Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Al Gore recently released a film called 'An Inconvenient Truth', in which he states the obvious: man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. At the very least, they are appreciably accelerating an underlying long-term natural trend. While generally well-disposed towards the film as a piece of PR, Atlas Hugged, in a fit of genuflection at the Altar of the Corporate Teat, tries to cast doubt on the reality of man-made global warming. In particular, he says:
The first untruth purveyed by master Atlas is that the scientific community has yet to reach a consensus on whether or not CO2 emissions are having an effect on global temperatures. This is simply not true. It is the opposite of true. In fact, it is a lie.
As Liam Lacy of the Globe pointed out in his review of the selfsame documentary, of the 900 articles published to date in peer-reviewed journals about global warning, NONE of them (i.e. not a SINGLE ONE) expressed any doubt that anthropomorphic emissions of CO2(i.e. man-made emissions) were having an appreciable effect on the global climate. Now, the extent and magnitude of that effect may not be known with a high degree of precision, but the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which compiled all the research of the Framework Convention and the K Protocol) states that the minimum impact over the last century has been to increase average global temperatures by 1 degree C, and it may be as much as 2 degrees c. Moreover, the rate of increase is accelerating; CO2 has a long shelf-life and its effect is being compounded with each passing year.
So--perfect knowledge we may not possess, but sufficient knowledge we certainly have.
The other comment with which I take issue is the claim, oft repeated by business-friendly conservatives, that the Protocal is an unworkeable framework. I would challenge master Atlas to please provide some supporting argumentation for that blind, deaf and dumb assertion. The KP provides a number of flexible mechanisms specifically designed to ensure that emissions reductions are done by those people and in those places where it will be most efficient, by allowing for emissions trading. While the NDP may not like it (nor the Tories, god only knows why), this was the most sensible course for Canada to follow in meeting its commitments. Post-Soviet Europe, whose economy (and consequently CO2 emissions) collapsed in the 1990's has heaps of emissions credits for sale which Canada can cheaply buy while it works out how to optimize its own reduction initiatives.
The only thing about the KP which may be 'unworkeable' is the targets themselves: 6 percent below 1990 levels, in Canada's case. Canada is presently at 35 percent above 1990 levels, so we need to double our efforts. But these targets are inescapable; reducing emissions below, in fact far below those levels is the only way to mitigate the impact of global warming.
Perhaps master Atlas was referring to the fact that the US has not agreed to cooperate, or to the principle of 'differentiated responsbility', under which developing countries (whose contribution to current CO2 levels has been negligible) are not required to make any commitments. True, the absence of the US, China and India is a major problem, but not an insurmountable one, especially if Gore wins the 2008 Presidential. In any case, differentiated reponsibility was dictated by political realities: developing countries would never accept to take steps which might hinder their own growth to deal with a problem we caused unless we ourselves first make a substantial sacrifice. It's called credibility.
While I normally enjoy the pithy efferverscence of AH's posts, in this particular case I had no choice but to rain on his parade. I'm all for glib superficiality when it's directed at things I don't care about or hold in disdain, but Kyoto is near and dear to my heart and too oft maligned by facile arguments for me to stand idly by.
the consensus position is:
a) we need more study;
b) there are about 50 other important variables that we actually know about that have to be factored in and;
c) the central point to which [Al Gore] is referring to is that climate change is happening. The "consensus" does not suggest that humans are contributing to it, nor does it suggest that the alleged greenhouse effect is causing it, or that the alleged greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and HFC/PFC and SF6. It is a “choose your own scientific adventure” of “if not NOx then why?”
The first untruth purveyed by master Atlas is that the scientific community has yet to reach a consensus on whether or not CO2 emissions are having an effect on global temperatures. This is simply not true. It is the opposite of true. In fact, it is a lie.
As Liam Lacy of the Globe pointed out in his review of the selfsame documentary, of the 900 articles published to date in peer-reviewed journals about global warning, NONE of them (i.e. not a SINGLE ONE) expressed any doubt that anthropomorphic emissions of CO2(i.e. man-made emissions) were having an appreciable effect on the global climate. Now, the extent and magnitude of that effect may not be known with a high degree of precision, but the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which compiled all the research of the Framework Convention and the K Protocol) states that the minimum impact over the last century has been to increase average global temperatures by 1 degree C, and it may be as much as 2 degrees c. Moreover, the rate of increase is accelerating; CO2 has a long shelf-life and its effect is being compounded with each passing year.
So--perfect knowledge we may not possess, but sufficient knowledge we certainly have.
The other comment with which I take issue is the claim, oft repeated by business-friendly conservatives, that the Protocal is an unworkeable framework. I would challenge master Atlas to please provide some supporting argumentation for that blind, deaf and dumb assertion. The KP provides a number of flexible mechanisms specifically designed to ensure that emissions reductions are done by those people and in those places where it will be most efficient, by allowing for emissions trading. While the NDP may not like it (nor the Tories, god only knows why), this was the most sensible course for Canada to follow in meeting its commitments. Post-Soviet Europe, whose economy (and consequently CO2 emissions) collapsed in the 1990's has heaps of emissions credits for sale which Canada can cheaply buy while it works out how to optimize its own reduction initiatives.
The only thing about the KP which may be 'unworkeable' is the targets themselves: 6 percent below 1990 levels, in Canada's case. Canada is presently at 35 percent above 1990 levels, so we need to double our efforts. But these targets are inescapable; reducing emissions below, in fact far below those levels is the only way to mitigate the impact of global warming.
Perhaps master Atlas was referring to the fact that the US has not agreed to cooperate, or to the principle of 'differentiated responsbility', under which developing countries (whose contribution to current CO2 levels has been negligible) are not required to make any commitments. True, the absence of the US, China and India is a major problem, but not an insurmountable one, especially if Gore wins the 2008 Presidential. In any case, differentiated reponsibility was dictated by political realities: developing countries would never accept to take steps which might hinder their own growth to deal with a problem we caused unless we ourselves first make a substantial sacrifice. It's called credibility.
posted by Érik le Rouge at 4:00 PM
1 Comments:
In true University debating style, the actual point of my discussion is lost in Erik's rebuttal of it.
A careful reading of my post would have shown two things:
GHG emissions (as the source of the greenhouse effect) by human beings are not the only problem and have to be completely factored into a matrix of other sources. There are exactly no studies that have been compiled to date that adequately address this phenomenon. For a complete discussion see "The end of Nature" by Bill McKibben (a pro-kyoto book).
2) My post was far from a criticism of Mr. Gore's movie. In fact, I did exactly what Mr. Gore asked me to do- tell ten people to see the movie and let them decide for themselves.
I laud Mr. Gore for turning his attention away from Government policy and Industry in general and towards YOU/EWE the consumer.
I have taken the one-ton challenge, reduced my own personal waste and have lobbied government for additional funding for environmentally friendly consumer technologies. Once the rest of the market makes it affordable enough for people to buy an E-85 car, we can all breathe a little easier.
I can't wait to vote for Mr. Gore in 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home