[TheClimate.Vote] Feb 7, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News for All -
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Feb 7 09:16:57 EST 2017
/Stay well-informed about global warming - Please forward this email.
February 7, 2017///
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/science_tv_shows_for_kids_on_nickelodeon_disney_and_pbs_ignore_climate_change.html
*Kids' TV Is Ignoring Climate Change
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/science_tv_shows_for_kids_on_nickelodeon_disney_and_pbs_ignore_climate_change.html>*
Shows like Nature Cat and Sid the Science Kid teach children
everything about wildlife and the environment—with one glaring
exception.
By Melinda Wenner Moyer -- .. from my 5-year-old .... when I
mentioned climate change and he said: "What's that?"
After a few more questions, I discovered that he's never heard any
of his favorite science shows mention climate change or global
warming. Which is strange, because according to overwhelming
scientific consensus, climate change is one of the most important
environmental issues of our time....
After asking Nickelodeon spokeswoman Leslie Byxbee via e-mail
whether the network has ever covered climate change, she replied
that its nature- and science -themed shows, which include Dora the
Explorer and Blaze and the Monster Machines, have discussed
deforestation, alternative energy, ocean garbage, endangered
animals, oil spills, and littering. Noticing that climate change was
missing from this list, I followed up by asking: "Am I correct to
infer from your answer that climate change has not specifically been
addressed in any of your shows, although other environmental issues
have?" Her reply suggested that my questions touched a sensitive
button. "Actually no, that's not the inference I meant as your
takeaway. All of the examples I gave are about the environment,
which is related to climate change," she wrote. She added that one
episode of Dora the Explorer was about melting snow, which is
evidence that "concepts of changes to the environment have been used
in plots." Hmm...
...it's because the network feels that focusing on "foundational
science concepts" is "the most age-appropriate way to serve our
audience." I don't know about you, but I'd rather my kid learn a
little about the melting polar ice caps than accumulate yet another
piece of trivia about colossal squids....
My guess is that the networks are afraid that promoting the
(extremely solid) science on a politically controversial issue will
lead them to lose viewers or advertisers. But if that's true, and
they're choosing their bottom line over the education of America's
children, that's a real shame. Kids need to learn about the issue
that threatens their planet if they're ever going to feel inspired
to save it.
https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.1nl0342mb
Once-cautious climate economist reverses course, issues warning against
the cost of inaction
<https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.1nl0342mb>
William Nordhaus says social cost of CO2 much higher than he
thought, while team Trump says it is zero.
Leading climate economist William Nordhaus — who had been an
advocate of a “go slow” approach on climate policy — now says carbon
pollution is much more damaging to the economy than he previously
estimated.
While the Yale economics professor has previously advocated for a
very low carbon tax, his new analysis examining our “era of minimal
climate policies” has changed his mind. Now Nordhaus says our
dawdling has been costly — nearly doubling his calculation of the
so-called social cost of carbon (SCC), which is the long-term damage
caused by an additional ton of CO2 emissions (or, the benefit of a
ton of CO2 reduction).
Nordhaus warns that further inaction will lead to rapid climate
change and incur increasingly greater costs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm
A Climate Change Economist Sounds the Alarm
<https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm>
In the early 1990s, Yale's William Nordhaus was among the first to
examine the economics of reducing carbon emissions. Since then, he
and colleagues have mixed climate physics with economic modeling to
explore how various policies might play out both for global
temperatures and growth. The approach attempts to weigh, in
present-value terms, the costs of preventative measures against the
future benefit of avoiding disaster.
n his latest analysis, though, Nordhaus comes to a very different
conclusion. Using a more accurate treatment of how carbon dioxide
may affect temperatures, and how remaining uncertainties affect the
likely economic outcomes, he finds that our current response to
global warming is probably inadequate to prevent temperatures from
rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above their pre-industrial
levels, a stated goal of the Paris accords.
Worse, the analysis suggests that the required carbon-dioxide
reductions are beyond what's politically possible...
*Nordhaus Study documen*t
<http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf>
http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf
December 2016
"The study confirms past estimates of likely rapid climate change
over the next century if there are not major climate-change
policies. It suggests that it will be extremely difficult to achieve
the 2°C target of international agreements even if ambitious
policies are introduced in the near term. The required carbon price
needed to achieve current targets has risen over time as policies
have been delayed."
https://www.cdp.net/en/cities
*Carbon Tracking for Cities:* <https://www.cdp.net/en/cities>
Carbon Disclosure Project has just launched its reporting platform
for cities
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=8b887aff72&e=95b355344d>,
enabling cities to track their sustainability and climate efforts
annually. CDP will host a webinar on Wednesday Feb 8
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=f5d0ed6002&e=95b355344d> and Wednesday
Feb 15
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=593e8954a5&e=95b355344d> to
train cities how to best use the tools and resources. More than 500
cities
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=81d89d7e47&e=95b355344d> participated
in CDP's climate change tracking in 2016.
http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/current-events
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts
*2 remarkable facts that illustrate solar power's declining cost
<http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts>*
It's not "the cheapest electricity in the world," but it's getting
really cheap.
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=5659d20e00&e=30dc80e2f6
*Oil's methane emissions higher than feared
<http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=5659d20e00&e=30dc80e2f6>*
New study shows that oil production can result in methane emissions
up to twice as high as estimated by 'simplistic' data collection
systems.
By Alex Kirby
LONDON, 6 February, 2017 – Global methane emissions from oil
production between 1980 and 2012 were far higher than previously
thought – in some cases, as much as double the amount previously
estimated, according to a new scientific study...The author of the
study − which also includes emissions of another gas, ethane − says
it is the first to take into account different production management
systems and geological conditions around the world.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/01/trump_s_team_wants_to_recalculate_the_social_cost_of_carbon.html
*Here's One Way Trump's Team Could Manipulate Government Data
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/01/trump_s_team_wants_to_recalculate_the_social_cost_of_carbon.html>*
"Would Trump try to meddle with the government's data-collection
process?"
His transition team is interested in doing exactly that. One of
the first things that might be under attack? A number known as the
"social cost of carbon."
...It has plans to recalculate the social cost of carbon, which has
been called "the most important number you've never heard of."
while the existence of the number is mandated, the calculation
itself is still flexible. Currently, it is calculated by a group of
scientists from multiple federal agencies every five years. Climate
scientists first predict how much carbon dioxide will be emitted
into the atmosphere in the future, how much temperatures will change
as a result, and what kinds of damages will occur because of these
changes. Demographers predict population growth while economists
predict economic growth and quantify how climate change will affect
such growth. They make similar calculations for other greenhouse
gases, like methane, which comes from oil and gas operations and
landfills....
The social cost of carbon is recalculated every five years. When it
was last calculated, in 2015, the cost was estimated at $36 per ton
of carbon dioxide emissions. This was a substantial increase from
the $21 calculation in 2010, which largely reflects the fact that
the scientists' predictions for climate change impacts and damages
have become more dire.
the Trump administration is skeptical of the entire idea of a
social cost of carbon. Last month, Thomas Pyle, Trump's Department
of Energy transition leader, indicated in a leaked memo that the
administration would review the calculation behind the social cost
of carbon and aim to end its use in government decision-making. The
memo stated, "If the [social cost of carbon] were subjected to the
latest science, it would certainly be much lower than what the Obama
administration has been using." ...
The number isn't set to be reassessed until 2020. Of course, Trump
could try to assemble a new group of scientists and economists and
adopt a much lower cost than the current consensus. Trump's "America
Energy First Plan" is premised on the statement that "for too long,
we've been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy
industry." ...
Scientists do think there needs to be more research, and the
National Academy of Sciences recently released a new report offering
recommendations for updating the standard. If it's recalculated
using the latest research, the cost of carbon would be even higher....
To recalculate this number at a lower rate, Trump-appointed
scientists would need to perform some statistical gymnastics, though
there are ways to attack certain aspects of the calculation that
could significantly lower it. For instance, they could mess with the
discount rate or try to limit the geographic scope of the analysis
to only account for how climate change will affect America, rather
than account for the global cost. ...
Any attempt to stop using the social cost of carbon would be illegal
and is sure to face legal action. A reassessment of the cost based
on shoddy science would likely face the same. Either way, it's
likely to be a battle.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/abstract
*Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/abstract>*
Abstract
Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes
in individual and collective human behavior and decision-making.
Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science,
and the attempts of vested-interest groups to undermine the
scientific consensus on climate change through organized
"disinformation campaigns," identifying ways to effectively engage
with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has
proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one
promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to
convey the high level of normative agreement ("consensus") among
experts about the reality of human-caused climate change. Yet, much
prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of
climate change has done so under conditions with limited external
validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect
the public from the spread of influential misinformation about
climate change. The current research bridges this divide by
exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a
polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided
that it is possible to pre-emptively protect ("inoculate") public
attitudes about climate change against real-world misinformation.
http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY
*This Day in Climate History February 7, 2007
<http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY> - from D.R. Tucker*
Air America host Betsy Rosenberg and Competitive Enterprise Institute
representative Chris Horner discuss the recently released 4th IPCC
report on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes."
======================= ####
===========================
*forward this email: *Send to everyone who needs to st ay
informed about global warming.
To subscribe email me: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
. *** Privacy and Security: * We do NOT collect IP addresses.
This is a text-only mailing. It carries no graphics or images
which may originate from remote servers that routinely track and
identify IP address. Text-only messages provide greater privacy
to the receiver and sender. If you receive a version of this
document in an email with a graphics image - even a
one-pixel-sized image, for optimal privacy from tracking, you
should not open it. **
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20170207/97e10e8b/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list