Greenpeace outlined a scenario in which 95 percent of energy generation comes from renewable sources by 2050 while creating 12 million jobs, for a price tag of around $18 trillion in global investment, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in CO2 emissions.
According to the Greenpeace report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, such a drastic revolution in energy production is necessary, since even a 50 percent decrease in CO2 emissions by 2050 might not be enough to prevent runaway climate change scenarios. Under the Greenpeace scenario, CO2 emissions will peak in 2015 before dropping by more than 80 percent by 2050.
In its first edition of the Energy [R]evolution report in 2007, Greenpeace had predicted that 156 GW of renewable energy would be produced in 2010. As of the end of 2009, 158 GW were being produced.
The report makes several policy recommendations, such as phasing out all subsidies for fossil and nuclear fuel businesses, establishing legally binding targets for renewable energy, and strict efficiency standards. According to the report, conventional fuel sources receives an estimated $250 – 300 billion in worldwide subsidies, with coal alone receiving $63 billion.
The Energy [R]evolution scenario outlines a scenario which creates about 12 million jobs, with 8.5 million in the renewables sector alone, by 2030. Without adopting the policy recommendations of the report, however, only 2.4 million renewable jobs will be created. The renewable energy sector already employees two million people worldwide. The policy recommendations also state that the market for renewable technology will increase from $100 billion today to more than $600 billion by 2030.
Actual energy consumption is expected to increase up to 60 percent by 2050, according to the report. Implementing the policy recommendations in the report, including improved insulation and design for buildings, implementing efficiency standards and replacing heating systems with renewable technology, would decrease energy consumption by 20 percent.
Greenpeace also reported that renewable energy resources alone have the potential to generate up to 32 times current global power demands.
The report estimates potential savings in fuel costs of switching to renewable systems at $282 billion per year. However, the annual investment necessary between now and 2030 is estimated to be $782 billion, though without further investment costs beyond that time horizon. Under current policies, Greenpeace estimates global energy investment of $11.2 trillion dollars from now until 2030, while under the Energy [R]evolution scenario, global investment reaches $17.9 trillion.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Jairam Ramesh calls for convergence on reducing biodiversity loss
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh on saturday called for effective and coherent convergence of policies at the global, national and regional level to achieve significant reduction of biodiversity loss
Buzz up!Addressing participants at TERI-sponsored seminar on climate change at the India Habitat Centre here, Ramesh said that the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity offers resilience to climate variability and natural disasters.
He said: "India has been the initial signatory of the CBD (Convention of Biological Diversity), hence safeguarding biodiversity requires action at all levels with a strong commitment to contribute towards achieving international targets."
"Over the years India has taken several key initiatives to achieve the objectives of the CBD at the national level through-creation of an institutional structure, through traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), an important initiative by India to fight against bio-piracy globally and through the People Biodiversity Register (PBR) to document the oral knowledge on biodiversity," he added.
Ramesh also mentioned that India has proactively developed a link between climate change and biodiversity by creating an Indian version of IPCC, i.e. Indian Network for Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment that will conduct a 4x4 assessment in the sectors of agriculture, forests, water and health, and regions of Himalayas, Western Ghats, North-East India, and Coastal regions, measuring the impact of Climate Change.
On forests and climate change, he said India is going to double its aforestation targets as a part of Greening India Mission, one of the missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change.
Dr. Leena Srivastava, Executive Director (Operations) TERI, said that the contribution of biodiversity to human and economic well-being is important; hence adequate management and governance at the national level are the key strengths that need to be developed.
Emphasizing the need for strengthening and addressing the key challenges afflicting economic resources, bio-resources and the environment, Dr. Srivastava said: "There is an urgent need for strengthening the institutional base for biodiversity and a requirement for checking the impact of climate change on biodiversity, environment, ecosystems, health, etc, ensuring continued benefits to people and opportunities for poverty reduction and economic development."
The seminar also had deliberations on issues such as:
Tropical forest productivity: Conservation for development which highlighted issues on the forest productivity of the tropical evergreen forests from different part of world to build a stronger case for tropical forests as the active sink for mitigation. This function of the tropical forests strengthens the case of these ecosystems for conservation and hence also provides an important developmental opportunity for the local communities dependent on these ecosystems.
Poverty alleviation using agro-forestry models providing an important opportunity for small and medium farmers to gain from the market value of the products as well as from the carbon markets.
REDD+: Addressing poverty alleviation of forest dependent communities, addressing the participation of local communities and financial mechanisms to benefit the local communities from biodiversity conservation.
Discovering new drugs: Banking on species diversity to explore the rich base of biodiversity in developing the new drugs against the future health problems.
Biofuels: Biodiversity based adaptation strategy focusing on various options available in nature to harness future demands and types of fuel.
Key recommendations of the seminar included strengthening of biodiversity monitoring system, creation of linkages amongst various pertinent institutions, focusing on marine ecosystems along with terrestrial ones, and understanding the economic values of biodiversity.
The seminar ended with a conclusion that the learning's from Indian experience has a wider benefit in South Asian and the pan-tropical context, in terms of developing the programs for mitigation and adaptation based on the biodiversity resources, hence country leadership and increased support from development cooperation are critical for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, nationally and internationally too.
Buzz up!Addressing participants at TERI-sponsored seminar on climate change at the India Habitat Centre here, Ramesh said that the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity offers resilience to climate variability and natural disasters.
He said: "India has been the initial signatory of the CBD (Convention of Biological Diversity), hence safeguarding biodiversity requires action at all levels with a strong commitment to contribute towards achieving international targets."
"Over the years India has taken several key initiatives to achieve the objectives of the CBD at the national level through-creation of an institutional structure, through traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), an important initiative by India to fight against bio-piracy globally and through the People Biodiversity Register (PBR) to document the oral knowledge on biodiversity," he added.
Ramesh also mentioned that India has proactively developed a link between climate change and biodiversity by creating an Indian version of IPCC, i.e. Indian Network for Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment that will conduct a 4x4 assessment in the sectors of agriculture, forests, water and health, and regions of Himalayas, Western Ghats, North-East India, and Coastal regions, measuring the impact of Climate Change.
On forests and climate change, he said India is going to double its aforestation targets as a part of Greening India Mission, one of the missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change.
Dr. Leena Srivastava, Executive Director (Operations) TERI, said that the contribution of biodiversity to human and economic well-being is important; hence adequate management and governance at the national level are the key strengths that need to be developed.
Emphasizing the need for strengthening and addressing the key challenges afflicting economic resources, bio-resources and the environment, Dr. Srivastava said: "There is an urgent need for strengthening the institutional base for biodiversity and a requirement for checking the impact of climate change on biodiversity, environment, ecosystems, health, etc, ensuring continued benefits to people and opportunities for poverty reduction and economic development."
The seminar also had deliberations on issues such as:
Tropical forest productivity: Conservation for development which highlighted issues on the forest productivity of the tropical evergreen forests from different part of world to build a stronger case for tropical forests as the active sink for mitigation. This function of the tropical forests strengthens the case of these ecosystems for conservation and hence also provides an important developmental opportunity for the local communities dependent on these ecosystems.
Poverty alleviation using agro-forestry models providing an important opportunity for small and medium farmers to gain from the market value of the products as well as from the carbon markets.
REDD+: Addressing poverty alleviation of forest dependent communities, addressing the participation of local communities and financial mechanisms to benefit the local communities from biodiversity conservation.
Discovering new drugs: Banking on species diversity to explore the rich base of biodiversity in developing the new drugs against the future health problems.
Biofuels: Biodiversity based adaptation strategy focusing on various options available in nature to harness future demands and types of fuel.
Key recommendations of the seminar included strengthening of biodiversity monitoring system, creation of linkages amongst various pertinent institutions, focusing on marine ecosystems along with terrestrial ones, and understanding the economic values of biodiversity.
The seminar ended with a conclusion that the learning's from Indian experience has a wider benefit in South Asian and the pan-tropical context, in terms of developing the programs for mitigation and adaptation based on the biodiversity resources, hence country leadership and increased support from development cooperation are critical for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, nationally and internationally too.
PM hurts Canada by leaving climate off agenda: May
The decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to keep climate change off the agenda when leaders of the world's most powerful nations gather in Ontario is unprecedented and hurts Canada's credibility, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, said yesterday.
May, speaking at a news conference in Victoria, was flanked by Nobel Prize co-winner Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling, as she called for the federal government to reinstate climate change on the agenda for the G8 and G20 summits to be held in Ontario next month.
"We haven't had a G8 or G20 summit in over 20 years when climate change was not on the agenda," May said.
"It's only because Stephen Harper is hosting this meeting that this is possible and the rest of the world is stunned."
Previous summits have included a meeting of environment ministers, giving them a chance to debate their positions on climate change face to face.
There is mounting pressure from the European Union and United Nations to include climate change and May said she has been in touch with G20 ambassadors to Canada who are horrified at the omission.
"It has never happened before that a G20 summit has been hijacked by a host government which refused to put a critical issue on the agenda," said May, who is calling for Vancouver Island residents to mobilize and put pressure on the federal government.
May, who is running in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the next federal election, will be one of the speakers at a rally to be held June 7 at Alix Goolden Hall which will push for a "green economy and climate sanity."
"If we make our call as citizens, before the summits begin, our pressure will be joined by internal diplomatic efforts which I know are ongoing, to get Canada to open the agenda and allow world governments to address world issues," May said.
Weaver said, especially in light of the latest report from the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy which rates Canada's low carbon performance as sixth out of the G8 countries, there is a staggering disconnect between science and policy in Canada.
"The policies we have in place in Canada make it impossible to stay below the two degree [increase in temperature] threshold," Weaver said.
"I am here to support Elizabeth May and her call to get Canada to put climate change on the G8 and G20 agendas."
Although the economy -- the focus of the summits -- is important, climate change is the most important issue facing the world today, May said.
Others calling for Canada to host a meeting of environment ministers include the federal NDP and environmental organizations, who say a face-to-face meeting is essential before the UN climate change conference is held in Mexico in November.
May, speaking at a news conference in Victoria, was flanked by Nobel Prize co-winner Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling, as she called for the federal government to reinstate climate change on the agenda for the G8 and G20 summits to be held in Ontario next month.
"We haven't had a G8 or G20 summit in over 20 years when climate change was not on the agenda," May said.
"It's only because Stephen Harper is hosting this meeting that this is possible and the rest of the world is stunned."
Previous summits have included a meeting of environment ministers, giving them a chance to debate their positions on climate change face to face.
There is mounting pressure from the European Union and United Nations to include climate change and May said she has been in touch with G20 ambassadors to Canada who are horrified at the omission.
"It has never happened before that a G20 summit has been hijacked by a host government which refused to put a critical issue on the agenda," said May, who is calling for Vancouver Island residents to mobilize and put pressure on the federal government.
May, who is running in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the next federal election, will be one of the speakers at a rally to be held June 7 at Alix Goolden Hall which will push for a "green economy and climate sanity."
"If we make our call as citizens, before the summits begin, our pressure will be joined by internal diplomatic efforts which I know are ongoing, to get Canada to open the agenda and allow world governments to address world issues," May said.
Weaver said, especially in light of the latest report from the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy which rates Canada's low carbon performance as sixth out of the G8 countries, there is a staggering disconnect between science and policy in Canada.
"The policies we have in place in Canada make it impossible to stay below the two degree [increase in temperature] threshold," Weaver said.
"I am here to support Elizabeth May and her call to get Canada to put climate change on the G8 and G20 agendas."
Although the economy -- the focus of the summits -- is important, climate change is the most important issue facing the world today, May said.
Others calling for Canada to host a meeting of environment ministers include the federal NDP and environmental organizations, who say a face-to-face meeting is essential before the UN climate change conference is held in Mexico in November.
Report from the Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference
Nancy Thorner
Most likely American Thinker readers are aware that the Heartland Institute held its Fourth International Conference on Climate Change earlier in the week - May 16 - 18. I'm still feeling electrified from the impact the event had on me.
The Heartland Institute of Chicago, Joseph L. Bast, President, held its Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago at the Marriott Magnificent Mile Hotel on Michigan Avenue from May 16 - l8. The Heartland Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan Chicago-based research organization founded in 1984. Its purpose is to discover, develop and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information about the Heartland Institute, visit http://www.heartland.org/ or call 312/377-4000.
It is appropriate that the theme of this year's conference was Reconsidering the Science and Economics, as much has happened since Heartland's Third International Conference on Climate Change held in Washington, D.C. in June of last year. Among the happenings: It was in November of last year that emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed a pattern of mismanagement of temperature data, interference with peer review, and an effort to suppress academic debate on global warming (Climategate). In December of 2009, negotiations in Copenhagen, meant as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, collapsed, leaving the world without a binding international agreement after Kyoto expires in 2012.
Attending Heartland's Fourth International Conference were seventy-three distinguished scientists, economists, and policy experts from twenty-three countries. The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes. Governments around the world have begun to recognize the astronomical cost of reducing emissions, and how the cost of slowing or stopping global warming might exceed the societal benefits. Even so, not all seventy-three of the invited guests agreed on the causes, extent, or the consequences of climate change.
Among the seventy-three distinguished speakers were two global climate believers: 1) Tam Hunt, J.D. who owns and runs Community Renewable Solutions LLC and is also a lecturer in Climate Change Law and Policy at UC Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management (a graduate-level program), and 2) A. Scott Denning, PhD, a professor at the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, a joint project of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Colorado State University.
Although Heartland Institute extended invitations to many global warming believers, only Hunt and Denning were brave enough to accept. Heartland's president, Joseph L. Bast, hopes to persuade more speakers with opposing viewpoints to attend next year's conference.
The electricity generated by the speakers was felt by the 700-plus individuals who registered to attend the conference. As examples of the caliber of distinguished guest speaker, I've arbitrarily chosen those that I came in contact at the conference and whose names are known to many: Howard Hayden, PhD; Christopher C. Horner, J.D.; Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger; Jay H. Lehr, PhD; Ben Lieberman; Richard Lindzen, PhD; Stephen Mcintyre; Patrick J. Michaels, PhD; Lord Christopher Monckton; Ian Plimer, PhD; S. Fred Singer, PhD; Roy W. Spencer, PhD; and James M. Taylor, J.S. To view the names of all speakers and conference events go to: http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicgo/program.html
Four of the above guest speakers participated in book signing sessions: Ian Plimer, PhD - Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science; Roy W. Spencer, PhD - The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Scientists; S. Fred Singer, PhD - Hot Talk, Cold Science; and Christopher C. Horner, J.D. - Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal your Freedom and Bankrupt America.
Much visited by convention participants were thirteen Conference Exhibitors. All thirteen deserve recognition, but to list all would not be practical in this format. Pajamas Media deserves special recognition because of its "on location" coverage from the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Its online video arm of the new media company, Pajamas Media, has also been in the forefront and broken many key stories on the global warming controversy from both the scientific and business perspectives. Pajamas Media videotaped the entire Heartland Conference. http://www.pajamasmedia.com/
My one regret is that I could not listen to the presentations of all seventy-three of the distinguished speakers. Tracks were set up from which conference participants could select those speakers they wished to hear based on their interests. Four tracks were available at each of the five sessions, three on Monday and two on Tuesday. Two of tracks were devoted to Science and one track each to Economics and Public Policy. Each of the four tracks in every session featured either three or four guest speakers. With this in mind, as a participant who attended all five of the sessions, I was limited to hearing, at the most, seventeen of the featured speakers. Additionally, however, there were two keynote speakers at Sunday's opening supper and two each at breakfast and lunch on both Monday and Tuesday.
As a conference participant, I would like to comment about two of the guest speakers. One of them, James Delingpole, was the only non-scientist in the group of seventy three. He is an author, broadcaster, and blogger who helped break the Climategate story in the United Kingdom. Having earned an English degree from Oxford University, Delingpole "felt like a shepherd boy who had been transported to Mt. Olympus."
According to Delingpole, the Climategate story fell into his lap and changed his life. His pitch to the conference attendees was how we represent the happy people who want a good life. Also, that we have a place in this war. The war we are fighting is for our liberty. It is between two opposing views of the world. It's also a propaganda war. James Delingpole is the author of Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work.
There could be no question as to the climax of the conference. Even the president of Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, concluded as much, when he decided to present the wrap-up of the conference before Lord Christopher Monckton had spoken at the final lunch gathering on Tuesday, May 18. Lord Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Monckton was also a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He now travels the world, all for the truth of sound science. Monckton describes truth "as the center of every lasting consensus."
Lord Monckton's speech was anticipated by all and he didn't disappoint. His tongue-in-cheek British humor was entertaining, but then Monckton turned serious. It was because of Lord Monckton that the "Hockey Stick" report by the IPPC was thoroughly discredited. As Monckton described it, bogus facts were used to construct the computer model in an attempt to show that the rate of global warming is accelerating and that it's because of man.
According to Lord Monckton, even if all economic activity were closed down to forestall global warming for a period of 100 years, the temperature reduction would only amount to 1 degree Fahrenheit. This would be the height of folly and cruelty!
In speaking about Cap and Trade, Monckton warned how any measure to curtail global warming would result in abject failure. Monckton then listed three current approaches that are doomed to failure because they would have no effect on climate change: Kerry-Lieberman Bill, EPA regulations, and an attempt to push a new treaty at Cancun to replace the failed Copenhagen one.
Further words of truth spoken by Lord Monckton described how science and economics cannot be divorced from politics, that Cap and Trade is nothing less than an attempt by the rich and powerful to take away the chance for the little guy to face up to the big guy, and that scientific truth will always remain the truth because it doesn't matter how many lies are told.
It was during the conclusion of Lord Monckton's remarks - Global Warming: The Trojan that Menaces Global Freedom - when not a dry eye was left in the room. In a dramatic presentation, Monckton quoted Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Not only did Lord Monckton tear up, but so did his attentive and enraptured audience, as Monckton passionately intoned its final words: ". . .that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Listed below are but a few of the many salient facts about global warming which conference participants were privileged to hear:
Weather stations can no longer be trusted. 90% of the 1,064 weather stationsdo not meet government standards because contamination is present.
The billions of dollars spent by government and others to fund science just perpetuates problems rather than solving them. Funding only continues if research shows what those funding itwish it to prove,otherwise funding is discontinued.
If temperature can't be projected for a week,how is itpossible to project temperature to 2050 and beyond?
The public is susceptible to scare tactics: Silent Spring, byRachel Carson, published in September of 1962, helped to start the environmental movement. A marine biologist, Carson documented the detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, which ledto the banning of DDT here in the U.S. and millions of deathsin malaria-prone countries.
70% of the public believes that we're almost running out of fossil fuel.
Uncertainty allows for the possibility of disaster. Something must be done even though that something might make things worse.
Computer models are not reliable because garbage in yields garbage out. Facts are often cherry-picked and can be tweaked to create the results that the computer modeler is looking for.
Peer review is a way of screening out opposing views. Skeptics of climate change have a difficult time getting published.
The influence of CO2 is so small that it's at a noise level.
Science education is in a general decline. Students are taught that science is based on evidence, and yet all they are presented are inaccurate models.
It was disconcerting and even unconscionable that the Chicago media ignored Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. While there were reporters and TV stations present at the conference, they were not from Chicago media sources. The bias shown by the Chicago media is unforgiveable
Shame on the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily Herald for not even including a short blurb in their newspapers about Heartland's outstanding Fourth International Conference on Climate Change with its distinguished world-wide list of speakers. Sadly the media has taken the politically approved stance that global warming is man-made. As such the media is not about to inform its readers of the thousands of leading scientists around the world who reject global warming. Is it any wonder that newspapers are losing subscribers, when they only tell one side of the story? Kudos to Pajama Media for filming the entire conference!
A Heartland Institute sign prominently displayed at the conference said it all: "Global Warming? It is not man made, it's a natural variation, the human impact is very small, computer models are flawed, and there is no "consensus". Global Warming is also not harmful, past warmings were beneficial, no current warming harms, future warmings will be modest, and warming is better.
Sixty four cosponsors from twenty three different countries signed on to Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change including Americans for Prosperity, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Freedom Works, Illinois Policy Institute, JunkScience.com, George C. Marshall Institute, National Center for Public Policy Research, and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Most likely American Thinker readers are aware that the Heartland Institute held its Fourth International Conference on Climate Change earlier in the week - May 16 - 18. I'm still feeling electrified from the impact the event had on me.
The Heartland Institute of Chicago, Joseph L. Bast, President, held its Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago at the Marriott Magnificent Mile Hotel on Michigan Avenue from May 16 - l8. The Heartland Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan Chicago-based research organization founded in 1984. Its purpose is to discover, develop and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information about the Heartland Institute, visit http://www.heartland.org/ or call 312/377-4000.
It is appropriate that the theme of this year's conference was Reconsidering the Science and Economics, as much has happened since Heartland's Third International Conference on Climate Change held in Washington, D.C. in June of last year. Among the happenings: It was in November of last year that emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed a pattern of mismanagement of temperature data, interference with peer review, and an effort to suppress academic debate on global warming (Climategate). In December of 2009, negotiations in Copenhagen, meant as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, collapsed, leaving the world without a binding international agreement after Kyoto expires in 2012.
Attending Heartland's Fourth International Conference were seventy-three distinguished scientists, economists, and policy experts from twenty-three countries. The speakers were all united in thought that the time is now to reconsider the science and economics of global warming. New scientific discoveries cast doubt on how much of the warming during the twentieth century was man-caused, and how much was due to natural causes. Governments around the world have begun to recognize the astronomical cost of reducing emissions, and how the cost of slowing or stopping global warming might exceed the societal benefits. Even so, not all seventy-three of the invited guests agreed on the causes, extent, or the consequences of climate change.
Among the seventy-three distinguished speakers were two global climate believers: 1) Tam Hunt, J.D. who owns and runs Community Renewable Solutions LLC and is also a lecturer in Climate Change Law and Policy at UC Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management (a graduate-level program), and 2) A. Scott Denning, PhD, a professor at the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, a joint project of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Colorado State University.
Although Heartland Institute extended invitations to many global warming believers, only Hunt and Denning were brave enough to accept. Heartland's president, Joseph L. Bast, hopes to persuade more speakers with opposing viewpoints to attend next year's conference.
The electricity generated by the speakers was felt by the 700-plus individuals who registered to attend the conference. As examples of the caliber of distinguished guest speaker, I've arbitrarily chosen those that I came in contact at the conference and whose names are known to many: Howard Hayden, PhD; Christopher C. Horner, J.D.; Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger; Jay H. Lehr, PhD; Ben Lieberman; Richard Lindzen, PhD; Stephen Mcintyre; Patrick J. Michaels, PhD; Lord Christopher Monckton; Ian Plimer, PhD; S. Fred Singer, PhD; Roy W. Spencer, PhD; and James M. Taylor, J.S. To view the names of all speakers and conference events go to: http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicgo/program.html
Four of the above guest speakers participated in book signing sessions: Ian Plimer, PhD - Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science; Roy W. Spencer, PhD - The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Scientists; S. Fred Singer, PhD - Hot Talk, Cold Science; and Christopher C. Horner, J.D. - Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal your Freedom and Bankrupt America.
Much visited by convention participants were thirteen Conference Exhibitors. All thirteen deserve recognition, but to list all would not be practical in this format. Pajamas Media deserves special recognition because of its "on location" coverage from the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Its online video arm of the new media company, Pajamas Media, has also been in the forefront and broken many key stories on the global warming controversy from both the scientific and business perspectives. Pajamas Media videotaped the entire Heartland Conference. http://www.pajamasmedia.com/
My one regret is that I could not listen to the presentations of all seventy-three of the distinguished speakers. Tracks were set up from which conference participants could select those speakers they wished to hear based on their interests. Four tracks were available at each of the five sessions, three on Monday and two on Tuesday. Two of tracks were devoted to Science and one track each to Economics and Public Policy. Each of the four tracks in every session featured either three or four guest speakers. With this in mind, as a participant who attended all five of the sessions, I was limited to hearing, at the most, seventeen of the featured speakers. Additionally, however, there were two keynote speakers at Sunday's opening supper and two each at breakfast and lunch on both Monday and Tuesday.
As a conference participant, I would like to comment about two of the guest speakers. One of them, James Delingpole, was the only non-scientist in the group of seventy three. He is an author, broadcaster, and blogger who helped break the Climategate story in the United Kingdom. Having earned an English degree from Oxford University, Delingpole "felt like a shepherd boy who had been transported to Mt. Olympus."
According to Delingpole, the Climategate story fell into his lap and changed his life. His pitch to the conference attendees was how we represent the happy people who want a good life. Also, that we have a place in this war. The war we are fighting is for our liberty. It is between two opposing views of the world. It's also a propaganda war. James Delingpole is the author of Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work.
There could be no question as to the climax of the conference. Even the president of Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, concluded as much, when he decided to present the wrap-up of the conference before Lord Christopher Monckton had spoken at the final lunch gathering on Tuesday, May 18. Lord Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Monckton was also a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He now travels the world, all for the truth of sound science. Monckton describes truth "as the center of every lasting consensus."
Lord Monckton's speech was anticipated by all and he didn't disappoint. His tongue-in-cheek British humor was entertaining, but then Monckton turned serious. It was because of Lord Monckton that the "Hockey Stick" report by the IPPC was thoroughly discredited. As Monckton described it, bogus facts were used to construct the computer model in an attempt to show that the rate of global warming is accelerating and that it's because of man.
According to Lord Monckton, even if all economic activity were closed down to forestall global warming for a period of 100 years, the temperature reduction would only amount to 1 degree Fahrenheit. This would be the height of folly and cruelty!
In speaking about Cap and Trade, Monckton warned how any measure to curtail global warming would result in abject failure. Monckton then listed three current approaches that are doomed to failure because they would have no effect on climate change: Kerry-Lieberman Bill, EPA regulations, and an attempt to push a new treaty at Cancun to replace the failed Copenhagen one.
Further words of truth spoken by Lord Monckton described how science and economics cannot be divorced from politics, that Cap and Trade is nothing less than an attempt by the rich and powerful to take away the chance for the little guy to face up to the big guy, and that scientific truth will always remain the truth because it doesn't matter how many lies are told.
It was during the conclusion of Lord Monckton's remarks - Global Warming: The Trojan that Menaces Global Freedom - when not a dry eye was left in the room. In a dramatic presentation, Monckton quoted Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Not only did Lord Monckton tear up, but so did his attentive and enraptured audience, as Monckton passionately intoned its final words: ". . .that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Listed below are but a few of the many salient facts about global warming which conference participants were privileged to hear:
Weather stations can no longer be trusted. 90% of the 1,064 weather stationsdo not meet government standards because contamination is present.
The billions of dollars spent by government and others to fund science just perpetuates problems rather than solving them. Funding only continues if research shows what those funding itwish it to prove,otherwise funding is discontinued.
If temperature can't be projected for a week,how is itpossible to project temperature to 2050 and beyond?
The public is susceptible to scare tactics: Silent Spring, byRachel Carson, published in September of 1962, helped to start the environmental movement. A marine biologist, Carson documented the detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, which ledto the banning of DDT here in the U.S. and millions of deathsin malaria-prone countries.
70% of the public believes that we're almost running out of fossil fuel.
Uncertainty allows for the possibility of disaster. Something must be done even though that something might make things worse.
Computer models are not reliable because garbage in yields garbage out. Facts are often cherry-picked and can be tweaked to create the results that the computer modeler is looking for.
Peer review is a way of screening out opposing views. Skeptics of climate change have a difficult time getting published.
The influence of CO2 is so small that it's at a noise level.
Science education is in a general decline. Students are taught that science is based on evidence, and yet all they are presented are inaccurate models.
It was disconcerting and even unconscionable that the Chicago media ignored Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. While there were reporters and TV stations present at the conference, they were not from Chicago media sources. The bias shown by the Chicago media is unforgiveable
Shame on the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily Herald for not even including a short blurb in their newspapers about Heartland's outstanding Fourth International Conference on Climate Change with its distinguished world-wide list of speakers. Sadly the media has taken the politically approved stance that global warming is man-made. As such the media is not about to inform its readers of the thousands of leading scientists around the world who reject global warming. Is it any wonder that newspapers are losing subscribers, when they only tell one side of the story? Kudos to Pajama Media for filming the entire conference!
A Heartland Institute sign prominently displayed at the conference said it all: "Global Warming? It is not man made, it's a natural variation, the human impact is very small, computer models are flawed, and there is no "consensus". Global Warming is also not harmful, past warmings were beneficial, no current warming harms, future warmings will be modest, and warming is better.
Sixty four cosponsors from twenty three different countries signed on to Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change including Americans for Prosperity, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Freedom Works, Illinois Policy Institute, JunkScience.com, George C. Marshall Institute, National Center for Public Policy Research, and the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Help nature or risk humanity: report
THE economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a report for the United Nations will declare later this year.
The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the British Treasury and published in 2006, stated that the cost of limiting climate change would be about 1 to 2 per cent of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be five to 20 times that figure.
The UN's biodiversity report, dubbed Stern for Nature, is expected to say that the value of saving ''natural goods and services'', such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher - between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species that provide them.
The report will advocate immense changes to the way the global economy is run to factor in the value of the natural world.
The measures it will recommend include:
■Paying communities to conserve nature rather than deplete it.
■Giving strict limits to companies on what they can take from the environment and fining or taxing more to limit overexploitation.
■Asking businesses and national governments to publish accounts for their use of natural and human capital alongside their financial results.
■Reforming subsidies worth more than US$1 trillion a year for industries such as agriculture, fisheries, energy and transport.
The potential economic benefits of protecting biodiversity are huge. Setting up and running a comprehensive network of protected areas would cost $45 billion a year globally, according to one estimate, but the benefits of preservation within these zones would be worth $4-5 trillion a year.
''We need a sea change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature,'' said the report's author, the economist Pavan Sukhdev, who is a former senior banker with Deutsche Bank and a special adviser to the UN environment program. He called for nature to be seen ''not as something to be vanquished or conquered, but rather something to be cherished and lived within''.
The UN report's authors say if the goods and services provided by the natural world are not valued and factored into the global economic system, the environment will become more fragile and less resilient to shocks, risking human lives, livelihoods and the global economy.
The changes will involve a revolution in the way humans do business, consume and think about their lives, Mr Sukhdev said. He referred to the damage being inflicted on the natural world as ''a landscape of market failures''.
The report follows a series of studies showing that the world is in the grip of a mass extinction event as pollution, climate change, development and hunting destroys habitats of all types.
However, only two of the world's 100 biggest companies believe reducing biodiversity is a strategic threat to their business, according to another report released on Friday by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is advising the team compiling the UN report.
Mr Sukhdev said: ''We do have limits to how much we can extract, and why and where.''
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report shows that, on average, one-third of Earth's habitats have been damaged by humans.
The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the British Treasury and published in 2006, stated that the cost of limiting climate change would be about 1 to 2 per cent of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be five to 20 times that figure.
The UN's biodiversity report, dubbed Stern for Nature, is expected to say that the value of saving ''natural goods and services'', such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher - between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species that provide them.
The report will advocate immense changes to the way the global economy is run to factor in the value of the natural world.
The measures it will recommend include:
■Paying communities to conserve nature rather than deplete it.
■Giving strict limits to companies on what they can take from the environment and fining or taxing more to limit overexploitation.
■Asking businesses and national governments to publish accounts for their use of natural and human capital alongside their financial results.
■Reforming subsidies worth more than US$1 trillion a year for industries such as agriculture, fisheries, energy and transport.
The potential economic benefits of protecting biodiversity are huge. Setting up and running a comprehensive network of protected areas would cost $45 billion a year globally, according to one estimate, but the benefits of preservation within these zones would be worth $4-5 trillion a year.
''We need a sea change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature,'' said the report's author, the economist Pavan Sukhdev, who is a former senior banker with Deutsche Bank and a special adviser to the UN environment program. He called for nature to be seen ''not as something to be vanquished or conquered, but rather something to be cherished and lived within''.
The UN report's authors say if the goods and services provided by the natural world are not valued and factored into the global economic system, the environment will become more fragile and less resilient to shocks, risking human lives, livelihoods and the global economy.
The changes will involve a revolution in the way humans do business, consume and think about their lives, Mr Sukhdev said. He referred to the damage being inflicted on the natural world as ''a landscape of market failures''.
The report follows a series of studies showing that the world is in the grip of a mass extinction event as pollution, climate change, development and hunting destroys habitats of all types.
However, only two of the world's 100 biggest companies believe reducing biodiversity is a strategic threat to their business, according to another report released on Friday by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is advising the team compiling the UN report.
Mr Sukhdev said: ''We do have limits to how much we can extract, and why and where.''
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report shows that, on average, one-third of Earth's habitats have been damaged by humans.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Emissions Reductions is Top Environmental Concern for U.S. Businesses
The top concern of U.S. businesses for climate change and environmental issues is reducing carbon emissions, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Appetite for Change global survey.
U.S. survey respondents ranked reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions as the issue to most impact their companies over the next two to five years (16 percent), followed by new regulation, (13 percent), energy efficiency (12 percent), and legislation/new laws (11 percent).
“The Obama Administration recently announced that the federal government would reduce its own carbon footprint by 28 percent by 2020. If the government were to push down that requirement through its supply chain to all government contractors and suppliers, the impact on U.S. business would be quite significant,” says Kathy Nieland, leader of the Sustainability and Climate Change practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Eighty-seven percent of U.S. survey respondents say change is likely over the next few years as a result of the climate change and environmental debate. Twenty-eight percent believe these changes could be significant.
Although more than half the respondents (55 percent) noted that the climate change and environmental debate has had an impact on the way their organization conducts business 45 percent said it has had little if no impact at all.
The survey also finds that there is broad-based support for tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Eighty-eight percent of American companies surveyed said that tax incentives were effective in encouraging businesses to reduce their environmental impact, although 67 percent said that tax incentives currently in place are not sufficiently motivating them to change their business behavior to obtain them.
One in four U.S. respondents (23 percent) said government should have primary responsibility for leading behavioral change around climate initiatives, rather than businesses overall or their own industry. In comparison, 44 percent of respondents globally said government should have primary responsibility in this area.
A significantly higher proportion of U.S. respondents (38 percent) want business/the market to have primary responsibility for leading behavioral change, compared with only 18 percent globally.
A majority (56 percent) of U.S. respondents do not feel that government engages effectively with business to ensure its environmental policies take industry views into account. Only 17 percent said they believe the government has a clear, unambiguous policy with regard to environmental economic instruments.
Another finding shows that U.S. businesses are split on whether voluntary programs to disclose their carbon emissions results in a reduction of their environmental impact. Fifty percent said they are not very/not at all effective, while the remaining 50 percent say they are effective.
More than four in 10 (44 percent) of respondents said the potential cost savings from introducing energy-efficient measures was “very influential” on their organization’s environmental behavior.
U.S. survey respondents ranked reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions as the issue to most impact their companies over the next two to five years (16 percent), followed by new regulation, (13 percent), energy efficiency (12 percent), and legislation/new laws (11 percent).
“The Obama Administration recently announced that the federal government would reduce its own carbon footprint by 28 percent by 2020. If the government were to push down that requirement through its supply chain to all government contractors and suppliers, the impact on U.S. business would be quite significant,” says Kathy Nieland, leader of the Sustainability and Climate Change practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Eighty-seven percent of U.S. survey respondents say change is likely over the next few years as a result of the climate change and environmental debate. Twenty-eight percent believe these changes could be significant.
Although more than half the respondents (55 percent) noted that the climate change and environmental debate has had an impact on the way their organization conducts business 45 percent said it has had little if no impact at all.
The survey also finds that there is broad-based support for tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Eighty-eight percent of American companies surveyed said that tax incentives were effective in encouraging businesses to reduce their environmental impact, although 67 percent said that tax incentives currently in place are not sufficiently motivating them to change their business behavior to obtain them.
One in four U.S. respondents (23 percent) said government should have primary responsibility for leading behavioral change around climate initiatives, rather than businesses overall or their own industry. In comparison, 44 percent of respondents globally said government should have primary responsibility in this area.
A significantly higher proportion of U.S. respondents (38 percent) want business/the market to have primary responsibility for leading behavioral change, compared with only 18 percent globally.
A majority (56 percent) of U.S. respondents do not feel that government engages effectively with business to ensure its environmental policies take industry views into account. Only 17 percent said they believe the government has a clear, unambiguous policy with regard to environmental economic instruments.
Another finding shows that U.S. businesses are split on whether voluntary programs to disclose their carbon emissions results in a reduction of their environmental impact. Fifty percent said they are not very/not at all effective, while the remaining 50 percent say they are effective.
More than four in 10 (44 percent) of respondents said the potential cost savings from introducing energy-efficient measures was “very influential” on their organization’s environmental behavior.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)