Clearing the Air on Climate Change

David Perlman calls Beyond Smoke and Mirrors “[T]he clearest guide yet to the facts and issues of climate and energy – without smoke or mirrors. . . . Richter has no special interest, and his book’s survey of all the evidence for climate change and all the available energy sources is a model of [...]

The Hartwell Paper: Revolutionizing Climate Policy?

From Copenhagen to ClimateGate, the context and controversy surrounding any discussion of global warming has proven a significant handicap. This week, a group of distinguished climate scientists, economists, and policy experts published The Hartwell Paper – the outcome of a meeting convened by The London School of Economics. Fundamentally re-framing climate policy, these experts argue for a radical change in approach, insisting that progress in confronting climate change is now possible because of the epic failure of international cooperation on policy in 2009.

(Contributors to the Paper include the Press’s own Professor Mike Hulme – who had been featured prominently in the coverage of the ClimateGate scandal and is author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change.)

The Hartwell Paper proposes a three-pronged approach in objectives:
ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.
Learn more about their thesis on the LSE’s homepage here.

Delving into the discussion, Cambridge author Bjorn Lomborg aligns their findings with his own approach to climate change on The Project Syndicate.

——–

TALKING SENSE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Bjorn Lomborg

LONDON – In February, 14 distinguished climate scientists, economists, and policy experts came together to discuss how to tackle global warming. This week, the London School of Economics and Oxford University are publishing their conclusions. They are worth considering.

Climate Equity: A Lost Cause?

Last week, Bolivian President Evo Morales hosted a four-day summit on climate change – the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Attracting more than 35,000 delegates from social movements and organizations from 140 countries, this alternative summit gathered indigenous groups, scientists, activists and delegations from lower income countries – a sharp contrast from the diplomatic representatives of December’s Copenhagen Accord.

Craig Collins, author of Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law, weighs in on the mission, message, and political expediency of the Bolivian Accord.

—–

The message delivered by the poor nations and climate activists gathered in Bolivia this week is undeniably just: The world desperately needs an effective climate agreement. Rich countries are primarily responsible for causing this problem and have reaped most of benefits of two centuries of fossil-fueled industrialization. Therefore, they must bear most of the costs of responding to climate change and overcoming the world’s addiction to fossil fuels. Only the callous or ethically challenged would dispute this position on moral grounds.

But even though the South’s case for climate justice is ethically sound, it may be politically doomed. Power, not morality, is the currency of international politics. In the corridors of power, the moral high ground is nearly worthless without real leverage to back it up. And, when it comes to climate change, the South has very little leverage to wrest justice from the North.

The Leonard Lopate Show on Curbing Global Warming

Not only is fossil fuel the biggest part of the problem, it’s the most easy to solve. Dr. Burton Richter talks Beyond Smoke and Mirrors on The Leonard Lopate Show…

Climate Change and a Skeptical Environmentalist on Earth Day

Today marks the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day – the birth of the modern environmental movement – and a great moment to reflect on how far we’ve come since 1970. In a year that witnessed the failed Copenhagen climate conference and steadily escalating conflicts between climate change skeptics and fervent environmental activists, it remains difficult to sort out answers amid the clamor.

In USA TODAY, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and editor of the forthcoming Smart Solutions to Climate Change (September 2010), gives his rather optimistic perspective: “Earth Day: Smile, don’t shudder…“

——–

Given all the talk of impending catastrophe, this may come as a surprise, but as we approach the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, people who care about the environment actually have a lot to celebrate. Of course, that’s not how the organizers of Earth Day 2010 see it. In their view (to quote a recent online call to arms), “The world is in greater peril than ever.” But consider this: In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more drinkable than it was in 1970. In most of the First World, deforestation has turned to reforestation. Moreover, the percentage of malnutrition has been reduced, and ever-more people have access to clean water and sanitation.

Apocalyptic predictions from concerned environmental activists are nothing new. Until about 10 years ago, I took it for granted that these predictions were sound. Like many of us, I believed that the world was in a terrible state that was only getting worse with each passing day. My thinking changed only when, as a university lecturer, I set out with my students to disprove what I regarded at the time as the far-fetched notion that global environmental conditions were actually improving.