Posted on

Evaluating biofuels

Government reports on biofuels talk about the “GHG savings” of biofuels made from particular crops (often referred to as biofuel “feedstocks”). This is fundamentally the wrong approach. In the attached paper, Biofuel Payback Periods (pdf), I present a method of assessing the worth of growing biofuel crops in terms of the potential of the land on which they are grown to store carbon if biofuels aren’t grown.

Just considering “GHG savings” is like comparing company profits without taking any account of the company’s size (e.g. the capital employed) – for example, £1m profits in a year might be a good performance for the local filling station but would be a disaster for, say, BP.

Posted on

Pathetic patio policy reporting

I realise that in my previous post I referred to a Guardian article “EU bid to freeze out patio heaters”.  I hadn’t intended to give the Guardian the honour or the Google benefit of my link, as I’d noticed the following meaning-free statement:

“…the Energy Saving Trust says patio heaters use as much energy as a gas stove hob does in six months.”

Is that as much energy in a week, a day or an hour as the hob uses in 6 months?  OK, maybe a few words got lost, but the fact that this sort of thing gets past the Guardian sub-editors so often suggests a culture of innumeracy.  And, indeed, if we look closer [so unreliable are numbers in Guardian articles that I often just blip over them], we see that just 2 paragraphs earlier we’re told that:

“Government figures put [annual] emissions from all domestic patio heaters at 22,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide – 0.002% of the total [annual] UK carbon dioxide emissions.”

I’ve had to add the “annual”s for clarity – this sort of vital detail is left out so often in the Guardian I barely notice it any more.

Anyway, I think to myself, that doesn’t sound quite right.  0.002 is 1/500th, and we’re talking percentages, so it’s 1/500th of 1/100th of the whole.  In other words, we need to multiply the 22,200 tonnes by 100 * 500, that is by 50,000, to get the “total [annual] UK carbon dioxide emissions”.  This comes to 1.11 billion tonnes of CO2, about  – in fact, suspiciously, almost exactly – twice the actual figure for UK annual emissions, according to DEFRA data.  So the true figure is that about 0.004% of the UK’s annual CO2 emissions are attributable to patio heaters.

I should say that the Guardian is not alone in this particular error.  The Independent has this to say on the topic:

“Government figures show that domestic patio heaters produce a total of 22,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 0.002 per cent of the total UK carbon dioxide emissions, while televisions produce 4.6 million tonnes of CO2 each year.”

A startlingly similar paragraph to the one in the Guardian, I think you’ll agree!  I presume this error originated in a 3rd party source – perhaps a government statement, or maybe from someone with an interest in keeping the figure as low as possible – but the culture of  innumeracy in the media allows such errors to slip through time and time again.

*** Rant alert ***

As a sociologist and sometime class warrior, I observe this systematic journalistic innumeracy and ask myself, cui bono? – who benefits?  Well, since numeracy would be a desirable quality in a journalist, and the supply of journos far exceeds demand, why wouldn’t strict tests be used to select those permitted to enter the profession?  This is the case for many other professions – or does anyone think innumerate doctors would be a good idea?  Of course, a historical explanation is called for, but the result of this institutional characteristic is that meritocratic considerations are less important than – IMHO – they should be in controlling entry to the profession.  And perhaps, I suggest, privilege is more important.  Why do I say this?  Well, a privileged background is likely to supply contacts which always help when trying to enter a profession where there are limited opportunities.  Privilege also gives prospective journos the ability – and the confidence – to make financial sacrifices, which are necessary to gain a foothold in the profession.  In other words, we end up having our opinions disproportionately shaped by the comfortable middle-class.

*** Rant over ***

The story goes on.  “Eco soundings” in today’s Guardian notes that:

“No initiative from the European parliament has attracted quite so much attention as last week’s 592-26 vote in favour of phasing out patio heaters. The 26 opponents almost all came from the UK Independence Party… “

Incredible.  It crossed my mind to drop our middle-class friends a letter.  Surely, at least one of the 592 MEPs must have considered that this action might have unintended consequences?  Clearly the European institutions are now so delirious at the thought of having a project that justifies their existence, that rational thought is starting to desert them entirely.

I found it so hard to believe that virtually none of our MEPs is able to separate in their minds what will happen if their policy is adopted, from what they would like to happen, that I wondered if in fact it was me who was mistaken (it wouldn’t be the first time).  I started to wonder if Brussels was in fact thinking of banning (or trying to ban) outdoor heating rather than outdoor heaters.  Will the practice be banned, or just the products?  And of course, the numerous media reports by the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph all fail to provide sufficient clarity.   I have to find what appears to be a definitive source, which clearly says:

“MEPs urged the Commission to establish timetables for the withdrawal from the market of all the least energy-efficient items of equipment, appliances and other energy-using products, such as patio heaters.

How can it be so difficult for our news sources to get this point across clearly?

*** Rant alert ***

Our MEPs are clearly quite happy for landlords to use less efficient means – such as  electric heaters – to heat their outdoor spaces, as long as it looks  like they’re doing something.  As usual, government measures to try to solve a problem risk being totally counter-productive.  Because, of course, it’s not really about solving problems at all – it’s all about maintaining or increasing their own authority.

*** Rant over ***

Posted on

Pathetic patio policy

It’s back to the 80s! Bring on “Ashes to Ashes“! The British media are in a frenzy. The Eurocrats are once again trying to take away our hard-won freedoms! What were we fighting for at Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain? They’ll be telling us we can only have straight bananas next!

Yes, those EU parliamentarians are questioning the wisdom of heating the outdoors.

A more rational response would be to say “fair point mes frères” (as “If…” might put it) and consider what might be a sensible policy response.

Let’s cut to the chase. Government edicts have a nasty habit of creating unintended adverse consequences. Indeed, much of the UK’s use of patio heaters is blamed on the recent ban on smoking in indoor spaces. The stated objective was to reduce passive smoking, in particular by bar staff. I won’t argue with that but the Government’s mistake was (as usual) to go further and try to tell us all what to do. Restricting people’s rights (i.e. to smoke) where these impinge on the rights of others (i.e. to breathe clean air) is one thing, but going any further than that is unjustifiable. Politicians appear to be the last to realise that the world has changed: no longer do people accept the authority of government to moralise and control their behaviour. Government should just ensure order. But I digress. In this instance, it’s quite clear that indoor smoking rooms (separately ventilated and away from where drinks are served) should have been allowed. And I haven’t even yet mentioned the light pollution, noise pollution, (and outdoor smoke and pavement congestion) I have been subjected to since the ban.

Sometimes even the “unintended” part of the phrase “unintended consequences” is barely audible. The EU, for example, wants 20% renewable energy by 2020. This is supposed to help us towards reducing GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 (or something). Never mind that biofuels – which increase GHG emissions – count towards the 20% renewables, but nuclear power – which reduces GHG emissions – doesn’t. Methinks the devious hands of vested interests too easily steer the guiding hand of government (if you get the gist).

There will also be other – perhaps truly unintended – consequences because of contradictions between the 20% renewables target and the 20% GHG reduction targets. Choices have to be made. If we invest in renewables then maybe we’ll invest less in efficiency. CHP – avoiding transmission losses – would (presumably) not count towards the 20% renewables target. And, a gripe I’ve made before (there’ll be a link when I remember where): policies such as the ludicrously expensive feed-in tariffs (which make the British Renewables Obligation look positively rational) employed in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent have the effect of diverting the world’s limited supply of solar panels to Northern Europe and away from regions where they would actually generate more energy.

The question of the precise unintended consequences of a ban on the sale of patio heaters was at the back of my mind at the weekend when I was sitting in a semi-enclosed outdoor area – in a chilly Rotterdam, as it happens. When I got up to leave, I realised that, as well as a patio-heater, there was another heat source behind me. Yes, a wall-mounted electric heater.

Now, until our electricity supply is decarbonised it is much more efficient to generate heat by burning gas (for example) locally, than in a power-station in order to produce electricity to turn back into heat. Losses of heat at the power-station and power during transmission (etc.) make heating with electricity 2.3 times as bad for global warming than using gas patio heaters, according to this thoughtful article in The Register.

The Register article suggests that:

“…depending on usage, electric heaters could be more efficient than LPG ones. If the area to be heated isn’t actually going to be occupied for most of the day, then electricity is probably better…”

But now I recollect my return journey to the UK, on an also chilly Sunday morning last weekend. I was in the waiting room at Bishop’s Stortford for an extended period, marvelling at the comparison of the organised incompetence that is rail transport in the UK (the train I was waiting for was apparently delayed by both a broken rail and a defective train) compared to the miraculous am-I-really-awake efficiency of the Dutch railways. There was an electric heater on the waiting-room wall. The only problem was that it was operated by a timer-switch. It stayed on for 5 minutes or so. Amusingly, and typically, there was no sign advertising that the switch was intended for customer operation. It was only after sitting shivering for 15 minutes that – in a moment of mild insubordination – I pressed it to see what would happen. Was the device on the wall actually a heater and not an air-conditioner? Would it work? Would the station staff come running?

The heater helped, but not that much. I thought at the time that the waiting room might have been warm had the heater been on continuously for some hours. The point is that The Register overstates the case for the electric heater. Heat on continuously warms the whole of the air in a room, the furniture, the walls, the ceiling and the floor. Heat is a cumulative thing. Flashing back to the enclosed outdoor space in Rotterdam, then, if you took away the patio heater, but wanted your customers to feel just as warm, you would need to put in just as much heat with additional electric (or other) heaters as the patio heaters are supplying now.

The correct policy (as ever) is not micromanagement by government, but policies aimed purely at increasing the cost of producing GHGs. Millions of consumers and businesses will then make choices – in ways government is unable to predict – that result in reduced GHG emissions. The invisible hand of the market will be much more effective than the clumsy hand of government.

Posted on

A Case Study of Personal Harassment and Amplification of Nonsense by the Denialist PR Machine

A Case Study of Personal Harassment and Amplification of Nonsense by the Denialist PR Machine
(pdf)
, by John R. Mashey

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – the idea that recent temperature rises are substantially caused by humans is supported by a very strong scientific consensus. But for ideological or economic reasons some people are absolutely sure that it cannot be true, frequently attack it and are often called contrarians or denialists as a result. They try to manufacture doubt on the consensus among the public, not by doing good science, but by using PR techniques well-honed in fights over tobacco-disease linkage. These are amplified by widespread use of the Internet, which is at least as good at propagating nonsense as truth.

A recent, well-coordinated transatlantic attempt to attack the consensus included:
-A not-very-good anti-consensus paper written in the UK by an NHS King’s College endocrinologist, Mr Klaus-Martin Schulte, not obviously qualified for this task,
-of which much was posted by Viscount Christopher Monckton at a Washington, DC denialist website of Robert Ferguson, and publicized by Marc Morano of Senator James Inhofe’s staff.
-The non-story then propagated rapidly and pervasively through the blogosphere.
-This expanded further into personal harassment of a US researcher, Naomi Oreskes

Posted on

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Science

by Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then–EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”. Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

Posted on

Benn announces ’stronger’ climate change bill

Benn announces ‘stronger’ climate change bill

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2201343,00.html
Rosalind Ryan, Elizabeth Stewart and agencies
Monday October 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The government today announced a “stronger, more effective and more
transparent” climate change bill, following a period of public
consultation and scrutiny.

The environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said in a speech at Kew
Gardens that the amended bill was a “ground-breaking blueprint” to
help lower Britain’s carbon emissions and would strengthen the
country’s position in response to climate change.

Mr Benn said: “We need to step up the fight against climate change and
we need to do it fast. The draft bill we set out earlier this year and
have now refined is a ground-breaking blueprint for moving the UK
towards ea low carbon economy.”

By taking a strong domestic stance on climate change, the environment
secretary said it would help Britain make its case for change
overseas.

The suggested amendments go further than the draft bill on climate
change published in March. Key among these is the possible inclusion,
for the first time, of emissions from the aviation and shipping
industry in the UK’s targets, something for which environmental
campaigners have been clamouring.

The revised bill also raises the possibility of raising the emissions
reductions further. Environmental groups have called for an 80%
target, which they say needs to be set before the proposed five-year
carbon budgets are decided on, and annual targets to ensure
year-on-year cuts are being made.

The new proposed climate change committee will also be given more
teeth, with greater independence from the government and its own chief
executive. In future, the government will have to seek advice from the
committee before amending any emissions targets in the bill.

The bill will make the UK the first country to put reducing carbon
emissions into law. The bill, to be published next month, will put a
legal duty on the government to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050.

As Mr Benn told the Guardian today in his first major interview on
global warming since taking over at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, he believes that improving home energy
efficiency is crucial to meeting targets for reducing carbon
emissions. He said the bill would lay plans for “one-stop-shops” for
homeowners to make their houses more environmentally friendly, by
offering advice on greener living, installation services and loans for
equipment such as solar panels.

While the planned legislation has been welcomed by environmental
groups, concerns have been raised that the targets do not go far
enough and the bill should include sectors such as aviation and
shipping to be fully effective.

The original draft of the bill left out industries including aviation,
and set a target of 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, which
campaigners claim is too low.

In his speech to the Labour party conference last month Gordon Brown
announced he would be asking the new climate change committee,
proposed under the bill, to review whether that target was strong
enough.

But environmental campaigners are sceptical that the government will
be able to meet a more robust long-term target when it is currently
failing to achieve its own short-term domestic target of a 20%
reduction in emissions.

MPs also called today for the creation of a new Whitehall body to
drive climate change policy. The environmental audit committee (EAC)
said the government’s current framework for dealing with climate
change was “confused” and did not promote effective action on reducing
emissions.

The committee suggested there should be a new climate change
secretary, based in the cabinet, who would be in charge of the
government’s climate policy.

The MPs also recommended the creation of a new cross-departmental
climate change minister who could attend cabinet meetings.

The EAC’s chairman, Tim Yeo, said: “Th UK must be equipped to meet
both the challenge of a carbon constrained world and the likely
climate change impacts that will occur. It would be disastrous if bad
planning policy meant that today’s new developments become tomorrow’s
climate slums.”

Posted on

The Day The Earth Nearly Died

Content-Disposition: inline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdied.shtml

The Day The Earth Nearly Died – programme summary

250 million years ago, long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the land =
and oceans teemed with life. This was the Permian, a golden era of biodiver=
sity that was about to come to a crashing end. Within just a few thousand y=
ears, 95% of the lifeforms on the planet would be wiped out, in the biggest=
mass extinction Earth has ever known. What natural disaster could kill on =
such a massive scale? It is only in recent years that evidence has begun to=
emerge from rocks in Antarctica, Siberia and Greenland.=20

"At the end of the Permian you'd see virtually nothing alive&q=
uot;
Professor Peter Ward, University of Washington

=

The demise of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago (at the so-called K/T =
boundary), was as nothing compared to the Permian mass extinction. The K/T =
event killed off 60% of life on Earth; the Permian event 95%. Geological da=
ta to explain the destruction have been hard to find, simply because the ro=
cks are so old and therefore subject to all kinds of erosion processes. It =
seems plausible that some kind of catastrophic environmental change must ha=
ve made life untenable across vast swathes of the planet.=20

"A volcanic eruption ten thousand times larger than man has ever s=
een"
Professor Vincent Courtillon, University of Paris

The world's biggest volcanoes

In the early 1990s, the hunt for evidence headed for a region of Siberia=
known as the Traps. Today it's a sub-Arctic wilderness but 250 million=
years ago, over 200,000km=B2 of it was a blazing torrent of lava. The Sibe=
rian Traps were experiencing a 'flood basalt eruption', the biggest=
volcanic effect on Earth. Instead of isolated volcanoes spewing out lava, =
the crust split and curtains of lava were released. And the Siberian flood =
eruption lasted for millions of years. Could volcanic activity over such a =
long time alter the climate enough to kill off 95% of life on Earth?=20

Vincent Courtillon used a much smaller flood basalt eruption, in Iceland=
in 1783, as the basis for some calculations. Writing in the 18th century, =
Benjamin Franklin (then American Ambassador in Paris) described 1784 as a y=
ear without a summer. Ash from the eruption blacked out the sky and crops f=
ailed across Europe. Courtillon extrapolated the climatic impact of the Sib=
erian Trap eruption from the records of the Icelandic event. He deduced tha=
t a 'nuclear winter' lasting decades would be followed by rapid glo=
bal warming due to the increased level of greenhouse gases in the post-erup=
tion atmosphere.=20

"It's the equivalent of a billion atomic bombs going off at th=
e same place"
Dr Michael Rampino, New York University

Vincent believes the disruption of cooling followed by warming could cau=
se the Permian extinction but other geologists disagree. Peter Ward returne=
d to the Siberian Trap data to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide – and =
global warming – that could result. His worst case scenario is a temperatur=
e rise of 5=B0C, enough to kill off many species but not the 95% wipeout th=
at ended the Permian.=20

If the Siberian eruptions were not deadly enough, what other effects mig=
ht be at work? To try to answer that, Michael Rampino set out to establish =
an even more fundamental piece of data: how long did the extinction take? H=
e studied rock sedimentation rates in the Alps and concluded that the Permi=
an killer had stalked the planet for just 8,000-10,000 years, far less than=
had been thought. His mind turned to ways of causing such catastrophic des=
truction in – on geological timescales – the blink of an eye. He wanted to =
explore the possibility of a meteorite strike.=20

The hunt for meteor evidence

Meteor strikes that wipe out life may sound like sci-fi but it's gen=
erally accepted that an impact sparked the K/T extinction and the end of th=
e dinosaurs. That meteorite was 10km wide and left a crater in what is now =
the Gulf of Mexico. The dust raised by such an impact could make global tem=
peratures plummet overnight. How big would any Permian meteorite have to be=
? Rampino suggests one just 50% bigger could cause sufficient environmental=
change. There is one huge flaw in this argument: where is the crater?=20

"The original crater is completely drowned by lava"

Adrian Jones, University College London

Adrian Jones models the effects of impact on the Earth's geological =
crust. He has a hunch that meteorite crater hunters are looking for the wro=
ng thing. After an impact, the crust rebounds to form a large shallow crate=
r. If the meteorite if truly massive though, an extra process occurs. The c=
ombined heat of the impact and rebound is enough to melt the crust. Lava fl=
oods through and the crater disappears beneath new crust. If he's right=
, the Permian meteorite crater can't be found because it doesn't ex=
ist.=20

"When a meteorite wiped out the dinosaurs it left ample evidence i=
n its wake"
Greg Rettaleck, University of Oregon

All of which serves to help proponents of the meteorite impact theory. I=
ts detractors, though, point out that meteors leave several trails in their=
wake – fragments of minerals that have come from space. Greg Rettaleck mou=
nted an expedition in the mid-1990s looking at Permian rock beds in the Ant=
arctic. Some of the quartz grains looked like they had been fractured by a =
very energetic process – a meteorite?=20

Although this was evidence for a strike of some sort, there were unanswe=
red questions as well. The K/T meteorite left a trail of iridium – characte=
ristic of space materials – around the world. Yet there is no evidence the =
Permian strike did the same.=20

"No need to guess any more… the whole extinction from beginning =
to end"
Paul Wignall, University of Leeds

Paul Wignall is a British geologist who doubts a meteorite caused the ma=
ss extinction 250 million years ago. In the late 1990s he had a hunch of a =
way to prove his beliefs, a good idea of where to look for new evidence: Gr=
eenland. Permian rocks are hard to find because they are usually just thin =
layers, yet his trip yielded rock beds metres thick. This was more than jus=
t new evidence; it was the best he could have hoped to find.=20

Carbon copious

The Greenland rock told a very different story to that Michael Rampino h=
ad found in the Alps. Instead of a rapid event of under 10,000 years, the e=
xtinction beds Wignall examined lasted 80,000 years and showed three distin=
ctive phases in the plant and animal fossils they contained. The extinction=
appeared to kill land and marine life selectively at different times. Such=
a long process contradicted the catastrophic meteorite theory but Wignall =
couldn't explain what=20
had come close to killing all life on Earth. His best clue was the c=
arbon isotope balance in the rock, which showed an increase in carbon-12 ov=
er time. The standard explanation – rotting vegetation – could not have cau=
sed such a marked effect. Wignall was curious what this could mean.=20

An answer came from geologist Gerry Dickens, who knew just how to get la=
rge amounts of carbon-12 rapidly, thanks to his work with offshore drilling=
companies in the USA. He had spent time helping them try to tap reserves o=
f frozen methane hydrate from the seabed of the Gulf of Mexico. He knew met=
hane hydrate is found around many of the world's coasts. Dickens wonder=
ed how large a rise in sea temperature was necessary to cause the solid che=
mical to gasify and ascend to the atmosphere. Experiments suggested a rise =
of 5=B0C would be sufficient. And he was amazed to see how much gas came fr=
om pieces of solid methane hydrate that were placed in water.=20

"The south of England would turn into the Sahara Desert"=
Michael Benton, University of Bristol

When Paul Wignall learned of Dickens' findings, he used his carbon-1=
2 data to estimate how much methane hydrate would have to be released to af=
fect the isotope balance. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gase=
s and he deduced that unlocking frozen methane hydrate would have caused a =
temperature rise of 4-5=B0C over time. Not enough to kill off 95% of life o=
n Earth but he realised this was a compounded effect. A rise of about 5=B0C=
must already have occurred to prompt the frozen methane to melt. The combi=
ned temperature rise of 10=B0C is generally accepted as a figure able to ca=
use truly mass extinction.=20

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian T=
raps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caus=
ed by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over =
40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas l=
ived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the s=
eas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive lo=
ss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of th=
e extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,=
000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were =
extinct.=20

Posted on

Letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Cambridge Zero Carbon Society

1, Parker Street,

Cambridge

CB1 1JL

http://www.zerocarbonnow.org

27th October 2007

 

Dear Prime Minister,

 

 

We are a group of concerned scientists, economists and students from the University of Cambridge and are writing to you regarding Britain’s CO2 reduction targets as set out under the draft climate bill. We believe the climate bill is a crucial element of strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level and supports our international efforts to tackle climate change. We see the best approach as being a positive one and that Britain should lead by example, reducing its emissions to a sustainable level in a timescale that avoids dangerous climate change. Economic evidence suggests that conversion to a net zero carbon economy, when promoted by efficient economic instruments can be achieved at low cost or even with net benefit to the UK.

 

We feel it is important that the targets are chosen based on clear thinking and the most reliable up-to-date scientific evidence. We also understand the importance of a comprehensive or holistic approach taking into account pressures from the different parts of government and society.

 

Today we have been educating the public in London regarding these issues. It is important to simplify as much as possible this complex issue and demonstrate the choices we now face. We would like to draw your attention to the enclosed information sheet summarizing the fact that to prevent a 2°C increase in average global temperatures a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is needed in the UK.

For further information on some suggested policies or to hear more from us please feel free to visit our website and contact us, http://www.zerocarbonnow.org. We warmly welcome a response to this letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Stephen Stretton

 

Economist, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research

 

Stephen Rowley

 

Physicist, Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge

 

Posted on

Reponse to Lomborg ‘Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming’

Some Reviews of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg (Knopf/Cyan-Marshall Cavendish: 2007. 272 pp./256 pp. $21/£19.99)

Partha Dasgupta’s Review on Bjorn Lomoborg: Available in Nature, Vol 449|13 September 2007

Kevin Watkins’s review
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9810

Eban Goodstein’s review
“The place is somewhere in Turkey, 5,200 years ago. Noah has just gotten word about an upcoming episode of abrupt climate change, and he and his family are hard at work building an ark. The plan is to take on board mating pairs of every living thing of all flesh, every creeping thing of the ground, in order, as God put it, to keep them alive.

Up walks a man who introduces himself as an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He says, “Noah, you have to stop. We’ve run the numbers and they don’t add up. I agree that there may be a few days of rain, but if you really want to help future generations, don’t build the ark. Grow the economy!”

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/08/29/cool_it/index_np.html