linked to a couple of posts back argued that the world could reach 1000 ppm pretty easily. Here's the relevant section (if you are really lazy, just read the parts I have put in bold):

The goal of climate mitigation is to avoid dangerous human-caused impacts, which science suggests would mean limiting total warming to 2 °C above preindustrial temperatures. In turn, this would require keeping atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million (p.p.m.). According to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, model studies based on our current understanding of climate–carbon-cycle feedbacks suggest that to stabilize carbon dioxide levels at 450 p.p.m. could require that cumulative emissions over the twenty-first century reach only about 490 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), which equates to less than 5 GtC per year¹.

Similarly, stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 1,000 p.p.m. would require cumulative emissions this century of only about 1,100 GtC. In other words, if annual emissions average 11 GtC this century, we risk the real, terrifying prospect of seeing 1,000 p.p.m. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a 'best estimate' warming of a staggering 5.5 °C by the end of the century.

Carbon emissions from the global consumption of fossil fuels are currently above 8 GtC per year and rising faster than the most pessimistic economic model considered by the IPCC². Yet even if the high price of energy from fossil fuels and power plants combines with regional climate initiatives to slow the current rate of growth somewhat, we will probably hit 11 gigatonnes of carbon emissions per year by 2020.

Lomborg on emissions trading

A better way than cap and trade - On Line Opinion - 17/7/2008

Doesn't sound particularly controversial, what Lomborg has to say about cap and trade schemes. (They are - relatively - politically palatable but aren't at all likely to do enough to make a significant difference.)

Lomborg suggests a much more serious commitment to R&D to get solar power costs down.

Emissions trading already too late?

Cleaning up on carbon : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

For anyone out there (if there is anyone) who thinks emissions trading schemes are likely to do enough to limit CO2 fast enough, have a read of the above detailed opinion piece that was in Nature in June 2008.

It argues:

The limits of a strategy built around carbon pricing can be seen in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, the world's largest system for pricing carbon and trading permits. A full decade after signing the Kyoto Protocol, European nations finally have in place a cap-and-trade system with a significant price for allowances, namely US$40 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Yet utilities in Italy, Great Britain, the Czech Republic and Germany are reported to still be pursuing new coal-fired plants⁴, so we must clearly go beyond pricing carbon.

The whole scenario set out in the article about how difficult it will be to achieve stabilisation at 550 ppm is pretty depressing, really. But the author argues that:

...such is the urgent need to reverse emissions trends by deploying a multitude of low-carbon technologies that we must rely on technologies that either are already commercial or will very shortly be so. Fortunately, venture capitalists and public companies have begun to inject many billions of dollars into the development and short-term commercialization of most plausible low-carbon technologies. Governments should now focus their R&D spending on a longer-term effort aimed at a new generation of technologies for the emissions reduction effort after 2040, but the notion that we need a Manhattan Project or Apollo programme for technology development is mistaken. Instead, what is urgently needed is an effort of that scale focused on the deployment of technology.

It's all interesting, and well worth reading.

This is serious, but still...

I'm on record as wanting the world to do something effective about CO2 emissions, (it's the oceans, guys,) but still, I am getting some enjoyment from seeing Andrew Bolt and most of the Larvatus Prodeo crowd singing harmonies in their negative response to Kevin Rudd's greenhouse proposals.

Descent into tabloid

I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty - Times Online

The Times has entered well and truly into tabloid territory by running this strange piece which paints sister/brother incest in a soft-porn, soft-focus, filtered glowing light sort of way.

Given the number of comments, many have taken offence, although quite a few have been overcome by the faux romanticism of it.

I have been meaning to write something of sex, emotion and morality, in light of the Anglicans fight over homosexuality, and this article might just prompt me to do it. Someday.

Meanwhile, I'll just take it as another sign that Great Britain is indeed in a weird downwards spiral of decay.

Poorly chosen words

Christian doctrine offensive to Muslims, says Archbishop of Canterbury - Telegraph

Rowan Williams invites criticism again:

Discussing differences between the religions, Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is "difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims".

More to the point is why it should be considered "offensive," by anyone.

Or alternatively, if you allow that people can be justifiably "offended" by members of other faiths believing that they are wrong, then Christians should be allowed to find Islam offensive too. But if everyone can claim offence, there is hardly any point in raising the issue.

Great moments in science

Study finds Aussies more likely to target Muslims in shootout | Herald Sun

The first line from the above report:

AUSSIES who find themselves under threat are more likely to shoot at Muslims, especially if they're in a good mood, a study claims.

Just how many people find themselves both under threat from Muslims and in a good mood, I wonder.

How helpful

Queensland’s vision splendid at Larvatus Prodeo

It's not often that I link to anything at LP with approval, but yesterday I was quoting Greenpeace, so I may as well continue my out-of-character run.

I mean, it is pretty ridiculous to be fretting about reducing our relatively tiny emissions while shipping millions of tonnes of coal to countries to burn or use in whatever manner they like.

The ALP thinks you should not sell uranium to countries that don't sign up to obligations to use it properly, yet when it comes to coal anything goes. (Has there been some talk of helping China build efficient power plants?; I can't recall. But there is certainly no legal tying of coal exports to any such efficiencies in its use.)

If you want to get top marks for idealism, and leading by example, then you would not cite the response "well if we don't sell it to them, they'll just buy it elsewhere."

UPDATE: those LP-er's are not taking the government's greenhouse plans at all well. Yep, it was a pretty good election for the Liberals to lose.

I think somewhere here before I have suggested the best answer to global warming may be for the US to wage war on China. (Well, if you must, just a limited war on their coal-burning facilities. Cruise missiles could be very handy that way. If the Chinese want to retaliate against US coal power stations, so much the better!) I work on the theory that there are very few problems in the world that can't be solved with high explosives.

Don't say I am not trying to be helpful.