Regimes won't halt climate change
April 7, 2011 By Alvin Powell
“Stop pretending that government will play a role, because it won’t,” said Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, during a talk at the Harvard University Center for the Environment. Credit: Justin Ide/Harvard Staff Photographer
The director of Columbia Universitys Earth Institute delivered a pessimistic assessment Tuesday (April 5) of the chances for significant U.S. climate change legislation, calling on the worlds academics to help find a workable path to a low-carbon global economy.
Stop pretending that government will play a role, because it wont, said Jeffrey Sachs, a former Harvard professor and now a professor at Columbia who is a special adviser to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. We need a massive intellectual effort led by the expert community worldwide.
In an hour-long Science Center talk, part of the Harvard University Center for the Environments Future of Energy lecture series, Sachs delivered a scathing review of U.S. actions to counteract human-induced climate change, saying the government has basically done nothing since agreeing to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The framework, Sachs said, was a good international agreement, because it acknowledged the danger of climate change and committed nations to doing something to fight it. Those actions were to be spelled out in subsequent protocols. But the only agreement adopted was the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States refused to ratify and which is set to expire next year.
Sachs blamed the U.S. refusal to act on the power and influence of the oil and coal industries. Opponents have effectively stalled action by using lobbyists, political contributions, and an effective public relations campaign that questions climate change science.
Because the United States is one of the largest global emitters of greenhouse gases, and another large emitter, China, is waiting for the United States to act first, American dithering has effectively delayed meaningful action across the globe, Sachs said.
No president since George H.W. Bush has honestly taken on this issue not Clinton, not Bush Junior, not Obama, because theyre scared of the interests, Sachs said.
Though Sachs credited Europe and Japan with taking some meaningful steps, he said the problem globally has worsened since 1992. The conversations he has had with scientists indicate the problem is worse than is widely known and is accelerating faster than expected. Recent investigations have focused on thresholds that trigger natural feedback loops that, once greenhouse gas concentrations are high enough, will make it extremely difficult to turn conditions around.
Its worse than we think, Sachs said. Climate change has started. Its serious. It is impacting the worlds food supply, and its going to accelerate.
Though Sachs said the solutions must come from the academic and expert community worldwide, he didnt let climate scientists off the hook. The scientific community has been too sensitive to criticism by climate-change deniers, Sachs said, giving them credibility and wasting valuable time responding to attacks like those levied in Climategate, when leaked emails prompted charges of scientific fraud, since refuted.
They know we will engage our time and energy for a year for every accusation they make while they watch us run around in circles, Sachs said.
To be fair, Sachs said, the problem is an extremely difficult one. Because it deals with the energy supply, remedying it requires painful changes at the heart of the economy of every country. It is also complex, centered on a global climate system not yet fully understood, including multiple interactions with other natural and manmade systems. The problem also requires international cooperation to solve it, something that has never been a strength of humankind.
Sachs called for a worldwide effort by scientists, mainly at universities but some from companies as well. Their task, he said, will be to plot a path toward de-carbonizing the global economy, answering questions about climate change science, determining which technologies are viable, and ultimately coming up with a plan that takes the world toward an energy supply much less dependent on fossil fuels within 40 or 50 years.
We have to get started, and we have to do things at an accelerated pace, Sachs said.
Provided by
Harvard University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
7 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
20 hours ago |
4.5 / 5 (20) |
1
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.
20 hours ago |
5 / 5 (3) |
2
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.
20 hours ago |
5 / 5 (4) |
1
Astronauts enter world's 1st private supply ship
(AP) -- Space station astronauts floated into the Dragon on Saturday, a day after its heralded arrival as the world's first commercial supply ship.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
20 hours ago |
5 / 5 (6) |
0
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Family history of Alzheimer's affects functional connectivity
(HealthDay) -- Cognitively normal individuals with a family history of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) may display lower resting state functional connectivity in the default mode network (DMN) of the brain, ...
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
Sachs is wrong, there are no adverse effects from global warming. There are massive beneficial effects from increased CO2 from a huge increase in plant vigor.
Certainly nothing is accelerating - not flood nor drought, hurricanes nor tornadoes, disease nor famine, humidity nor dryness, warm nor cold, nor sea temperature or levels. Where are the signs of this epic catastrophe?
Their theories suck. None of their predictions have come true. They believe their computer games, er, models forgetting they are fancy video simulations of long strings of assumptions and choices.
Global warming alarmism is a thoroughly political enterprise. It is collapsing because it is a failure a fundamental of science - prediction.
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (5)
And then there is the "Not In My Backyard" syndrome that must be stopped. The hippies want wind power, but only if they cannot hear or see the the wind towers, or if it is guaranteed not hurt birds.
America has large swatches of unused land in the west which can be covered by solar panels, but, no, that might get in the way of some animals.
Make up your minds! If you want solar, wind and water-based electricity, you have to sacrifice something.
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
The first step is the 'expert' community to establish standards of integrity and hold those experts to that standard.
Every month, the 'experts' make a claim that conflicts with previous assertions.
Unfortunately too many 'experts' are not rewarded for saying, "I don't know."
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Seem we ha a shill quoting crap
"Drought linked to climate change has reversed a decades-long trend of increased global plant growth, according to a new analysis of NASA satellite data.
Earth has done an ecological about-face, a NASA statement said. Global plant productivity that once flourished under warming temperatures and a lengthened growing season is now on the decline, struck by the stress of drought."
http://green.blog...y-finds/
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Corporations, not being human, don't care if they die trying for maximum profit, and if they kill a few billion humans, well, they don't care about that either.
Humans may die of corporate infection.
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Do you have any data - research - published articles to support your craziness? I guess it is fun claiming that you know better than the the vast majority of scientists who are studying the problem. Sadly we have to sit and watch all the nonsense - hoping that we will try to turn the situation around before things get too dire. Probably the denier community will dissapear at that point and pretend they were concerned about their fellow humans all along. Sigh!
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (4)
Well, I've SEEN energy companies who have greenhouses where they pump the exhaust CO2 from their generators into the greenhouses to grow tomatoes because the tomatoes grow faster and fuller in the pressence of abnormally high CO2 concentrations...
This was even shown on television on one of the science channels.
Apr 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
You are very wrong my friend.
And abnormally high H2O+mineral concentrations.
Seriously... get some real arguments or leave it up to the real scientists.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
A warmer earth can support more food production as lands which are too cold to farm become warm enough for farming. Conversely, a cooler earth will necessarily shrink food production. With a human population of about 6.9 billion and rising, it seems clear that a warming earth is preferable to a cooling earth.
Human beings did not initiate the current warming period nor did we sustain it during the last 12,000 years. Our influence, if any, is a minor part of processes we poorly understand.
The good news is that climate has been changing beneficially for the last 12,000 years.
The bad news is that some people promote return to the good old days, even though a significant change in direction would likely result in the death of billions of human beings.
The sad news is that AGW is really a tool by socialist forces for the worldwide redistribution of wealth.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
The rest of your post is merely undiluted ideological poison.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I've had many conversations with wealthy, passionate libertarian/conservative businessmen about climate change. No amount of evidence or rational discourse is persuasive to them. To them, AGW is the harbinger of a global socialism that includes command & control of the economy by academics & bureaucrats, massive transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations to fix the damage caused by AGW & predictably a lot of "oops,we got this part wrong & need to do it over another way." All while the effects of climate change play out for the next couple hundred years.
I've come to understand that an AGW denier is shorthand for an visceral reaction to the above scenario. I think that path is blocked. Maybe that's what Sachs is saying.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
It is not a visceral reaction to note the socialist agenda of AGW proponents.
Try arguing effectively that carbon credits are anything but a scheme to transfer wealth.
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
So what socialist agenda are you talking about? Protecting the world from the likes of you and the moron patrol?
Apr 08, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Also, transfer from whom and to whom? From polluters to non-polluters? That's what the right-wing calls "market incentive", is it not? In fact, the whole carbon-trading idea is right-wing market-based. The left wing just wanted a straightforward carbon tax...
Apr 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Debating the science is a smokescreen. This issue is about what sets the global agenda for the next century. I think it's realistic to believe that the acceleration of AGW effects will force that agenda by 2040. What will set the agenda for the next 30 years? Right now it's oil, tax, deregulation & debt policy. All favored concerns of conservatives and libertarians.
Apr 10, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
The socialist agenda of transferring wealth from industrialized nations, particularly the United States, to nations who are not very industrialized.
Note that it is not about pollution. China is massively polluting but is exempt from carbon taxes.
It is all about money, power and socialism. Particularly socialism.
Apr 10, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Have you heard to how a metabolic system will adapt to the input and chose the most energy efficient way to perform the task? Also have you heard of micronutrients? These are controlling the growth of plants not CO2 idgit. With more CO2 the micronutrients of the soil will just get exchausted faster. Try to combat nitrogen deficiency globally in a way that will not pollute the rivers and the seas and create dead zones. You joes seem to be full of ideas....without really thinking through your babbling...
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
It's not "all about money, power and socialism". We want U.S. to LEAD the world in green innovation. Instead, we're doing our best to abdicate such leadership. We truly are a nation in decline...
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Of course. You don't count pollution when you have 1.3 billion people in a single country. That's the way to be green -- more people so that the pollution can be divided by more people.
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
So unless you propose we declare WAR on China and FORCE them to pollute less, I don't see what your point might be. Pragmatically speaking, the best we can do is spearhead the transition toward clean energy -- and hope the rest of the world (including the developing world) follows in our wake.
Of course the other alternative is to stick our collective heads in the sand, and do nothing at all. IMHO, that's just about as reasonable as whistling past the graveyard -- though still immensely profitable for the fossil energy status quo (who all appear to think they'll be so rich in the end, it won't matter how much damage they've caused...)
Apr 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That means, even without any additional global population growth, exponentially growing demand for raw resources, and exponentially growing emissions. If we opt to do nothing in the name of short-term profit, we are going to be royally screwing our descendents in the process. Which is OK by many, but speaking for myself, it is NOT OK by me.
The markets (and the free-market fundamentalists) always and consistently fail to plan for the long term. The processes and effects we are confronted with, are LONG TERM.
Apr 12, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 12, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
AGW and Carbon Credits has nothing to do with a free market or corporate systems.
Carbon credits are a method to transfer wealth from industrial countries to third world countries. That is socialism.
Apr 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
How does an item that, in the US, is only sold in the US, to US businesses a method to transfer wealth to foreign nations?
Apr 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If you attend a gathering on the 'other side of town' you are likely to hear things that sound wrong to you, but seem quite reasonable to all the people there.
When you try to create a city-wide policy, both parts of town should be invited to express their opinion and be taken seriously.
This guy is essentially saying that one side of town should just stop listening to the other side because it is a waste of time and it's just slowing down their effort to do what they want.
I don't think that is the right way to go about doing things.
His comment that the climategate claims were refuted is true only if you are willing to accept the two inquiries as legitimate. People on the other side of town would not agree.
Apr 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
This isn't even about the science any more. It's about reputations and pissing rights as well as money. C&T is a money grab by investors. Period.
Apr 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
According to an environmental looser. So what is wrong with folks making a buck on solar.
Apr 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Solar is great, especially concentrated solar thermal, and it is getting very near the point where the technology will really take off on its own without government help. No problem from me. You must have me confused with the idiots who don't think alternative energy is a good idea.
You say I speak BS, then you say the same thing I said? So its BS when you said it too, right?
What do you mean? Are you talking about global climate change, or are you talking about global agricultural needs, or global population distributions, or global politics, or advancements in technology that lead to cultural changes, decline of major religions? Please clarify which you think is biggest.
Apr 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That brings up an interesting line of thought/questions.
What I'm wondering is, what would I do if I were a multi-billionair looking for the most strategic way to invest my money for the future. The current trend seems to be investment in developing nations, supplying the cheap things people want and need in a growing but poor economy like India or China. American and EU firms are selling their first born children to get the rights to do business in those places. Unless we start having wars caused by food and water shortages, I would doubt that climate change will be a larger world economic driver than growing third world economies. So I think I disagree with you if you are saying that you think the best direction for American industry to head is towards alternative energy products. I think medical research aimed at providing affordable health care for the third world is probably a better direction. It's a tough call though. They need cheap energy too.
Apr 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Apr 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The new CA law says that they must obtain 33% of their power from renewables by 2020, but strangely, that doesn't include hydro-electric. Excluding hydro, CA generated 15% of their electricity with what they call renewables in 2009. Here's a link to the official CA breakdown of sources:
http://www.caiso....tch.html
As you can see, wind is larger at peak than all the other sources together. With something like half of the total 15%, that comes to more like 7% of the total rather than your 2-3% number. What was your source?
The cost of grid maintenance is different from the cost of grid upgrades needed to integrate intermitent sources.
Storage at a community level may work, but on a private home scale it isn't practical with current tech. Even on a community scale, it is doubtful the cost would make sense. Now, if you do something silly to drive energy costs sky-high, then you could change that. As a single father barely making it, I am opposed.
Apr 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The following from the California Public Utilities Commission details the mix and plans for the future as well as why small scale projects are unlikely to work, even with strong administrative backing. See Part IV beginning on page 8 for details.
http://www.cpuc.c...ture.pdf
Apr 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 22, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http://energyalma...wer.html
I don't see why not. For instance, something like this:
http://beaconpowe...y-25.asp
Or a water electrolysis/reconstitution cycle (now that effective, durable non-Platinum catalysts for hydrogen fuel cells are starting to emerge...)
Obviously, they're very expensive right now because they're boutique items. With mass-production and mass-deployment, costs will plummet.
Apr 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If you click on the link for yesterday's numbers, it shows the wind contribution for 24 hours to be about 40% of all "renewables", and about 6.4% of the total power for the day, which is quite close to my 7% estimate.
Here's a breakdown on different storage methods at the DoE web site:
http://www.netl.d...alII.pdf
They actually say whether each type is suitable for distributed energy sources like solar. Notice that many systems are a problem due to hazardous mat. or complicated maintenance that would prohibit community level use. High initial cost and high/frequent replacement cost is another problem with most systems suitable for anything more than a few seconds of switchover power.
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
SOLAR IS GOOD.
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Did you even read the discussion I was having, or the link I provided?
You have changed to a completely different topic.
We are not talking about whether you can get power from solar or wind or anything else. We are talking about how you allow the grid to deal with power sources that do not allow you to control when or how much power they produce. As demonstrated by the situation on the west coast this year and last year, having too much of a good thing at the wrong time can be a bad thing.
So, we were talking about how to store extra electricity so that you can use it when you need it. Ideally you need storage capacity of at least a couple days but a week is better. Pumped hydro is the best we have, but that's limited to places where you can build two lakes at different elevations close together. Pink suggested community projects, but the above DoE analysis says that big utility scale storage is the only viable way to go about it.
I agree that solar is great.
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
However, different utilities systems have different operating parameters (voltage, frequency). The grid components that connect one system to another are expensive and have limited capacity. As more intermitent sources come online, such as wind, someone will need to pay to upgrade those grid components and/or build energy storage components into the grids. So, who pays for those facility upgrades? The wind producers don't own the grid, but it's them who are causing the oversupply problem, and the grid owners are mandated by law to let the wind people connect and buy their power. In the end it's the consumers who will pay the price, and power is already expensive in that region. It's a case of unintended concequences from a new technology. We'll iron out the problems, but it's okay to ask if we might want to plan a little better from now on.
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That's the legitimate beef that the grid owners/operators have right now. They are stuck trying to play catch-up on major infrastructure upgrades because nobody listened when they said this would happen. There should have/could have been a public works project (funded by the recovery money?) funded by the state/federal governments to upgrade the grids prior to all this wind power coming online. And we've got a whole bunch more of it scheduled, and we're still not upgrading the grid like we need to, so we'll continue to play catch-up and waste energy (transmitting energy from one grid to another is wastefull) and money (without a contract, they usually just have to give the power away for free, despite the costs of producing and delivering it).
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
It really could turn out to be a tragedy. The wind power could be a great thing if the grids and contracts were set up correctly ahead of time. It would be a shame if we end up seeing those windmill owners go out of business. As it stands it's costing way more to have them than what was expected, and that's really just a matter of poor planing by the government. I think most people are willing to pay a litte bit more for clean energy that doesn't come from foreign sources, but there's a limit for most people. That's especially true when you are talking about commercial power consumers. If I was opening a new plant, would I build it in CA where it'll cost me more to operate, or maybe SC, where most of the power is eihter hydro or nuclear and it's cheap? Boeing just decided on SC, so did Amazon and BMW. It's great to be green, but you gotta be smart about it.
Apr 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Smart-grid is not going to come from industry. Sure components for smart-grid will, but the regulations, and standards will come from government. (Did you read that R2). Sure some companies will invent and make money, but standards need to be made.
If there was incentive, and I think $5.00/gal is pretty good incentive, there will be a build out and engineering innovation will follow. It won't be long before utility grade ionic liquid batteries dot neighborhoods, and a house without solar is considered a home in need of repair.
Regardless, its been shown that the cheaper one can produce energy, the better off they are in terms of GDP. Unfortunately as with coal, cheap can be toxic to citizens and environment alike. So SOLAR in the North South East West
Apr 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Ionic liquid batteries are not rechargeable. NOBODY has found a way to make a rechargeable ionic liquid battery yet. Here's a nice article from a couple weeks ago from the US Naval Research Lab:
http://www.scienc...3958.htm
Trust me when I say this. The batteries we use in our daily lives are the best we've got. Electric car batteries, standard car batteries, rechargeable packs in portable electronics, etc. That is the state of the art, and none of them are anywhere near being usefull for utility scale storage beyond the special cases of emergency switch-over gap power, and load smoothing.
Solar on the private home and business scale may reach market competitive level at some point in the future, but utility scale solar is nearly there already. Solar efficiency versus cost is nowhere near being able to supply power on large scale above 40 degrees latitude.
Apr 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
To clarify, that's because the days are so short in the winter and those places have high power needs in the winter because it's cold there. Sure, in the summer the days are nice and long in the north, but they have cooler summers and the summer power needs there aren't as great as those in the south. solar just isn't a good fit up north. Heck, if you want to look at the extreme case, the arctic has a 6-month day/night cycle. It's just not financially feasable to build a huge solar power system and then have to build another whole system of some other type for the winter. Supplemental solar power, sure. Primary solar power in the north? Not any time soon.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The bottom line though, is that there is not an energy source (coal, oil, nuclear, wind, geothermal) that has the long term sustainability, capacity and accessibly as solar. It's the perfect fuel. How mankind builds it out is for capitalist and governments to decide.