As you’ve probably heard, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report from Paris today.
One thing I’ve always found strange about the climate change “debate” is that those with a vested interest in the status quo always seem to argue that climate change is a natural phenomenon, and thus we don’t need to change our behaviour. Well, fair enough, but if sea-levels rise because of a “natural phenomenon”, we are just as screwed. Regardless of the cause, shouldn’t we be trying to do something about it?
The other thing I’ve found strange is that those who oppose any kind of response to climate change often do so in economic terms (”Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a “socialist scheme” designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.“—admittedly, the letter if a few years old so who knows what our PM thinks of Kyoto now). Do such “guardians of the economy” not realize what could happen to our precious wealth when Manhattan is under water, along with parts of every other coastal city?
In light of this, I thought I might have a look at the way various news outlets were covering the “what we should do about climate change” aspect of story from Paris.
BBC
Humans blamed for climate change
Choice quote:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: “It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.
“If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are,” he told delegates in Paris.
CBC
Paris report calls climate change ‘unequivocal’
Choice quote:
“The public should not sit back and say ‘There’s nothing we can do,’ ” Steiner [executive director of the UN Environment Program] said. “Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
CNN
Report: Humans ‘very likely’ cause global warming
Choice quote:
In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for the use of more environmentally friendly technologies to “confront the serious challenge of global climate change.”
It was the first time he has discussed the issue in a State of the Union address.
The White House has said Bush’s proposals would stop the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles within 10 years.
Fox News
U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable
Funny thing is, Fox is running an AP story that is very similar to the CBC story, including the same quote I used above.
The article does say
[The report] said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.
but goes on to add
“The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don’t do something and what will happen if we do something,” said another author, Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona. “I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something.”
The word “unstoppable” doesn’t appear anywhere in the text. The closest passage I could find:
One of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, said scientists are worried that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands.
Instead, world leaders should reduce emissions and adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather, he said.
“This is just not something you can stop. We’re just going to have to live with it,” said Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “We’re creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we’ll have a different climate.”
Yeah, Fox, we wouldn’t want anyone to take this in the wrong way and throw up their hands now, would we?
i hear tell that the exxon-mobil thinktank bribed a bunch of scientists to come out against the report. hang the lot of them… well, don’t hang them, but you get my frustration.
ah, that classic false choice. standard logical fallacy, often applied here. “if we prevent global warming, the cost will be too high for business to do well” however if we don’t prevent it, the cost for business will be higher… not to mention the long-term savings from efficiency…
and that ’suck money from rich to poor’ schtick: the states in america which will be hit hardest are likely to be coal-mining states, some of the less well off states in america. however, the states likely to have an easier transition are the richer once – california, new york, massachussets. which is fine, since the standard flow of funds is from the rich “blue” states to the poorer “red” states… ironic, since it is the recipients of big government programs (at least on a state-by-state basis) are the ones who hate it…
one last thought: part of what is likely the “basically unstoppable” nature of this has to do with not being willing to do something about it. think about WWII. the US didn’t have huge manufacturing, a large air-force, sufficient navy, etc. before the war. no, the nation banded together and said “we got some shit to get done, so lets get to work”. and it happened. in 5 years we could be done with fossil fuels for electricity generation if we wanted and were willing to sacrifice/reprioritize… we could have every new car in north america going 40mpg in two model years, if we wanted. but too many assholes think what they are doing now makes too much money to bother.
again, hang the lot of them… well, not really hang them…
There was a story about the “bribes” offered to scientists on slashdot today.
Last night I heard one of the scientists in Paris interviewed on As It Happens. He likened the climate change “debate” to the debate about whether cigarettes cause cancer. In that case, the tobacco companies never thought they could refute the science directly, they just tried to create as much uncertainty and appearance of controversy they could.
Reminds me of another group, one that talks about dinosaurs and Noah’s ark.