SciBlogs

Posts Tagged carbon

The Climate Show #33: Salinger, carbon carnage and recursive fury Gareth Renowden Feb 08

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

In this week’s news-packed edition of The Climate Show we have an exclusive interview with Jim Salinger, probably New Zealand’s highest profile climate scientist, talking about extremes and the shape of things to come. John Cook discusses his new paper with Stephan Lewandowsky, Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, which is already upsetting climate cranks around the world, plus we look at carbon bubbles, renewable energy beating coal on price, and a simply superb iPad app.

Watch The Climate Show on our Youtube channel, subscribe to the podcast via iTunes, listen to us via Stitcher on your smartphone or listen direct/download from the link below the fold.

Follow The Climate Show at The Climate Show web site, and on Facebook and Twitter.

The Climate Show

Story references

News

Carbon bubble begins to bite: Hot Topic.

Increases in extreme rainfall linked to global warming: Science Daily.

New Mexico Utility Agrees To Purchase Solar Power At A Lower Price Than Coal: Climate Progress.

Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia: REneweconomy.

Interview

[13:15] Jim Salinger, NZ’s best-known climate scientist.

Debunking the sceptic

[31:30] John Cook of Skeptical Science discusses Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. Shaping Tomorrow’s World blog post here.

Solutions

EarthViewer app for iPad: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and at the iTunes app store.

We have an email!

Thanks to our media partners: Idealog Sustain, Sciblogs, and Scoop .

Theme music: A Drop In The Ocean by The Bads.

Carbon budgets begin to bite: unburnable carbon not an asset, HSBC reports Gareth Renowden Feb 05

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

The world’s big oil and gas companies could face cuts in market valuation of up to 60% if the world acts to cut carbon emissions, a report by bankers HSBC warned last week. Business Green summarises the report’s findings:

A new report from the banking giant finds that 17 per cent of Norwegian company Statoil’s reserves would become “unburnable” in a world where oil and gas use falls as countries seek to keep carbon concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), the level the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates is necessary to deliver a 50 per cent chance of limiting long-term temperature rises to 2°C.

HSBC estimates that as much as 6% of BP’s reserves could be at risk, 5% of Total’s, and 2% of Shell’s. But the biggest risk to oil company values could come from reduced demand for oil and gas leading to a fall in prices. Business Green notes:

…the potential value at risk for leading fossil fuel firms could rise to between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of current market capitalisation. BP’s market capitalisation currently stands at around £90bn, compared to Shell’s £147bn, Statoil’s £53bn and BG Group’s £39bn.

The HSBC report is the first acknowledgement by a mainstream financial institution that fossil fuel companies may be over valued in a world where steep cuts in carbon emissions are (one hopes) inevitable. The idea was first mooted in 2011 by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, whose Unburnable Carbon report estimated that as much as 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves would have to remain in the ground. That idea fuelled 350.org’s latest campaign, as Bill McKibben explained in an influential Rolling Stone article last year:

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.

Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it’s already economically aboveground – it’s figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value.

Stockmarket prices are supposed to factor in — or take into account — all of the assets and risk a company faces, but to date there has been little sign that markets have seriously considered “unburnable carbon” as a liability. The HSBC report may be the first sign of a shift in financial markets, but I suspect it will take clear evidence of concerted global action to cut emissions before markets will run scared of carbon. However, when it happens, the change could be swift. There could be carbon carnage on the trading floors as financial markets ditch fossil fuels for renewables.

There’s a stark lesson there for government and business leadership in Australia and New Zealand — and everywhere else where public money is subsidising the production and use of fossil fuels. Today’s investments in extracting fossil carbon only make sense if you are blind to the climate consequences. Those are now inevitable, and so oil and gas reserves — and especially coal fields — will inevitably become stranded assets, a millstone round the neck of the national and global economy.

NZ’s climate policy omnishambles – gerry brownlee’s anti-carbon tax Mr February Dec 19

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Gerry Brownlee, formerly a minister of energy and fossil fuel, and currently the Minister for Transport and for bulldozing democracy, heritage and social order in Christchurch, today announced that petrol duty will be increasing by 3 cents a litre annually for the next 3 years to fund new roads. Specifically mentioned are the Rangiriri and [...]

The Doha Gateway: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair cindy Dec 11

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Where we are, where we should be and the consequences. Climate Action Tracker’s graphic on our future choices.

And so. Another set of climate talks done, this year dusted with Doha sand and labeled the “Doha Gateway”.  I’m not sure what they’re a gateway to,  certainly no immediate improvement to the climate. The final hours were bizarre, to say the least.  We began the day on Saturday with a text much improved from the day before, but with some major issues outstanding.  Ministers wrangled behind closed doors for most of the day, changing bits of text here and there.

We were preparing for Russia who, with Kazakhstan, Belarus and the Ukraine, were set to continue the talks way into Saturday night.   They were holding out in the informals, furious about the discussions on hot air.

Hot air

The “Russian factor” is one those of us who’ve been involved for a few years are all too familiar with. Just when you think there’s general agreement, in come the Russians who manage to drag the talks on for hours.

“Hot air” has been major problem with the Kyoto Protocol for years.  Somehow, the Russians managed to get the Kyoto negotiators to agree to a baseline of 1990, before the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which meant millions of tonnes of carbon credits ended up in the hands of Eastern European countries, bringing them a handy income, and other countries an easy and cheap option to do nothing at home and buy cheap hot air.  Russia has 6Gt of hot air – that’s how much it’s been cheating the atmosphere.

In Durban and Doha, New Zealand has sided with this team against the wish of the rest of the world to make sure that this “hot air” didn’t get carried over into Kyoto’s second commitment period (CP2).

A report released last week by Climate Analytics showed that if this hot air was allowed, governments could meet their pledges, buy hot air and continue emitting on a business as usual pathway to 2026.  The Ukraine argued that they needed their hot air credits as their economy was growing, but the report showed that they would have to have an amazing 11.6% annual growth in GDP to do so. I don’t think anyone expects Ukraine to have such a boom economy.

In practice there are few who can benefit from their hot air surplus carried over from CP1 to CP2 are not many: Australia, Norway and the Ukraine.  New Zealand would have had some too, from our Kyoto forests, but we’re not in CP2 so we can’t use them anyway. At the end of the day, while the carry-over from CP1 to CP2 was allowed, many governments signed a political declaration as part of the agreement that they wouldn’t buy this hot air anyway. Even Japan signed it – but of course NZ didn’t.

The killer for Russia and New Zealand were the “elegibility” rules, where it was decided that governments outside Kyoto would not be allowed access to the carbon markets it set up. The New Zealand delegation was at the heart of the earlier draft of the text seen on Friday morning that had every government and its dog allowed access to Kyoto’s Flexible Mechanisms.

But overnight on Friday night that the Ministers put a stop to that, so NZ was left out in the cold.  While we could, on the face of it, continue to trade hot air to meet our “target”, we run the risk that the credits may well not be eligible for emissions under the post 2020 global agreement as the rules for that haven’t yet been settled.

When the final plenary began, to everyone’s surprise, the somewhat flambouyant Qatari Minister Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah gaveled it all through.  Watch the beginning of the webcast – it was quite something.  He ignored the Russian flag being pounded on their table and simply declared the Doha Gateway agreed.  It was the first bold move this former OPEC president had made throughout the entire talks – if he’d bashed heads together a bit earlier we could have achieved a lot more.

Russia was furious, and the US made reservations, but they were simply told that all of it would be noted in the report.  There are precedents for such action, such as with Bolivia in Cancun. In 1992 the chair ignored the Saudis and gaveled the UNFCCC itself through when the Saudi flag was still clearly up.

Ratching up emissions cuts

Another vaguely positive outcome for the Kyoto Protocol CP2 agreement was the review by April next year of the adequacy of commitments under the IPCC’s 25-40% recommendation.  This leaves open the option of Europe finally agreeing to go to 30%, something it can easily do.

Of course Kyoto, as Tim Groser argues, doesn’t cover many countries at all, and certainly a small chunk of global emissions.   The global deal is on track to be agreed by 2015, but won’t come into effect until 2020. All the hot air from Groser about working on a global deal essentially means we’re off the hook until 2020, apart from our meagre pledge that remains “conditional” on a global deal.  As I’ve said before, the best thing Groser could have done to help that global deal get through was to sign up to Kyoto’s CP2 to show good faith.

 Finance, loss and damage

The most disappointing part of the Doha was the decision to simply keep talking on the major issue of Finance.  Governments agreed in 2009 to, by 2020, contribute a total of $100bn a year to help the developing world develop clean energy and adapt to climate change, but the money is still not forthcoming.  Indeed at the beginning of Doha there wasn’t enough money to pay the secretariat for another year.

The trade-off here was the inclusion of the “loss and damage” terminology in the final text, where the US had been fighting to keep it off the table.  While again, like the finance section, the agreement is to simply keep talking about what to do on Loss and Damage, this was a blow to the US.

To sum up, nothing was done in Doha that will immediately stop the relentless rise of global emissions.  There were some agreements to agree sometime in the future.   The meeting was never going to achieve much, but to get Kyoto’s CP2 done, and blocking the “cheaters” like NZ and Russia out of carbon trading without an emissions target was the biggest win.

For us, no doubt John Key and his pals will be happy with the fact that there’s little to change our somewhat dubious status of having the sixth fastest growing emissions in the OECD.

Our government’s “drill it mine it frack it” policy can continue unabated, our foresters can continue to replace plantations with dairy and we don’t really face any pesky global rules that will make us increase our targets before 2020.  How our ETS will look after 2015 remains to be seen, as we won’t be able to trade our way through it.

As I left Doha, contemplating the 3-4degC world the next generations will face unless more action is taken, I was reminded of Percy Bysse Shelley’s famous “Ozymandius” which somehow seems apt:

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.

Carbonscape go Dutch with Clinton, win cash award Bryan Walker Sep 25

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

G8: self-deception on energy and climate Bryan Walker May 24

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

The section of the recent G8 Camp David declaration which deals with energy and climate change can only be described as depressing. No clarion call from these nations. Instead, a confused jumble starting with an ’all of the above’ statement:

… we recognise the importance of meeting our energy needs from a wide variety of sources ranging from traditional fuels to renewables to other clean technologies. As we each implement our own individual energy strategies, we embrace the pursuit of an appropriate mix from all of the above in an environmentally safe, sustainable, secure, and affordable manner.

How fossil fuels can be considered environmentally safe and sustainable elements in an energy mix is not explained. But apparently this mix is somehow compatible with a low carbon economy:

We also recognise the importance of pursuing and promoting sustainable energy and low carbon policies in order to tackle the global challenge of climate change.

Those quoted sentences follow each other in the statement.  They are contradictory in their substance. Evidently the word ’also’ miraculously dissolves the contradiction. You can have your cake and eat it too.

To establish that conflicting reality the declaration goes on to throw around the words sustainability, safety and environmental concern as a respectable veneer for the disreputable continuing search for oil and gas to the limits of their availability:

As we pursue energy security, we will do so with renewed focus on safety and sustainability. We are committed to establishing and sharing best practices on energy production, including exploration in frontier areas and the use of technologies such as deep water drilling and hydraulic fracturing, where allowed, to allow for the safe development of energy sources, taking into account environmental concerns over the life of a field.

There follows a nod in the direction of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The latter needs to be cost-effective, presumably measured against fossil energy. Note the emphasis on energy security and savings ahead of addressing climate change:

We recognise that increasing energy efficiency and reliance on renewables and other clean energy technologies can contribute significantly to energy security and savings, while also addressing climate change and promoting sustainable economic growth and innovation. We welcome sustained, cost-effective policies to support reliable renewable energy sources and their market integration. We commit to advance appliance and equipment efficiency, including through comparable and transparent testing procedures, and to promote industrial and building efficiency through energy management systems.

Somehow, along with the continuing search for fossil fuels to burn they’re also going to be giving attention to keeping global temperature within bounds:

We agree to continue our efforts to address climate change and recognize the need for increased mitigation ambition in the period to 2020, with a view to doing our part to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2oC above pre-industrial levels, consistent with science.

The statement is plagued by self-deception. IEA head Fatih Birol said last week at a Reuters’ Global Energy & Environment Summit: ’What I see now with existing investments for plants under construction…we are seeing the door for a 2 degree Celsius target about to be closed and closed forever. This door is getting slimmer and slimmer in terms of physical and economic possibility.” Yet the G8 leaders, in the same week, were speaking as if fossil fuels can continue to be discovered and exploited at the same time as climate change is ostensibly addressed.

One hopes that the declaration was stitched together as a diplomatic exercise and that its contradictions can be explained by that fact and are not representative of the thinking of all the nations represented at the summit.  Indeed it’s hard to see how any intelligent person could think all those things at the same time and not recognise their incompatibility. But it’s still unnerving. Not least because it’s a mirror of the New Zealand government’s position and will no doubt encourage them to maintain that the increased fossil fuel exploration and exploitation they have committed to is strangely consistent with fighting the danger of climate change.

Cartophilia (something to pore over) Gareth Renowden Apr 01

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Windmap

Click on the image. Wait. Watch and be mesmerised by this visualisation by Hint.fm of current wind flow over the USA. It’s a tremendous way to get a feel for the shape of the weather. Something similarly hypnotic and revealing of weather patterns is the animation of global total precipitable water (that is, atmospheric moisture content) from the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. I haven’t embedded it because it’s a big animation, but it’s well worth a few bits of bandwidth.

Carbonmap

The Carbon Map is another tour de force of data visualisation — changing the shapes and sizes of countries on a global map to show how they measure on a number of indices: area, population, wealth, historic emissions, current emissions, carbon reserves and so on. The image I’ve grabbed shows the exposure of countries to sea level rise. More about the map and its creation at the Guardian.

Updated to add this amazing NASA animation of global ocean currents over 2005/7. Just look at those whorls spinning off the bottom of Africa…

Australia’s carbon price mechanism in six dot points Gareth Renowden Nov 11

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Rosemary Lyster, Professor of Climate and Environmental Law at the University of Sydney explains the most important features of Australia’s new emissions law. It’s interesting to compare and contrast the framework with the current ETS legislation in NZ, and what may happen to our framework if National form the next government. [Republished from The Conversation]

Australia’s carbon price mechanism has become law. But how does it work? There are six key points:

1. Australia’s emissions trajectory

By 2020, Australia will reduce all of its greenhouse gas emissions by 5% compared with 2000 levels. By 2050, emissions will be reduced by 80% compared with 2000 levels.

2. The annual cap on emissions

During the first three years (July 1 2012 to July 1 2015), when the price of carbon units is fixed, emissions will not be limited. Thereafter the government will set an annual cap. The extent of the cap will be based on the advice of the new Climate Change Authority (CCA).

The annual cap is set consistently with Australia’s downward emissions trajectory — it will get tighter as Australia’s emissions reduction targets go up. The number of carbon units issued each year will equal the scheme cap.

3. Entities covered by the scheme

Liable entities must surrender one carbon unit (to the new Clean Energy Regulator for each tonne of emissions for which they are liable. Liable entities are broken into three categories:

  • the person who has operational control of a facility from which 25,000 tonnes of COâ‚‚e (these are all greenhouse gases covered by the legislation) are emitted
  • natural gas retailers
  • the person who has operational control of a landfill facility from which 25,000 tonnes of COâ‚‚e are emitted.

Liable entities are only liable for Scope 1 (direct) emissions from:

  • the combustion of energy sources
  • fugitive emissions (such as from coal mines)
  • industrial process emissions
  • emissions from waste.

These emissions have been reported since 1 July 2009 under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

Three types of eligible carbon units can be surrendered:

  • units issued by the Clean Energy Regulator
  • Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) issued under the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)
  • international units which are accredited either under the Kyoto Protocol or any successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The government may disallow any of these if it considers them ineligible.

The CCA will advise the government on the eligibility of international units. Eligible international emissions units cannot be surrendered during the fixed charge period. They can however be surrendered during the flexible charge period (from 1 July 2015), and can be up to 50% of the total emissions liability for that entity for the year.

The Carbon Farming Initiative lets Australia’s agricultural sector reduce emissions and create carbon credit units. Emissions reduction may happen by avoiding emissions in the first place, or by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in soil or trees. The credits generated can be sold to liable entities both in Australia and overseas.

In the fixed charge period, a liable entity can surrender carbon credit units to meet 5% of its total emissions liability. In the flexible charge period, a liable entity can surrender as many of these units as it wants. A stringent shortfall charge applies for failure to surrender carbon units.

The carbon price mechanism does not apply to fuel. A carbon price is imposed on fuel through changes in fuel tax credits or changes in excise.

4. Issuing carbon units

The Clean Energy Regulator will issue carbon units. In the first
three years of the scheme (1 July 2012 to 1 July 2015, the ’fixed charge’ years), carbon units will issued at a fixed charge of:

  • in 2012, $23/tonne
  • in 2013, $24.15/tonne
  • in 2014, $25.40/tonne.

The scheme then enters an emissions trading phase (known as the flexible charge years). For the first three years, a transitional carbon price ceiling and a floor will manage price volatility. Thereafter the price will be set only at auction.

Carbon units will be issued free to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs — these are industries which compete with industries in countries without a carbon price), coal-fired electricity generators and LNG projects.

Complex mathematical formulae calculate the number of units to be issued. Highly emissions-intensive EITEs will receive 94.5% of their carbon units for free. Moderately emissions-intensive EITEs it is 66%. This will be reduced by 1.3% a year. LNG projects will will get assistance at or above 50%.

The issue of free carbon units will be reviewed by the Productivity Commission. Units issued in the flexible charge years are tradable.

5. Information, monitoring, penalties, and reviews

The electronic Liable Entities Public Information Database must be kept open for public inspection. The Regulator can demand information from liable entities, who must keep records for five years.

Inspectors have monitoring powers. Strict civil and criminal penalties apply. CEOs are personally liable to pay civil penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent a contravention. The CCA will review the carbon price mechanism.

6. Compensation

$14.9 billion in household assistance will be provided. This assistance is to offset the price rises likely to be passed from liable entities to consumers.

Free units for emissions-intensive industries will cost $9.2 billion. Free permits to coal-fired generators, and the closure of highly polluting plants, will cost $5.5 billion from 2011-2017.

$1.3 billion from 2011-2017 will fund the Coal Sector Jobs Package. Clean energy and energy efficiency also receive government funding.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

The Climate Show #11: a trillion tonnes of trouble Gareth Renowden Apr 14

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Glenn says he thinks this show’s “a cracker” (but he always says that), and despite the lack of a special star guest — though with the help of assorted luminaries from the Climate Futures Forum (David’s Karoly and Frame, Robert Gifford and Erik Conway –) we cover a huge range of issues, from Jim Hansen’s upcoming visit to NZ, the climate talks in Bangkok and Arctic ice, to why we need to think about our carbon budget, and why a trillion tonnes of the stuff might be a tad too much. John Cook joins us to discuss why there really is a scientific consensus on the reality of climate change and its causes, and in the solutions section we look at new developments in battery technology.

Watch The Climate Show on our Youtube channel, subscribe to the podcast via iTunes, or listen direct/download here:

The Climate Show

Follow The Climate Show at The Climate Show web site, on Facebook and Twitter.

News & commentary:

Climate Futures Forum: Routefinding the future: reflecting on the climate futures forum.

Jim Hansen to tour NZ: dates announced.

New warning on Arctic ice melt.

Bangkok climate talks stall.

The trillionth ton: http://trillionthtonne.org/,
A ton too far (more bad news).

Scotland could cut emissions 50% by 2020.

Interviews: David Frame, Bob Gifford, Erik Conway.

Debunking the skeptic with John Cook from Skeptical Science.

Scientific Consensus

The broader picture: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

Common technique: Fake Experts — http://www.galileowaswrong.com/

The argument: ’31,000 scientists signed a skeptic statement (OISM Petition)’: http://sks.to/oism

Response to the survey question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009)

Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Naomi Oreskes searched the Institute for Scientific Information database for papers matching ‘climate change’ – out of 928 papers, 0 papers disagreed with scientific consensus.

Fact and Fraud: Brad Johnson (Wonk Room)

http://sks.to/consensus

FEEDBACK: http://www.theclimateshow.com/the-climate-show-10-david-suzuki-survives-tec#comment

Solutions

Batteries that can recharge in seconds.

Lithium-air batteries could rival liquid fuels.

Thanks to our media partners: Celsias.co.nz, Scoop and KiwiFM.

Theme music: A Drop In The Ocean by The Bads.

[PS: Not Fade Away was Buddy Holly of course, but this is my excuse...

… and the stutter was of course d-down to Daltrey, who also did a f-fade …

… unmissable, that. What a band, what a drummer!]

A ton too far (more bad news) Gareth Renowden Apr 12

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

At the Climate Futures Forum in Wellington a couple of weeks ago, David Karoly discussed the idea of considering carbon emissions as a “stock” problem, not a “flow” problem. If we want to give ourselves a 75 percent chance of coming in below a 2ºC rise in the global average temperature, then we (as in all humanity) can emit around one trillion tonnes of CO2 (for more see Meinshausen et al here, discussed in the context of emissions targets at HT in this post). It doesn’t much matter when we do the emitting, because CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, but stick to that limit we must if we’re serious about avoiding damaging warming. I like that way of thinking about the issue, as I noted in my report on the Forum, but it seems that I may have been rather optimistic about the height of the ceiling we’re living under, and our chances of hitting a 2ºC target. A new study by a team of Canadian climate modellers, Arora et al, Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases in Geophysical Research Letters, 38 (5) DOI: 10.1029/2010GL046270 (pdf here), suggests that:

…we have already surpassed the cumulative emission limit and so emissions must ramp down to zero immediately. The unprecedented reduction in fossil‐fuel emissions implied by either of these scenarios suggests that it is unlikely that warming can be limited to the 2°C target agreed to in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.

Bugger.

The paper (based on modelling runs for the next IPCC report, using new emissions scenarios) notes that previous estimates of the carbon budget have assumed that the cooling effects of future aerosol emissions will cancel out the warming effects of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. This, the authors suggest, is unlikely, and future carbon emissions will effectively warm the planet more:

[...] our results suggest there is little room (∼160 ± 80 Pg C) to limit the warming in 2100 to the 2.3°C associated with the RCP 2.6 concentration scenario. It would require an immediate and rapid ramp down of emissions, followed by negative emissions (sequestration) in the later half of this century.

Hitting a 2ºC target means using up all that headroom. We therefore have to move to zero emissions more or less immediately. If that sounds eminently unfeasible, then that’s probably because it is. The world is therefore heading for something a lot worse than a mere two degrees of warming. Through their failure to confront this stark reality our politicians are conspiring to condemn future generations to a living hell. If you’re reading this, Nick Smith, I would welcome your considered reply…

Hat tip: James Hrynyshyn at Class: M

[Worth noting that the AGU press release covering Arora et al makes for grim reading, with papers on ice melt and Aussie floods and droughts. See also trillionthtonne.org and their interesting FAQ.]

« Older Entries