Perpetual Innovation

Category: United Nations

  • Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess – WSJ

    Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess – WSJ:

    Bjorn Lomborg may have been best know for his massive tomb of a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg (2007) in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World “may be the best source for reviewing the facts about quality of life, global
    warming, and the optimal approaches for addressing the issues.” (Hall, Taylor, Zapalski, & Hall, 2009, p. 5)

    Apparently he has since gone off to consult for oil & gas interest. That’s not all bad, but it does mean that he may not be unbiased as seemed to be the case during his Skeptical days.

    Bjorn talks about, essentially, the bang for the buck ($US, in this case). The current Obama plan doesn’t do much to move the global warming needle, especially given the costs. On the one hand, Obama will say that we have to start somewhere. In this case, and in several others, Bjorn simply says that this won’t do much good. A smart guy like that should suggest better alternatives.

    We, at SBPlan, argue that there are two monster places to start. AND neither requires the special help of government, really. Both are energy efficiency (EE) focused. Two EE business models that SBP especially likes are related to telecommuting using remote work centers and a pay-forward model
    of promoting energy efficiency in all buildings – residential, commercial and
    government. Since both of these initiatives save money, they offer a special win-win-win of sustainability (Employees, Employers and Environment, in this case).

    I’m a little disappointing that Bjorn has been simply complaining about the expense and the likely lack of success from various government initiatives, not offering up his own recommendations. It’s easy to complain and stop progress, but I give no respect to someone who does not offer up better alternatives. In the case of our non-sustainable practices of energy, the olde business as usual (BAU) model is a failed business model; it is only a matter of time for this living beyond our means model of existence will come crashing down.

    Bjorn offers up more research, presumably to make renewables more affordable. And touts the Fracking-NatGas revolutions as a massive windfall for reducing our pollution and greenhouse gases away from coal. NatGas is both good and bad; it shifts us away from really dirty energy associated with coal. Yeah!:-) But it reduced the costs and availability of all oil, gas and coal such that we may have tagged on another 50 years worth of fossil fuels to global economies before we really start to run low(er) and basic economics starts to really solves our addiction to fossil fuels. 

    If you read Bjorn’s Skeptical Environmentalist, you will find that he totally believes that there is global warming and that man is a big (?major?) contributor. When you read this book you will agree, even before including the 10 record hot years since he published in 2007. What he does say, forcefully then, and now, is that we need to focus on the efforts that will result the move benefits. Huge government spending on reducing CO2, especially in developing countries, may have little, none, or even negative results. 

    Bjorn ended up in a big tiff over the 2007 book Skeptical Environmentalist. If it was an opinion piece then it would be okay to take the liberties that he did with interpreting the results; but as a scientific book, he had gone way to far. The  Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in Bjorn’s home country, charged him with academic dishonesty in the book. This ruling went against Bjorn. On appeal the charge of scientific dishonesty was sent back for a do-over, where it stalled out.

    Bjorg’s follow Skeptical Environmentalist book(s) have titles that start with “Cool it!”, concentrating on what to do that will likely have the most (short-term) benefits. 

    Bjorg, don’t just complain in op-eds about Obama and the other 200 countries who signed the Paris greenhouse deal this April (agreed to in Dec 2015). The average person reading this op-ed would think that we all should do nothing and wait for Bill Gates Foundation to find a cure. Give people real suggestions for actions. Or, are you simply trying to sell your books and consulting?

    References

    Hall, E., Taylor, S., Zapalski, C., & Hall, T.
    (2009). Sustainability in education: Green in the facilities, but not in the
    classrooms. Proceedings of the Society for Advancement of Management,
    USA.
    Lomborg, Bjorn. (2007). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. NY:
    Cambridge University Press.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink

    Here it is the United Nations water report for 2015:
    http://www.sustainablebrands.com/digital_learning/research_report/leadership/united_nations_world_water_development_report_2015?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=schtweets&utm_campaign=social

    As California suffer through water shortage, imagine what the rest of the world looks like. Now, imagine what the rest of the world will look like in the year 2050?
    By that time we should have moved to a population of 9 to 11 billion!
    The first chapter is on non-sustainable uses of water. The trends, including use of water, that are not sustainable, have a way of ending on gracefully!
    Case in point, California.

  • 13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment

    13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment | theguardian.com:

    Ouch. As you look at the clock, you will see that we are only 14 years into the 21st Century. Yet we have 13 of the hottest 14 years in recorded history.

    You do have to take the whole of the earth into account, obviously, not just the USA, where we were ?fortunate? enough to have a exceptionally cold and blizzardy Winter. (Polar Vortex is now in our daily vernacular.)

    If you are interested in the science go here to look at the 11 or 12 major indicators (based on several data sources each) that would indicate global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

    If you want a composite graphic that shows the robustness of the evidence, go here. There are several data sources overlaid in each graphic. Note that the stratosphere is decreasing (cooler), that is consistent with a depletion of the ozone layer.

    The recent UN report talks about the trends in costs associated with climate effects, like typhoons. A draft report talks about $1.45T costs associated with climate change over the next decade. (See here http://www.livescience.com/43891-global-warming-economic-damage.html.)

    The costs are expected to reach $70 to $100B per year for adaptation by 2050. (See here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/31/will-the-uns-new-report-shift-the-global-warming-debate)

    NASA has lots of interesting graphics, including time-series that will show the world temperature changes over the last couple hundred years. (Or just recently if you want since 1970).(The science visualization study at NASA is awesome, no mater what your interests: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/Gallery/index.html or if you want to draw your own graphs based on the underlying data, go here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/3/2/1880-2014).

    As we come up on Earth Day (EarthDay.org or EarthDay in Wikipedia) the impacts of business as usual (BAS) really revolves around whether you think something should be done to be much more sustainable NOW!, in decades or in centuries to come.

    The degree of urgency really depends on how much you believe in global warming, and how fast you think that warming may take place.

    Look at the graphs and make your own call on this.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Better BTU Blog: Global Climate Change Summit Brings Questions of America’s Role in Reversing Carbon Trends

    Better BTU Blog: Global Climate Change Summit Brings Questions of America’s Role in Reversing Carbon Trends:

    Great article on the point that no government is leading on sustainability, at least in terms of those countries that count, namely the US, China and maybe India.

    It is amazing and surprising that conservation and energy efficiency (EE) efforts don’t move forward even without any government assistance or encouragement. A kilowatt or gallon never used is one that never had to be produced, distributed, and consumed. At least up to a point, the costs associated with EE can be very small with a ROI in months, not years. Then those efficiency savings can be realized for years to come… (And oh, by the way, it helps out the environment as well, now and in the future.)

    Of course we can do some of this stuff later today or tomorrow. The low-lying fruit would be so easy to start picking at.

    Getting started with or without government help (involvement) seems to be the first order of business. Savings this year that will be realized each year thereafter…

    … This is a (Christmas) gift that keeps on giving…

    Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

    ‘via Blog this’