jwd seminar uuuno 8apr2010

8/9/2019 Jwd Seminar Uuuno 8apr2010

1/35

Climate Change Seminar

Jan W. Dash, PhD

Director, UU-UNO Climate InitiativeApril 8, 2010


2/35

Talk Outline

UU-UNO Climate Portal website

Copenhagen and Beyond The Climate Contrarians / Deniers

Wrap-up

Also see UU-UNO material in packet


3/35

UU-UNO Climate Portal

www.digitaluniverse.net/uuuno

Unique, wide coverage: UU / UN / Science /What You Can Do / Politics / Climate Finance

Educational material

Articles, Events, News, Blogs, RSS feeds

Minister, Social Action, Youth Columns Documents, Pictures, Videos

LINKS to other climate websites


4/35

UU-UNO Climate Portalwww.digitaluniverse.net/uuuno


5/35

What Can I Do? Mitigation!


6/35

The IPCC Reports


7/35

What About The Contrarians?


8/35

Inter-Governmental Action


9/35

Articles, Blogs, Events, News


10/35

RSS Feeds = Topical Info


11/35

Ministers Column


12/35

Social Action Column


13/35

Youth Column


14/35

Youth Blog


15/35

Copenhagen and Beyond.


16/35

Copenhagen Climate Conference


17/35

Main negotiation issue:

Cumulative vs. Current Emissions

Developed Countries (US, EU ) Responsible for most ofcumulative CO2 now in atmosphere

Developing Countries China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, OASIS, Africa, G77

Developing emissions increasing, will dominate in future

China now #1 forcurrent CO2 emissions, per year

Per-capita emissions still lower than in developed countries

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Emissions reductions, taking the above into account = def.

Science => Globally, near CO2 limit ~ 400 ppm


18/35

Total Cumulative CO2 emissions

(over last 150 years)

US, EU responsible for57% and China 7%


19/35

Other Major Issues Economic growth for developing countries

Who pays for what and when (ST/LT financing)

Climate Justice Some island states will probably disappear (Maldives)

Africa will be hit hard, didnt contribute to global warming

COAL COAL COAL China, US cheap coal-based, huge GW problem

Cap & Trade vs. Carbon Tax/Dividend Potential Disaster vs. Vested Interest Politics

How much will we Stick Our Heads In The Sand?


20/35

Other Copenhagen Activities

Klimaforum

Business Forum Carbon Finance

Exhibits

Side Events

Presentation: NGO-CSD paper atKlimaforum =>


21/35

Copenhagen Accord Negotiations became chaotic, stalled, acrimonious

Obama late visit => Copenhagen Accord Best that could be accomplished (alternative = nothing) 2C target limit on temperature change (= progress)

Emission reductions voluntary pledges, by country Measure, Report, Verify MRV provisions (incl. China = progress)

Long Term Funding for developing countries $100B/yr by 2020

NOT a legal treaty (being viewed as first stepby the UN)

Some of third world not happy:

Agreement not FAB (fair, ambitious, binding), not made viaexisting UN process, not enough funding

Proposed reductions: way too small for 2C target Positive: over 110 signed, all major emitters (US, China )


22/35

Beyond: Climate Conference

December 2010, Cancun Mexico Will we get a treaty? Or another Accord?

Negotiations within the UN framework? Two tracks: Kyoto Protocol KP and Long Term

Cooperative Action LCA

Need 192 countries to agree (!)

Splintering evident

Bolivia climate conference for civil society, April Cant get a treaty without a significant US

climate bill or substantial regulation


23/35

US Politics and Climate

No US Bill == No Climate Treaty

US Congress energy/climate bill

House: Waxman-Markey bill passed, barely

Senate: Bill TBD in 2010. CALL YOURSENATOR!

US State initiatives

States out in front with ambitious emission cutting

Ex: Sustainable New Jersey, California

Interstate: East Coast RGGI, Western Climate Initiative

US Local initiatives

Cool Cities, US Conference of Mayors, Green Teams

ICLEI: network of local governments (US, worldwide)


24/35

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA will/must regulate CO2 if no US legislation

L. Jackson: Even if legislation, EPA will regulate some

Transparent; public comments (May 2009)


25/35

The Contrarians

Who are they?

What are their goals?

Why are they wrong?


26/35

Who are the contrarians and

what are their goals?

Contrarians mostly not climate scientists

Example: news weathermen are not climate scientists

Contrarians mostly a U.S. phenomenon Increasingly powerful; dominate US right-wing agenda

Supported by fossil fuel, libertarian think tanks

Exxonsecrets.org Greenpeace has details

Contrarian goals

Stop climate legislation and regulation

Stop mitigation of global warming


27/35

The Nature of Science Science is knowledge, a web of facts and theory,

together very strong

But, science is not mathematics Mathematics: one chink or a missing fact or minor error

invalidates a proof

Science: never proves, only degrees of certainty

Scientists are already skeptics, need persuasion BUT once persuaded, need good reasons to change

Scientists in the field publish in journals Peer review acts as a good (not perfect) filter


28/35

Contrarian Distortion of Science

Contrarian claims are not science Wrong, misinformed, irrelevant, distorted, cherry-picking

Ex: Sun responsible for recent global warming = wrong Good description = Cargo-Cult pseudoscience (Feynman)

Common contrarian tactics are not scientific Use mass media (not peer-reviewed journals)

Copy Big Tobacco doubt on smoking danger tactic

Nitpick, turn molehills into mountains, falsely generalize Try to put science in the courtroom, with lawyers

Swift-Boat attacks on science and scientists Contrarian op-eds, politicians, blogs


29/35

Solar Fluctuations did NOT cause

global warming since 1980

Suns output is just Oscillating: NO trend Contrarian conjecture recent solar influence:

False Data: GISS/NASA


30/35

Contrarian Attacks

Wrong, Irrelevant, Cherry-picking

Contrarian Global Cooling Conjecture => Wrong Cherry-picks the starting date 1998, indefensible

1998 high temperature due to huge El Nio weather effect Hacked emails => Irrelevant to science results

Investigations exonerated Profs. Jones, Mann

Climate science results, existence of global warming,climate data, models, projected impacts are NOT affected

Himalayan glaciers => Cherry-pick attack IPCC 2007 IPCC reports, summarize work, 3000pages

One paragraph wrong. Nothing is perfect. Glitch.

Used as unwarranted excuse to attack / discredit IPCC

Ref: Realclimate.org, also exhaustive AP email review


31/35

Bottom Line on Contrarians

Main Tactic: Sow doubt

Main Goal: Stop action

Main Evidence: None

What Can We Do: Learn responses tofallacies, write letters, talk to neighbors

More Information: Skepticalscience.com

Realclimate.org

Climate Portal


32/35

Wrap-Up

Recent global warming (GW) trend of climatechange exists. We humans are causing GW.

Impacts of GW will be increasingly severe Including the US - there is no save haven

Mitigation to ameliorate GW is a social justice/ intergenerational equity / survival issue Still possible Cheaperthan Do Nothing = Business As Usual

Risk Management framework $Opportunities will abound (Green Energy )


33/35

What Can We Do? Personal actions of conservation and efficiency

Collective actions of advocacy

Support US climate legislation; Support Environmental Protection Agency

Advocate Fair, Ambitious, Binding climate treaty

Education + pushback against contrarian claims

Green energy utilization Green Teams support

Help UU-UNO with Climate Initiative


34/35

What Scares ME?

Methane from permafrost melting =>

uncontrollable global warming Complacency, inertia, expediency,

disinformation may prevent effectivetimely action to counter global warming

My grandson looking back and sayingGrampa didnt do enough


35/35

Bottom Line We all have pictures of children.We want

to be able to look them in the eye and say:

We did our best on climate. What we do now will affect the quality of

life of all future children: worldwide,including the United States.

We can all help make a real difference inthis effort.