Climate Climate & Energy

Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate

An argument often heard in the fruitlooposphere* is that the scientific community has financial incentive to push the consensus view that humans are responsible for climate change. The idea is that toeing the consensus line translates into more research funding.

There is, of course, never any evidence presented with this argument. Rather, it is presented as "common sense": "Well, of course they're just trying to get more funding ..."

So let's apply a little common sense and see how the argument fares.

First, consider that the scientific community has been saying for several years that our understanding of the climate system is quite good. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough that many scientists feel we should be taking action now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled."

Does that sound like a recipe for getting lots of research funding? Saying that we have a pretty good understanding of the climate system?

Brit blames bulb for TV-remote glitch

First CFLs cause migraines. Then they worsen skin conditions. Now they frig with the frequency of TV remotes. O brave new world …

Warming climate may lead to spread of dengue fever in U.S., say health officials

Climate change is likely increasing cases of malaria in Kenya, various viral diseases in Australia’s outback, and tropical dengue fever in the U.S. “Widespread appearance of dengue in the continental United States is a real possibility,” write Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. David Morens in a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association. […]

Judge rules that natural-gas company can drill on billionaire’s land

When we picture candy billionaire Forrest Mars, we imagine him diving into pools of M&Ms à la the coin-swimming revelry of Scrooge McDuck. That said, Mars’ attempts to keep oil and gas drills off of his Montana land were foiled yesterday, when a state judge ruled that Pinnacle Gas Resources has the right to access […]

Talk about targeting!

Here’s a blog devoted entirely to geothermal energy in Washington state. Apparently there’s a need: The hot zone of California, Nevada (the Saudi Arabia of geothermal), Idaho and Oregon could produce tens of thousands of megawatts along the spine of the Sierra Nevadas and Cascades. Washington state sits on the edge of this hot zone. […]

Shiny plants will save the climate, say researchers

You thought fighting climate change was going to be hard? Pssh — all we gotta do is plant some peppers and we’ll be home free. OK, it might not be that easy, but California scientists say they’ve hit on an unusual climate-change solution: shiny plants. Encouraging farmers to plant foliage that reflects the sun’s heat […]

New nanoantennas capture sun’s energy 24-7; are cheap; are not yet for sale

Via SolveClimate, the latest whiz-bang new gonna-change-the-world solar technology: nanoantennas! They harvest the sun’s energy even at night! They’re cheap "as inexpensive carpet"! They’re printed on thin, flexible sheets! They’re … in a lab somewhere. Here’s hoping.

Spending on adaptation and mitigation now is an investment, spending later is a waste

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

A dirty little secret of climate change is that somebody wants us to pay much higher taxes and higher energy bills. But it's not the advocates of climate action. It's the other guys.

Make no mistake: The costs of switching to clean energy and an energy-efficient economy are far less than the costs of doing nothing.

A study released by the University of Maryland last October helps bring the cost issue into clearer focus. It concludes that the economic costs of unabated climate change in the United States will be major and nationwide.

Climate change will damage or stress essential municipal infrastructure such as water treatment and supply; increase the size and intensity of forest fires; increase the frequency and severity of flooding and drought; cause billions of dollars in damages to crops and property; lead to higher insurance rates; and even increase shipping costs in the Great Lakes-St Lawrence seaway because of lower water levels. And that's just a sampling.

"Climate change will affect every American economically in significant, dramatic ways, and the longer it takes to respond, the greater the damage and the higher the costs," lead researcher Matthias Ruth told ScienceDaily.

How big are those costs?

Study touts environmental benefits of switchgrass-derived biofuel

Fast-growing switchgrass makes for a super-duper biofuel, says new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The five-year study of 10 Midwest farms concluded that switchgrass-derived biofuel can produce more than five times the energy consumed in manufacturing it, and emits 94 percent less greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline. “This clearly demonstrates […]

Stern says he underestimated climate risks

Via WSJ, Sir Nicholas Stern says he underestimated the risks of climate change in his influential report. "We underestimated the flow of emissions from developing countries, especially China," he said, observing that emissions of greenhouse gases from China over the next 25 years will equal the total emissions from the U.S. and Europe over the […]