Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
As so often happens on the interweb, I found myself lost in a rabbit hole of complexity where naively I had expected to find simplicity. What began as a plan to explain to Cliscep readers the basics of the sceptic’s favourite spicy sauce, “global greening,” soon became complicated because the facts themselves are complicated. For example, there is a vegetation index that I am familiar with and know how to calculate*, which is one that has shown greening in the satellite era. However, only now reading the wider literature on global greening, I soon found out that my simple index is actually fiendishly difficult to interpret. For that reason among others, I’m not going to talk about global greening right now – that will have to wait for another day. Instead I’m going to tell you about one of the innumerable side-branches of the rabbit warren I found myself in.
I was looking for a good place to illustrate the basic concept of a gradual change in greenness over time since the dawn of the satellite era. To that end I thought somewhere in the Sahel would be a good model. On Nasa’s excellent Worldview website**, you can display many data layers, including vegetation indices. With Landsat you can go back to about 1983, and data from Terra/Aqua become available I think in 2002. So I was looking at the NDVI record for North Africa from outer space, scrolling through time, looking for a place that might make an exemplar of the theme, when I spotted what looked like a sudden blossoming of life not at the join between Sahara and Sahel but in pure desert – once utterly lifeless sand in the middle of nowhere suddenly lighting up the NDVI scale.
1986 – NDVI based on Landsat data
2010 – Aqua/MODIS
Naturally I had an idea what was going on, but nevertheless it didn’t seem to make a great deal of sense. So I turned to Google Earth in hopes that someone had helpfully uploaded geolocated photographs of the site, or else that it would be labelled with a place name that I could look up elsewhere.
Google Earth – current image
Luckily for this puzzle, a contributor called Ragab Hafiez had uploaded some photographs of the area. The first photograph I saw was what looked like barley – a typical British crop growing in the middle of the Western Desert. Another photo showed what looked like alfalfa, and others showed workers harvesting… potatoes. What gives?
“Cultivated Desert” by Ragab Hafiez on Google Earth (at about 22° 42′ N, 28° 24′ E).
Well, of course this is no natural greening caused by the CO2 fertilisation effect. This is the result of irrigation. Under the desert sand, there is water. If you put a borehole deep enough, you can reach it. Then you can simply pump out water and make it rain.
The circles on the Google Earth image are at 1 km centres, and each is 800 m in diameter (i.e. the area of each is about half a square kilometre). The irrigation systems are giant booms – obviously 400 m in length – that sweep around a central axis. The whole site (East Owainat) is easily 50 km across.
Is sucking water out of the ground to grow barley in a desert with essentially zero actual rainfall a good idea? Obviously it’s harder to grow barley in the Western Desert than, say the flatlands of Cambridgeshire. I can imagine that sandstorms threaten to bury everything, for a start. The desert is obviously sunnier, but it’s also hotter – Kharga, the nearby oasis (nearby-ish; don’t try to walk it) has an average June maximum of 40°C and a record temp of 50°C. The aquifer is going to deplete over time (according to El Alfy (2014)^, the aquifer is going down at a rate of 0.5 m per year; its thickness seems to be quite variable). Aquifer depletion generally has the potential to cause sinkholes, but here my naïve guess is that because the surface is “obviously” sandstone, there are no subsurface caverns primed to open up under the farm workers’ feet.
Why start farming in the middle of nowhere? Why not close to an existing oasis like Kharga? Well, the existing oasis already has water. And one presumes that Kharga sits at the level of the aquifer, such that local water extraction would rapidly cause obvious problems – the water at the surface would begin to disappear. No doubt the theory behind the choice of East Owainat is that it is far enough from anywhere that no amount of aquifer depletion will affect anyone else.
Why barley? Why not a plant with C4 photosynthesis, which is more productive in hot and dry conditions (maize for example)? I have no answer to that.
Nor do I know how long the desert at East Owainat will remain green. Triumph of human ingenuity, or hubristic folly?
This miniature has no direct link to climate change. Or does it? I will leave it to the reader to decide whether or not the cultivation of barley in the Western Desert might be relevant to claims about the way future agricultural productivity might be affected by the “climate crisis”.
Notes & References
You might have noticed another change between the 1986 and 2010 images. Over to the right of the second image, there is a dark area that wasn’t there in the first. These are the Toshka Lakes, fed by an overflow from Lake Nasser. These might give rise to a rapid bounty of fish and crops, but one suspects this will be temporary. The lakes are filled occasionally, and of course rapidly evaporate. Naturally over time this will lead to the concentration of minerals in the water going up.
*NDVI. “Normalised Difference Vegetation Index.” I think this was the first one invented for use with Landsat images in the 1970s. It is based on the idea that plants absorb more red light and reflect more infrared than bare ground. Now, I know what you’re thinking. Plants are green, so why do we need an index involving red and infrared? Why not just measure green? Well, if you remember those far-off days in gloomy classrooms, playing with triangular prisms and watching dust motes swarm in the gleam cutting in around the edge of the blinds, you’ll also remember that white light contains green. Plants appear green because they have preferentially absorbed blue and red light. What I am trying to get at is that a white surface (e.g. snow) has as much green light coming off it as, say, a municipal lawn.
**Worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov
^El Alfy, M. (2014). Numerical groundwater modelling as an effective tool for management of water resources in arid areas, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59:6, 1259-1274. [Gettable from Google Scholar.]
Last week’s Hearing was a sad example of what passes for debate and deliberations by the U.S. Senate. In any event, it provides an interesting case study of why the U.S. cannot bridge the partisan divide and figure out how to deal sensibly with the climate change issue.
Last week’s Hearing was a sad example of what passes for debate and deliberations by the U.S. Senate. In any event, it provides an interesting case study of why the U.S. cannot bridge the partisan divide and figure out how to deal sensibly with the climate change issue.
I expected SW to go after me, which he has often done to Republican witnesses. In my written testimony, I added a paragraph at the end of my biosketch to defuse any accusations of being in the pocket of ‘big oil.’ When SW introduced the witnesses, he thanked each one and said he was looking forward to their testimony – including the other Republican witness. In introducing me, he simply stated my name and my positions. The writing was on the wall from the very beginning of the Hearing. However, I did not expect the inanity that ensued.
It seems that Senator Whitehouse thought that his grilling of me was some sort magnificent ‘takedown’: mischaracterizing things that I had written over a decade ago, out of context references to my use of alarmist trigger words “hoax” and “corrupt” in interviews and obscure blog posts, unpublished graphs that I have never seen before, words of ‘wisdom’ from Exxon in the 1960’s, etc.
Apart from the issue that almost none of this had anything to do with my testimony and much of the time I had no idea what he was talking about, he gave me about 30 seconds to respond to each of these, saying that I could respond later in writing. The day after the Hearing, his staffer emailed me with follow up questions from Senator Grassley (see my responses: Judith Curry response to Senator Grassley questions) and that “I will also be sending you a transcript of your remarks from the hearing in the next few days, to make minor edits to” – I have yet to receive this transcript.
In any event, that doesn’t sound like I will really have a chance to respond in the Congressional Record in a meaningful way, as promised several times by Senator Whitehouse. So I am responding here on my blog, to show how pointless such behavior is in the Halls of Congress where serious issues should be debated in a serious manner.
My 2014 Congressional Testimony
SW brought up my my 2014 Testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which compared statements made by the IPCC AR4 (2007) with the IPCC AR5 (2013), which led me to conclude that the AR5 presented a weaker case for anthropogenic warming than did the AR4.
SW read off my summary bullet points without mentioning the substantial documentation I provided in terms of direct quotes from the AR5, and then proceeded to attempt a refutation of my 2014 Testimony by mischaracterizing my statements and bringing up recent observations, e.g. that the Antarctic sea ice was currently at a record low level.
Here is the text from my 2014 testimony that are direct quotes from the IPCC AR5:
“[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.”
“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.”
“It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012. “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”
SW asks how these conclusions have held up over time. The historical temperature and sea level data remain as they were (well for the most part), and the slow but irregular creep of warming has continued.
Senator Whitehouse used the recent record low in Antarctic sea ice extent as a refutation of statements in my 2014 testimony. The IPCC AR5 statements about Antarctic sea ice that were cited in my 2014 Testimony have generally stood the test of time. Here is text from the IPCC AR6 WGI Report (Section 2.3.2.1.2):
“AR5 (2013) reported a small but significant increase in the total annual mean Antarctic SIE [sea ice extent] that was very likely in the range of 1.2–1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012 (0.13–0.20 million km2 per decade) (very high confidence), while SROCC (2019) reported that total Antarctic sea ice coverage exhibited no significant trend over the period of satellite observations (1979–2018) (high confidence). SROCC noted that a significant positive trend in mean annual ice cover between 1979 and 2015 had not persisted, due to three consecutive years of below-average ice cover (2016–2018). SROCC stated also that historical Antarctic sea ice data from different sources indicated a decrease in overall Antarctic sea ice cover since the early 1960s, but was too small to be separated from natural variability (high confidence).”
Nowhere in the IPCC reports do they attribute any decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent to human caused warming.
Discrepancies between climate model projections and observations
During the Hearing, I was presented with a figure purporting to prove that climate models in 2004 had accurately predicted the global average temperature since then.
I did not recognize that particular figure, but I knew that the CMIP3 models used in the 2007 IPCC AR4 were found by the AR5 to have over predicted the temperatures for the period 1999-2012. I also knew that the CMIP3 climate models were heavily tuned to the historical temperature record (which explains the good agreement prior to 2004). I subsequently found out that this figure was published in a blog post with no clear description of exactly how the model-observation comparison was done.
Here is the relevant figure from the IPCC AR5. Figure 11.25 compares climate model projections with observations of global surface temperature anomalies through 2012.
Figure 11.25 shows that near term climate projections for the period 1999-2012 were much warmer than the observed temperatures, with several years dropping below the 5-95% envelope of the climate model simulations.
With regards to the CMIP3 simulations used in the blog post and diagram presented by Senator Whitehouse, the IPCC AR5 has this to say:
“However, the implied rates of warming over the period from 1986–2005 to 2016–2035 are lower as a result of the hiatus: 0.10°C–0.23°C per decade, suggesting the AR4 assessment [CMIP3 models] was near the upper end of current expectations for this specific time interval.”
Ed Hawkins is the IPCC author who prepared Figure 11.25. He updated the Figure with temperatures through 2021. This later period included the extremely warm temperatures associated with the super El Nino in 2016. The year 2016 barely made it to the midpoint of the climate model range; compare 2016 with 1998 (a previous super El Nino), which slightly exceeded the upper boundary of the 5-95% range.
Trigger words: corruption and hoax
The most inane part of the questioning was challenging me on my use of two trigger words for climate change alarmists – “corrupt” and “hoax”.
SW stated: You’ve accused the IPCC of corruption. Do you stand by that accusation? He did not prove a direct quotation, I have no idea exactly what he is referring to even after a google search of the relevant words.
In a 2010 interview for Discover Magazine, I made the following statement:
“There is a substantial level of public interest in investigating the issues raised by Climategate. These issues include: wanting an assessment of the reliability and accuracy of the historical and paleo temperature records/reconstructions; wanting an assessment of whether the IPCC was corrupted and whether their conclusions are reliable and can be trusted as the basis for international carbon and energy policy; and whether there are some “bad apples” in the climate research community that need to be weeded out in the sense of not being in positions of responsibility as journal editor, IPCC lead author, administrator.”
This statement was subsequently exaggerated inappropriately in a 2010 Scientific American profile on me:
“Few scientists would claim the IPCC is perfect, but Curry thinks it needs thoroughgoing reform. She accuses it of “corruption.” “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC,” she says, “because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.” “
A 2012 interview with oilprice.com made the following statement, which correctly reflects my concerns about the IPCC process.
“Judith was a one time supporter of the IPCC until she started to find herself disagreeing with certain policies and methods of the organization. She feared the combination of groupthink and political advocacy, combined with an ingrained “noble cause syndrome” stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress, and corrupted the assessment process.”
Around the same time of these interviews, the UN InterAcademy Council (IAC) began a thorough review of the IPCC’s policies and practices, in response to issues raised by Climategate. The IAC invited me make a presentation on my concerns. Also around the same time, the U.S. Natural Research Council Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy invited me to make a presentation on my concerns about the integrity of climate science in light of Climategate.
While the IPCC has instituted several of the changes recommended by the IAC, I remain very concerned about the politicization of the IPCC . For the past 15 years, I have been an advocate for the integrity of scientific research and assessment processes.
At this point, the IPCC WGI on the physical basis of climate change maintains some measure of objectivity, although the Summary for Policy Makers is politicized and cherry picks the findings. As evidenced by the recently published IPCC Synthesis Report, it seems that science has left the room, with the emphasis on weakly justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emission scenarios from WGII, and politicized policy recommendations on emissions reductions from WGIII.
The “hoax” issue is even more inane.
Senator Whitehouse made the following statement: “Curry has agreed with Trump’s description of climate change as a “hoax”, writing in 2016 that the UN’s definition of manmade climate change “qualifies as a hoax.” This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote.
In a 2016 blog post title “Trumping the climate,” I examined President-elect Trump’s statements on climate change and his frequent use of the word ‘hoax’.
<begin quote>
Lets first look at the definition of ‘hoax’, here are a few I spotted by googling:
a humorous or malicious deception.
to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
a plan to deceive a large group of people
a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.
With these definitions in mind, here are two examples that qualify as hoaxes that I have previously written about:
The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax: climate change is a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.[link]. This perversion of the definition of ‘climate change’ was designed to mislead people into thinking that all climate change is caused by humans.
<end quote>
With regards to #1, here is my concern. The UNFCCC has redefined the term “climate change” away from the traditional definition used in the geological, atmospheric and oceanic sciences, to make a distinction between climate change—attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition (mainly CO2), and climate variability—attributable to natural causes. This redefinition of “climate change” to refer only to human-caused changes to the atmospheric composition has effectively eliminated natural climate change from the public discussion—the common parlance refers to “climate change,” with no mention of natural climate variability. As a result, any change that is observed over the past century is now implicitly assumed to be caused by human emissions to the atmosphere. This assumption leads to connecting every unusual weather or climate event to human-caused climate change from fossil fuel emissions. This redefinition of “climate change” by the UNFCCC is a deception and misleading, which has arguably contributed to Trump calling climate change a hoax.
Why anyone thinks this is worth discussing in a Congressional Hearing is beyond me.
EXXON and the American Petroleum Institute
I was shown an indecipherable diagram that was created by EXXON at some unspecified date, but presumably in the 1960’s or 1970’s. SW characterized this graph of CO2 concentrations and temperatures as being a ‘model’ that turned out to be pretty accurate. Two lines both having the same trend do not constitute a model, or imply anything about causation.
I was also read a statement that was made in 1968 by a report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, warning that continued increases in CO2 could cause harm from warming the climate by 2000.
The point is this. Our knowledge of climate change was in its infancy in the 1960’s. What Exxon or anyone else ‘knew’ at this time was associated with a very weak knowledge base, and is irrelevant to the current scientific debate on the issue. We have understood the basic mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect since the 19th century; the key questions remain as to its magnitude and its importance relative to natural climate variability.
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report published in 1990, which reflects the best assessment of our knowledge several decades subsequent to the Exxon ‘model’ and the AIP Report, included the following summary judgment:
“The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.”
Senator Whitehouse asked me if I stood by my 2007 op-ed, after reading aloud the part about risk and risk management. This is actually something of relevance for this Hearing.
“But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening [JC addendum: also need to add strength of the knowledge base in assessing risk]. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.
The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced. [JC qualification: I stand by this statement, but it is most definitely not an endorsement of rapidly transitioning to wind and solar power].
There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”
I was wrong about trusting the IPCC on polar bears, and I was wrong in most of my criticisms of Lomborg. However, my statements about risk hold up fairly well after 16 years. I would add the following nuance from my more recent perspective of having written a book on this topic: “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” specifically with regards to “doing nothing:”
Acceptable risk requires no management. Risks are tolerable if activities are considered as worth pursuing for the associated benefits. For tolerable risks, efforts for risk reduction or coping are welcomed, provided that the benefits of the activities are not lost. Burning fossil fuels has historically been considered a tolerable risk. Climate change risks have been characterized as acceptable, tolerable, and intolerable by different individuals and constituencies – clearly an ambiguous situation. As described in my written statement, judgments of intolerable risks from climate change relate to mistakenly conflating the slow creep of global warming (an emerging risk) with consequences from extreme weather and climate events (emergency risks).
The slow creep of warming is best characterized as a tolerable risk. If we can eliminate this risk by reducing fossil fuel emissions in a way that does not incur further harm, then this should be welcomed. However, plans to rapidly dismantle our power infrastructure and replace it with unreliable wind and solar power risks producing greater harms than any conceivable impacts from climate change. My written testimony refers to this as “transition risk.”
Volcanoes and climate change
SW’s only mention of my written testimony is a question regarding volcanoes, in response to my statement:
“Plausible scenarios of natural climate variability in the mid-21st century (not included in the climate model simulations) point to a slowdown in the rate of global warming driven by: an expected solar minimum, the possibility of explosive volcanic eruptions, and a projected shift in multi-decadal ocean circulation patterns.”
SW asked a question about whether I expected volcanoes to save us from global warming. My take on this is consistent with the IPCC AR6 WG1 Box 4.1:
“Typically, three in every four centuries have experienced at least one eruption stronger than –1 W m-2 (Pinatubo or larger). The volcanic aerosol burden was 14% lower during the 20th century compared to the average of the preceding 24 centuries, whereas the 13th century was among the most volcanically active, with four eruptions exceeding that of Pinatubo-1991.”
“Due to the direct radiative effect of volcanic stratospheric aerosols, large volcanic eruptions lead to an overall decrease of GSAT [global surface air temperature], which can extend to multi-decadal or century timescales in the case of clustered volcanism.”
“Given the unpredictability of individual eruptions, volcanic forcing is prescribed as a constant background loading in CMIP6 models. This means the effects of potential large volcanic eruptions are largely absent from model projections, and few studies have addressed the potential implications on 21st century warming. One study considered future scenarios with hypothetical volcanic eruptions consistent with levels of CE [Common Era] volcanic activity under RCP4.5 and found that climate projections could be substantially altered. Although temporary, close to pre-industrial level temperatures could be experienced globally for a few years after a 1257 Samalas-sized eruption.”
“Clustered eruptions would have substantial impact upon GSAT [global surface air temperature] evolution throughout the century, and could have far-reaching implications, as observed for past eruptions.”
JC message to Senator Whitehouse
If you are going to attempt such a takedown in the future, I suggest that you need better staffers. The questions on “corrupt”, “hoax”, Exxon, and API were truly inane. If you are attempting to prove something such as 2004 climate model projections matching observations, you should rely on a better source than a blog post. In any event, all this seems to have impressed the 80 or so clueless commenters on your youtube clip. But it won’t impress serious people.
Climate change is a serious issue. Depending on your perspective and values, there will be much future loss and damage from either climate change itself, or from the policies designed to prevent climate change. Conflicts surrounding climate change have been exacerbated by oversimplifying both the problem and its solutions. And from mischaracterizing the risks from climate change.
Constructively working with your Republican colleagues is essential for accomplishing anything that could help reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather events and the slow creep of warming. A good start would be to provide some modicum of respect towards witnesses invited by Republicans and carefully considering the arguments made in their testimony. Hearings are an opportunity for Senators to actually learn things from the expert witnesses.
“… economic modelling has often suggested that temperature increases well above … the 2 °C target … would result in higher total welfare …”
The global economics of climate action
Jarmo Kikstra Researcher (IACC, S3, TISS)
Bettina Greenwell Communications Officer (CER)
23 March 2023
Climate change has serious consequences for the environment and people and is a major threat to economic stability. A new assessment reviews innovative, integrated research that underpins the economic case for strong near-term climate action.
Economic studies analyzing the costs and benefits of ambitious and rapid climate action have struggled to build a strong case due to methodological difficulties in trying to quantify all climate impacts. A new analysis looks at a pioneering approach to project economic impacts along climate mitigation pathways, finding that near-term emissions reductions are globally economically optimal, with central estimates for the “optimal warming” around 1.8-1.9°C by 2100.
Cost-benefit analyses of climate change impacts generally fall in one of two groups. The first group uses statistical methods to relate climate and weather patterns to economic productivity. While there have been improvements in this area, such methods remain a “black box” – it is not possible to easily relate economic productiveness to heat- or drought-related mortality. The second group adds up various climate impacts calculated in a more transparent and detailed manner, but is unable to quantify all impacts as well as all the interactions between them over time.
The assessment, published in Nature Climate Change, finds that new research takes a pioneering approach to build on previous work with increased detail incorporating some of the interaction between sectors, improving upon the methods of previous studies. …
If you visit the article above and click the link under the reference section, that takes you to an otherwise heavily paywalled article in Nature.
Strong climate action is worth it
Jarmo S. Kikstra & Paul Waidelich
An immediate and rapid reduction in global emissions is required for many reasons. Integrated research supports the economic case for strong near-term climate action, even before accounting for expected negative impacts on biodiversity, health and tipping points.
What is modelled as economically optimal may very well not be in line with a future that is societally desirable. With every bit of additional global warming, especially at warming levels of higher than 1.5 °C, peo-ple living in small island developing states and low-lying coastal areas are at increased risk of facing displacement, more of the world’s coral reefs are expected to be lost, and the triggering of multiple tipping points becomes more likely. Based on multiple lines of evidence, research-ers have, therefore, argued that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C outweighs the cost. By contrast, forward-looking economic modelling has often suggested that temperature increases well above the Paris Agreement target (and previously the 2 °C target in the Cancun Agree-ments) would result in higher total welfare (Fig. 1). Writing in Nature Climate Change, Kaj-Ivar van der Wijst and colleagues3 report a new way to project economic impacts along climate mitigation pathways …Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01635-2.epdf
If you hit a paywall when clicking the link above, visit the first article and click the reference link, which led me to a non paywalled copy.
I wish the researchers had made it clearer which economic model suggested “optimal” benefit from global warming above 3 C.
Despite the intriguing suggestion that substantial warming might be a net economic benefit, the authors appear to argue purely economic models to not account for biodiversity losses, tipping points, and impacts on poor people. Nevertheless I see this as the beginning of a retreat from the 1.5C trenches.
What prompted this apparent retreat from 1.5C? We can only speculate. Perhaps strong indications we have already passed 1.5C global warming, and nothing bad has happened, have prompted this rather embarrassing effort to regroup around 1.8-1.9C.
One thing I think we can safely predict. If 1.8-1.9C global warming is unequivocally breached, I doubt we will see any climate damage, but we can expect a massive rise in climate gobbledygook and double think. Of course, regardless of what happens to global temperature, the demand for mitigation and research funding will remain as strong as ever.
Irina Slav explains the deadlock over energy policy goals in her OilPrice article Energy Transition Advocates Get A Reality Check. H/T Tyler Durden. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
The choice between energy security and decarbonization is not one that tends to attract a lot of attention.
Following the energy crisis in Europe last year, world leaders are more aware of energy security.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is calling for an acceleration of the decarbonization push.
This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new report. Unsurprisingly alarming, the IPCC report aimed to turn up the heat on governments, the business world, and every one of us to do more about the energy transition. Decarbonization, the report said, had to move faster and more dramatically. Yet that wasn’t the only document that made the headlines this week. Shell also released a report in which it detailed two different scenarios for the future to 2050. In those scenarios, the supermajor’s analysts pitted energy security against the energy transition – something the IPCC reports have never done.
The choice between energy security and decarbonization does not get much attention, because it exposes the shortcomings of low-carbon energy.
Yet, as Europe found out last year, it may be wise to discuss this topic before we splash $110 trillion on the energy transition. In one of its scenarios, dubbed Archipelagos, Shell paints a familiar picture of the world of the future, at least politically. With a focus on energy security rather than decarbonization, the Archipelagos scenario describes a world similar to 19th-century Europe, where spheres of interest shift and nations ally with a view to energy security and resilience. In that scenario, emission reductions and the Paris Agreement take a back seat, but work continues on deploying low-carbon energy technology. It simply progresses at a much slower pace.
The IPCC would probably be quick to point out that this scenario is effectively a doomsday scenario because nothing should take priority over emission reduction and the race to net zero. However, it is much easier to make computer models of future global temperatures and sound the alarm about them than find the money and the raw materials necessary to effect the transition at the pace that the IPCC wants it.
The raw materials problem of the transition has been garnering more and more attention from the media and, with it, from various stakeholders. The United States came up with the idea of friend-shoring to source these raw materials because it has no mine capacity to meet all of its projected demand from local supply. The EU plans to set up a Critical Raw Material Club, which effectively amounts to a buyers’ cartel, but this time for metals and minerals.
The chances of success of either of these approaches are yet to become clear, but in the meantime, another thing is becoming clear: the transition bill will be even bigger than previously expected.
The sum total of transition investments has always been in the trillion-dollar territory, but the latest estimate from a climate think tank pegs the annual spend necessary to hit net zero by 2050 at $3.5 trillion. That’s a more than threefold increase on last year’s record investment in wind, solar, and other decarbonization efforts, which for the first time topped $1 trillion. Unfortunately, that record investment—some of its actual spent, the rest in commitments—brought us nowhere near either net zero or energy security.
In Shell’s second scenario (Sky 2050), however, these investments will work their miracle, with the indispensable help of everyone deciding to work for the common goal of cutting emissions and achieving what the company referred to long-term energy security. In this scenario, governments, citizens, and businesses team up to bring those emissions down and deploy as much low-carbon energy capacity as possible, notably driven by energy security concerns. Energy security has indeed been one of the strongest arguments in favor of wind and solar—the energy produced locally is better than imported energy.
That leaves the reliability and affordability issue, which decision-makers appear determined to tackle with excess capacity—for reliability—and with massive investments and subsidies—to solve the affordability problem. Because much as climate think tanks and activists like to repeat that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy available, the wind and solar industries themselves appear to disagree.
“We are walking when we should be sprinting,” the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hoesung Lee, said at the release of the body’s latest report. There are “no big fundamental barriers to the energy transition,” said the deputy director of that climate think tank that produced the report estimating the cost of said transition.
Based on these statements and the documents behind them, the transition seems like a no-brainer, however you look at it. Except if you look at it from an energy security perspective. Or a financial one. Because if there were no big fundamental barriers to decarbonization, such as reliability issues or affordability challenges, the transition would be happening everywhere, organically, without the need for such strong government support. This is what happens with successful, beneficial technology.
Which of the two scenarios that Shell has developed for the future remains to be seen. For now, the Archipelago scenario seems more realistic, not least because it does not rely on as many assumptions as the Sky 2050 scenario, such as a global ban on ICE cars by 2040.
Planning on an Array of Assumptions
So do all the scenarios of transition advocates. They are all based on a series of assumptions, some of them dangerously far-fetched, such as the assumption that there will be enough metals for EVs to take over roads. And assumptions are risky allies. Although sometimes grounded in reality, most of the transition assumptions appear to be grounded in wishes rather than facts.
And wishes do not make reality or bring energy security into spontaneous existence.
Footnote: Dieter Helm’s In Depth Analysis of Climate and Energy Security Policy
To claim that the impact of climate change meant that the construction and use of buildings are now a “bigger existential threat than nuclear war” is something that nobody in their right mind would say, and is an insult to those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Why does the Telegraph give publicity to nutters like this?
To claim that the impact of climate change meant that the construction and use of buildings are now a “bigger existential threat than nuclear war” is something that nobody in their right mind would say, and is an insult to those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And he is not even right about “buildings accounting for 15% of emissions”. It is the people who live in them who need energy to live their lives.
And it is irrelevant how “green” you make buildings – their construction will still require concrete, metals and equipment, all of which involve large amounts of fossil fuels in their production, transportation and use. And I doubt whether his preference for refurbishing rather than new build will have much effect either, since new builds can be designed to be much more energy efficient.
The end logic of Mr. Sturgis is that we should all go back to living in mud huts.
Unfortunately Sturgis is just another of those attention seekers, who want to push their extreme agendas onto the rest of us. Shame on the Telegraph for giving him the opportunity.
To me one of the most striking things about the chart is the low level of penetration of wind- and solar-based electricity in primary energy consumption in every country, even after decades of massive subsidies and extreme political pressure to “save the planet” by means of an energy transition.
A recurring theme here at Manhattan Contrarian is that the “smart” people who seek to run the world are not really very smart. They may have gotten high scores on the SATs, and they may have attended fancy universities, but when it comes to practical knowledge of how the world works they are often complete idiots.
A special case of this phenomenon is that the highest gurus of high finance — the people who are most trusted to have mastered basic numeracy, and who get to pass out trillions of dollars of public funds — are completely innumerate.
I come to this issue today as a result of the recently-completed briefing in CHECC v. EPA, the DC Circuit case challenging EPA’s “finding” that atmospheric CO2 is a “danger to human health and welfare.” The group challenging the Endangerment Finding, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, asserts standing on the ground that increasing the amount of solar and wind “renewable” generation on the grid necessarily drives up consumer electricity bills. The reasons why this is so have been discussed many times on this blog. Perhaps the most detailed discussion appears in the Articles section, titled “The Disastrous Economics Of Trying To Power an Electrical Grid With 100% Intermittent Renewables.” This subject does require some thought to understand, but certainly no advanced math. The main point is that intermittent renewables cannot power a grid on their own, and as their grid penetration increases, large amounts of some combination of backup, storage, and overbuilding are required, all of which add to the cost of the system. All of this is easily demonstrated with basic arithmetic. Anyone who successfully finished the sixth grade should grasp it immediately.
As obvious as the conclusion of increasing electricity prices may be, our government, represented by EPA and the Justice Department, either claims, or pretends, not to recognize that conclusion. Could seemingly smart people really be so dense?
Well, consider the case of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. These are the people at the top of the knowledge pyramid of international finance. They get hundreds of billions of dollars of funding from governments in developed countries, and are given the authority to hand out those funds, let alone to educate and instruct governments in developing countries how to run their economies and their monetary policies correctly. This monetary policy stuff is all arithmetic, some of it fairly complicated. Surely, if anyone in the world can do basic arithmetic, these are the people.
So consider the piece from the IMF’s online journal Finance & Development by Bob Keefe, from December 2022, titled “The Price of Energy Insecurity.” According to this guy, wind and solar are the obvious route to inexpensive electricity:
[T]hanks to previous policies and the advance of technology, solar and wind are the cheapest sources of power available in most parts of the world. Electric vehicles are cheaper to operate, especially when gas prices soar. Energy-efficient products—LED lighting, high-efficiency heat pumps and hot water heaters, and better windows and insulation—can save consumers and businesses money with every monthly power bill. And making clean energy at home, from fuel that’s free for the taking, makes a nation more secure.
And it’s not just Keefe and the IMF who have gotten the message. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is fully on board:
“Ending our dependency on Russian fossil fuels is only the first step,” [von der Leyen] said at the Bled Strategic Forum in Slovenia. “The skyrocketing electricity prices are now exposing, for different reasons, the limitations of our current electricity market design. It was developed under completely different circumstances and for completely different purposes. It is no longer fit for purpose.”
And don’t forget about the World Bank, the IMF’s partners in global high finance. From the World Bank’s “Energy” page, September 26, 2022:
Renewables Are the Key to Green, Secure, Affordable Energy. Renewable energy can help countries mitigate climate change, build resilience to volatile prices, and lower energy costs—this is especially critical now as spiking fossil fuel costs are debilitating poor energy importing countries. Solar and wind technologies can become a game changer for many developing countries as solar and wind are abundant, cost-competitive, and a source of reliable power when combined with battery storage.
Or, from the UN’s International Renewable Energy Agency, July 13, 2022:
“Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021,” published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) today, shows that almost two-thirds or 163 gigawatts (GW) of newly installed renewable power in 2021 had lower costs than the world’s cheapest coal-fired option in the G20. IRENA estimates that, given the current high fossil fuel prices, the renewable power added in 2021 saves around USD 55 billion from global energy generation costs in 2022.
So what is happening in the real world? A guy named Mike Jonas at Watts Up With That yesterday has compiled the latest data that he could find on the relationship between wind and solar penetration in primary energy consumption in a country versus consumer electricity prices. The wind/solar generation percent data come from 2021; the consumer electricity prices are from June 2022. Here is the chart:
Commenters at WUWT point out, correctly, that this chart hides many complications, particularly the extent to which each country either lowers consumer electricity costs with massive subsidies, or raises them by embedding taxes. Nevertheless, the strong correlation between increasing wind/solar penetration and increasing consumer prices is clear.
To me one of the most striking things about the chart is the low level of penetration of wind- and solar-based electricity in primary energy consumption in every country, even after decades of massive subsidies and extreme political pressure to “save the planet” by means of an energy transition. The only country that has gotten materially past 15% wind/solar energy production is Denmark at about 24%; and that is at a cost of consumer electricity prices well over 50 cents/kWh — about 5 times the U.S. average price. (Commenters point out that Denmark has unusually high amounts of taxes embedded in electricity prices, but it would still be an outlier without them.). Germany and the UK, after many years of vast subsidies and an extraordinary push toward green energy have only achieved 10% and 12% respectively of primary energy from wind and solar, with electricity prices over 4 times the average U.S. level. Greece seems to be some kind of a best case for wind and solar, with close to 15% penetration and electricity prices less than double the U.S. average; but check out this Reuters piece about Greece’s vast subsidies to lower prices to consumers.
I won’t claim that the final real world results are yet in. But if wind and solar could actually provide reliable electricity for lower cost than the fossil fuel alternative, this chart would show correlation with a directly opposite slope. Let’s see some country achieve 50%, or for that matter 85% of primary energy from wind and solar (as many countries are supposedly promising by 2050), and let’s see what the costs are. People who can do basic arithmetic know full well that getting to those goals will entail increasing consumer electricity prices by a large multiple.
Wade Allison has done a short but devastating analysis for the GWPF. The take home message is that the energy contained in the wind is diabolically more erratic than most people realize. It’s just basic physics and almost no one in politics seems able to comprehend just how impossible these numbers are. If only they would “follow the science” eh?
It’s just physics. The power of the blowing wind increases by the speed of those particles cubed which produces a twin engineering nightmare. If the wind doubles in speed, the energy goes up by a factor of 8 (or 2 × 2 × 2, and we need to spell it out), and if it slows by half, the energy drops eight-fold. It’s bad both ways. At high speeds, the mechanical engineers have to turn off the turbines to protect them, and at low speeds the electrical engineers have to ramp up power stations that may not exist, or pray to Gaia for batteries that will never exist.
Allison has a graph showing the total output of all the wind turbines in the UK and Europe for a whole year compared to the total electricity needed. As he says “This is not the headline plot that the industry shows to its investors, the media and politicians, but it comes from their own published annual WindEurope Report”.
Just look at this graph from 2021 where wind power is achieving so little in some of the richest nations on Earth and say the words The UN Secretary General wants us all to say: “NetZero by 2040”.
GWPF
The installed theoretical generating capacity above was 236 gigawatts (shown in the brown dashed line), but the highest daily output in the year was 103 gigawatts which means the other 364 days were worse.
Then consider the entire output of the offshore windfarms of the UK. The wind is more reliable over the ocean, but it’s still an electrical disaster.
In March 2021 there was an eight day period when the wind speed presumably halved and the output plummeted. For eight whole days 8.8GW of wind power was not available (green box). The total energy lost was around 1,600 gigawatt-hours, which is also 1,000 times more than what the biggest battery on Earth could provide.
Figure 2 shows the wind power generated by all UK offshore windfarms in March 2022, as presented online on the Crown Estate website.4 Over some periods, it rose to the nominal installed capacity of 10GW. However, for 8 days at the end of the month it averaged no more than 1.2GW.
Allison explains the devastating maths of filling in those gaps:
That much energy, 1600GWh, is 1000 times the capacity of the world’s largest grid storage battery (1.6GWh at Moss Landings, California). Batteries 20 million times larger are never going to be available and storage batteries will never make good the failure of offshore wind farms, even for a week. And the wind can drop for longer periods than that.
For those who want the physics, he sums it up so well:
The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M=ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre.
If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2 That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists.
But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.
REFERENCES
Wade Allison (2023) The Inadequacy of Wind Power, Global Warming Policy Foundation.
3 WindEurope Statistics. 4 Crown Estate publishes the running output over the previous 30 days.
A new study shows how supernovae influence Earth’s climate. The implication is a surprisingly influential role of stellar processes on terrestrial evolution.
Sunday 26th March 2023 | Dr David Whitehouse, Science editor
A new study shows how supernovae influence Earth’s climate. The implication is a surprisingly influential role of stellar processes on terrestrial evolution.
A supernova is one of nature’s greatest explosions. It’s the endpoint of the life of certain types of stars that occurs with the outpouring of vast amounts of energy making the luminosity of the explosion many billions of times brighter than our Sun. In doing so supernovae scatter heavy elements throughout the cosmos allowing the formation of new stars, planets, and you and I. During the explosion they also propel protons and atomic nuclei at close to the speed of light. These are known for historical reasons as cosmic rays, and the pervade the galaxy and beyond. New research extends their influence to the long-term biodiversity of life on Earth.
Over the last two decades there has been significant progress in appreciating that cosmic rays have an important influence on the Earth’s climate through their influence on the atmosphere, both on short and on geological timescales. A decade ago a connection between supernovae and life was discussed by Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark which provided a robust assessment of the change in supernova frequency over the Phanerozoic period – the era covers the last 540 million years, the one in which animal and plant life has existed.
In his latest paper Svensmark finds a close correlation between changes in supernovae frequency during the solar system’s galactic orbit and changes in the diversity of marine animal genera over the Phanerozoic era. He suggests that changes in the frequency of supernova in the Earth’s galactic vicinity and the area of shallow marine margins on the edges of continents have been vital in shaping the diversity of marine life. This is because the flooding of continents as they move opened up new regions where new species can evolve.
The interpretation is that changes in cosmic rays play a role in determining climate which is responsible for the available energy in the ocean–atmosphere system. Climate thereby determines the mixing and transport of fundamental nutrients like iron, nitrogen, phosphor, and carbon in the oceans and atmosphere. Although the correlations do not mean that there are no other influences are affecting diversity, they suggest an effect of supernovae on diversity.
But the idea of a role for supernovas in biodiversity is based on more than just the demonstrated correlations. Adding to the picture is that supernovae frequency correlates with the burial of organic matter in sediments over the past 3.5 billion years, supporting the hypothesis that supernovae link the climate, the flux of nutrients, and bio-productivity.
The results depicted in Figure 1 are consistent with the hypothesis that supernovae influence climate, which influences circulation and thereby the flow of nutrients, which impacts the bioproductivity and finally affects the genera-level diversity. The estimated supernovae rate is plotted along with various estimates of biomarine diversity.
Many have speculated about the disastrous consequences for humanity of a supernova going off in the solar neighbourhood. It seems, however, that in the cosmos supernovae give to life as well as taking it away.
While opinions differ on criminality, the war in Ukraine has upset the daily life of people around the world. Food, fuels and fertilizers have become more expensive for everyone, and the world energy order has turned for the worse.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant on 17th March against Vladimir Putin, leader of the world’s largest energy exporter (Russia), accusing him of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Five days later, China’s President Xi Jinping – recently confirmed for an unprecedented third term — said he was ready to ‘stand guard over a world order based on international law’ as he met President Putin in Moscow. “International law” seems to have different interpretations, and the ICC evidently does not have a monopoly on what passes as international law in the concert of nations.
According to Wikipedia, the ICC is an international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands with over 100 countries having ratified the Rome Statute, meaning that they are willing to use the ICC in their States. Among the countries that do not recognize its jurisdiction are Russia, China and the US. While the ICC matters little in the daily life of the world’s billions of ordinary mortals, it aims to exhibit a global consensus on criminality including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
While opinions differ on criminality, the war in Ukraine has upset the daily life of people around the world. Food, fuels and fertilizers have become more expensive for everyone, and the world energy order has turned for the worse. To be sure, the covid pandemic lockdowns and prior “green” anti-fossil fuel policies had already set the stage for inflation and shortages of essential foodstuffs and industrial commodities even before the outbreak of the Ukraine war. The war itself merely accentuated the inflation and fraying of supply chains that was already apparent across the global economy.
Phone calls and diplomacy
President Xi, we learn, is slated to have a call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine after the former’s visit to Moscow. According to CNN, a “senior Ukrainian official” said that “discussions are underway with China to organize a call between the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss Beijing’s proposal for a peace plan for Ukraine”.
Meanwhile, we are also told by the Biden White House spokesman John Kirby that “President Xi has been kind of busy of late. I mean, he had the People’s Congress, which just ended; now he’s in Moscow. So, look, when it’s the right time and — for both leaders, we’ll get them on the phone.” The last time President Biden’s request for a phone call was not answered immediately was about a year ago, when it was reported that the White House was “unable to arrange calls between President Biden and the de facto leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates” as US officials tried to garner international support for Ukraine and tame a surge in global oil prices.
While global leaders meet (or not) and when they have phone conversations (or not), life goes on. And whether any of the global leaders are alleged “criminals” (or not), they seem to meet and talk (or not) when it is convenient to them. What is clear now, one year into the Ukraine war, is that peace is not around the corner. During their meeting in Moscow this week, Presidents Putin and Xi referred to each other as “dear friend”, promised economic cooperation, condemned the West and described their mutual relations as the best they have ever been.
While Presidents Xi and Putin were confabulating in Moscow, European Union countries agreed in Brussels on Monday for “a 2 billion euro plan to send 1 million artillery rounds to Ukraine over the next year by digging into their own stockpiles and teaming up to buy more shells.” On the same day, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $350 million in new US military aid to Ukraine (in addition to an estimated $196 billion provided to Ukraine from January to November 2022) and expressed renewed support for the stance of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who has demanded a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine including Crimea.
The Energy World Cleaved
As President Xi departed Moscow at the conclusion of his trip, he told President Putin: “Now there are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes.” In response, Putin replied, “I agree.” President Xi’s parting words seek first to demonstrate what both countries publicly advocate: the transition to a multipolar world beyond the American-dominated Bretton Woods system based on the US dollar as the international reserve currency. Second, they accentuate the growing Russia-China strategic partnership.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, the U.S., U.K., EU and allies imposed the most comprehensive and harshest economic attack on a sovereign nation in recent history. The Western alliance expropriated half of the Russian Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves held offshore – which had totalled some $630 billion — and blocked key Russian banks’ access to the SWIFT international payments system. Since February 2022, multiple sanctions have been applied on Russian individuals and institutions, with a focus on the country’s main export sectors, in particular oil and gas. The all-out economic warfare launched on Russia was meant to devastate the Russian economy, collapse the ruble and possibly lead to regime change with the ouster of President Putin.
In the event, the ruble rapidly fell to half its value after the invasion in February. But by June the ruble was at its strongest in more than seven years — earning it the distinction of being the best-performing currency in the world. In January this year, Reuters reported that Russia posted a record current account surplus of $227 billion in 2022, up 86% from 2021. Russian output will expand 0.3% this year (and 2.1% next year), defying earlier predictions according to the IMF which upgraded its January 30th forecast from the previous October forecast of a 2.3% contraction. Russia, according to the IMF, will perform better than Germany or the United Kingdom this year.
This was aided by robust oil and gas exports at high prices despite Western efforts to isolate the Russian economy. Russia replaced revenues lost from its reduced oil and gas exports to Europe with a pivot to China, India and other countries which did not participate in the sanctions. India and China quickly became major customers of Russia’s displaced energy exports at discounted prices.
The global energy order has been cleaved into two blocs – those supporting the Western sanctions on Russia and those that don’t. The latter constitutes most of the countries outside the narrow Western alliance of the US, EU, UK and their closest allies such as Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. Brazil, China, India, and South Africa (members of the BRICS bloc) share a compelling interest with all developing countries to access fuels, food and fertilizers – of which Russia is a “full-spectrum commodity superpower” – at lowest prices.
For sovereign nations, being told to “take sides” is an affront. This was well illustrated during Antony Blinken’s tour of some African countries in August when he went on “a charm offensive in Africa to regain the US popularity which was lost ostensibly during the Trump administration, and to counter the attempts from Russia to get more African countries on their side.” In pointed remarks to the press with Mr. Blinken sitting at her side, South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor said that she objected to “patronizing bullying” coming from the West: “Because when we believe in freedom – as I’m saying, it’s freedom for everybody – you can’t say because Africa is doing this, you will then be punished by the United States…. One thing I definitely dislike is being told ‘either you choose this or else.’”
For leading developing countries such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa, ensuring that they do not become the next victims of a globalizing West wielding its dominance in international financial institutions is as important as protecting their freedom to trade with a commodity superpower such as Russia. China’s Global Times, the daily tabloid published under the auspices of the the Chinese Communist Party, put it this way: “The thought the US may move to grab anybody’s assets who refuses to obey Washington’s dictates is truly unnerving, which is now inducing more countries to diversify their reserve assets away from US dollars.” Gita Gopinath, the IMF’s Economic Counsellor stated much the same thing by noting that “sanctions on Russia could erode the dollar’s dominance by encouraging smaller trading blocs using other currencies.”
While the US dollar’s role as international reserve currency will not be replaced anytime soon, a process of bifurcation of the global economy has already begun. We are now witnessing the emergence of parallel commodity-based financial blocs in trade, investment, finance and development loans. This will be facilitated by new financial institutions such as the BRICS’ New Development Bank and China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the increased use of currencies other than the US dollar in regional energy trade. Moscow and Beijing are working on the creation of an international reserve currency and an integrated inter-bank payments system based on a commodity-linked basket of BRICS currencies to counter Western financial sanctions.
The global energy system: A glimpse into the future
For Europe, the loss of cheap Russian gas — the basis of Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder (post-war economic miracle) — is irreversible even if the sabotaged Nordstream pipelines can be repaired. The damage to the mutual trust necessary for long-term trade between Russia and its European neighbors will not be so easily mended. Europe will undergo continued energy demand destruction, leading to de-industrialization, steep falls in living standards and social strife.
The US, well-endowed with energy and other natural resources, will gain comparative advantage in manufacturing over a vassalized Europe. The US under the Biden administration is beset by an incoherent energy policy that simultaneously wages a regulatory war on its domestic oil and gas producers to “fight climate change” while berating it for not producing enough to bring down domestic gasoline prices at the pump (an important consideration in presidential popularity). Yet, as a federal system, the US boasts many constituent states that fiercely guard their domestic industries that include coal, oil and gas. In January, twenty-one state attorneys-general released a letter that objected to the use of so-called environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria by investment advisory companies and suggested that this possibly constituted an illegal violation of fiduciary duty.
Developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that are not themselves net fossil fuel exporters will face more expensive energy supplies and slower economic growth. They will weigh their own national interests and make their own energy choices. Their choices will not necessarily be cynical and transactional but likely reflect their own attempts to climb the energy ladder that led the West to its current high living standards. For these developing countries, the Russia – China axis is a major geopolitical determinant while India’s “non-aligned” role remains important in its own right.
The Ukraine war is a watershed moment in history and the world has changed forever. The future global financial and energy order, bifurcated if not balkanized, will be less efficient with more expensive fuels and greater inequalities of access. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C., passing “a point of no return” as understood in English idiom, he uttered (according to some authors) the phrase alea iacta est (“the die is cast”) before crossing the river. It is doubtful whether any such self-aware thought crossed the minds of policy makers in the Biden administration when they decided to sanction Russia.
I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years. I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.
The Navy wants Congress to fund an additional $397 million in climate change resiliency programs in 2024, including money for electric vehicles and solar microgrids, according to budget plans revealed Monday.
The Navy wants Congress to fund an additional $397 million in climate change resiliency programs in 2024, including money for electric vehicles and solar microgrids, according to budget plans revealed Monday.
If Congress grants the funding, total Navy and Marine Corps spending on climate-related programs, such as energy, installation resiliency, disaster preparedness and research and development in fiscal year 2024 will top $1.47 billion compared to $1 billion in FY 2023, according to budget documents (p. 131). The Navy says the plan “increases climate change resiliency by 39%” and supports its objective in “strengthening maritime dominance in order to defend the nation,” documents show.
Rising shores and extreme temperatures that contribute to harsh coastal weather, seen as associated with man-made climate change, pose a serious risk to Navy and Marine Corps personnel, weapons and bases globally, according to the documents.
The Navy’s proposed budget includes funding to lease electric vehicles for non-tactical uses, construct EV charging stations and install various power-saving and backup equipment on department installations, the documents show. It also sets aside money for carbon sequestration projects, meant to restore natural environments meant to capture and store carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It’s also seeking more energy-efficient ways of powering the Navy’s next-generation Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG[X]) with an integrated power system that works by configuring both diesel and gas turbine engines, which normally service the ship’s propulsion and electric systems separately, to coordinate electrical power generation for both uses, the documents show.
Other initiatives involve research and development on energy systems for a variety of weapons and ships, including upgrades for to the Marine Corps’ fleet of 7-ton trucks known as Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacements (MTVRs).
Climate Action 🌎 🌊 🌦️
📍 WASHINGTON – The Department of the Navy hosted a first-of-its-kind Climate Tabletop Exercise to examine the impacts that climate change has on mission, readiness, and warfighting capacity.
The Navy released a climate action plan last year as Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said he “chose climate as a focal point” for his tenure as the department’s top official in a forward to the May 2022 agenda.
“Our naval forces, the United States Navy and Marine Corps, are in the crosshairs of the climate crisis: the threat increases instability and demands on our forces while simultaneously impacting our capacity to respond to those demands,” he added.
The Navy pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and build on President Joe Biden’s climate executive order with “nature-based solutions,” like carbon sequestration, and installing miniature solar fields near critical installations, the plan shows.
You must be logged in to post a comment.