Addressing Climate Change: What Scientists Say About Solutions

According to a recent Huffington Post blog by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson of Public Agenda, scientists present the facts surrounding the causes and consequences of climate change, but do nothing towards assessing and offering solutions.

Ah, so true for so many - but why expect scientists to excel in policy, anymore than we expect politicians or economists to excel in science?

Yet, increasingly, our society needs more people who have a firm comprehension of all these areas, since science is increasingly integral to the formation of governmental and economic policy in many areas, including climate change. There are a few multi-disciplinary graduate programs that do provide such an education, but not nearly enough. This is seen in the increasing, yearly number of excellent applicants that must be turned away from these programs due to lack of facilities -- programs, such as the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California at Berkeley. (Full disclosure: One of us is a faculty member in that program.) Our country needs to devote far more resources to providing students with the insights and skill sets of both the natural and social sciences.

In the meantime, there are some scientists who have done exactly what Bittle and Johnson call for, so the more compelling question becomes: why haven't their views been widely disseminated? Our society now suffers from an exploding fire hydrant of unfiltered information, thanks to the net and other proliferating media pathways, that have people drowning as they try to sort through it all.

Why is there so much unfiltered information? Partly because some reporters and their editors who, in the interests of trying to appear unbiased, report the patently absurd (some scientists make mistakes, so global warming is a hoax) right alongside the serious (the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that global warming is real, despite the mistakes that some scientists make), or are not capable of distinguishing between the two. Partly, it is due to some economic powers with strong interests in perpetuating our energy economy the way it is (think fossil fuel industries, for example). They can bankroll a pretty big publicity campaign to mislead the public, as spelled out in the forthcoming book by Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt. They mislead through distraction, or smearing good scientists and/or good science.

In such a climate, it's no wonder much of the public throws up its hands wondering what to do. The days of Albert Einstein being the national scientific idol are long gone, because we no longer have the context in which to support one, amidst the flood of unfiltered information and accusations.

So what do scientists say about solutions? Jim Hansen, the most prominent US government climate scientist, favors a carbon tax. Our personal bias is spelled out in the book that we provide only as a free download online, Cool The Earth, Save the Economy. (Full disclosure: Yes, we did write it. But the answer to Bittle and Johnson's question necessarily involves self-promotion. We have not derived, nor will derive, any profits from the book in its current form (nor do we plan to do so). The book does exactly what Bittle and Johnson call for: it assesses available solutions, and outlines a policy in terms of practicalities, like cost and political acceptability. And it includes the three suggestions offered by Bittle and Johnson: it connects the energy crisis and climate change, it does not ignore the economics, and we present the information credibly as experienced educators -- although, as noted above, credibility is a perishable commodity in a world of unfiltered information and accusations. People will have to judge for themselves if the book and its plan reflect common sense. Many have told us that it does.

Our overarching economic energy policy does not include cap and trade or a tax on carbon, but rather, suggests that the US implements both sticks, such as regulations, and carrots -- market incentives such as 1) a tax break on the profits of those who sell truly clean energy and energy efficiency products; and 2) shifting energy subsidies from fossil fuels to truly clean, renewable energy sources. Let the market pick the winners. Make clean energy and energy efficiency cheaper rather than punishing users of fossil fuels with higher costs. President Obama has started to do some of these things.

We suggest that everyone, including Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, read the book. And look over our archive of Huffington Post blogs addressing climate change.

And spread the word.

 

Comments

[easttone]

09:37 AM on 03/26/2010

just for clarity from what i get from the front man on climate change al gore the end is just around the corner we are standing on the edge if something isn't done fast we will not be able to come back from the brink. if the crisis is as stated by al gore,if this isn't tackled on the global scale isn't it useless to even try with out all countries involved wouldn't it be like having three holes in a sinking boat and only plug one your'll still sink just slower.

[research]

10:17 PM on 03/23/2010

It is easier to explain rapid climate CHANGE, kills people. So we don't want to change any of the "forcing" variables like CO2 to levels not seen for 15 M years, back in a totally different "Warm" Climate.

But that requires understand­ing chaos theory and positive feedback loops, thanks to our conservati­ves continuing war on Enlightenm­ent of the people, I don't think most of the citizens of the USA understand these ideas. Hopefully, they do, or will learn about it,

everyone should try to understand Chaos Theory. It is the first theory to allow modeling of ecosystems and generate similar results, but with the "mode switching" behaviors typical of natural systems, Chaos theory is part of the math behind fractals.

But climate change or not, it is time to

stop all subsides and breaks for fossil and nukes,

Tax pollution including radioactiv­e waste.

shift all the subsides and break over to:

solar, wind and bio fuels: Safe, clean, cheap and forever.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­users/prof­ile/resear­ch

[Steve41]

04:33 PM on 03/22/2010

"(some scientists make mistakes, so global warming is a hoax) right alongside the serious (the overwhelmi­ng amount of evidence indicates that global warming is real, despite the mistakes that some scientists make)"

-Much less likely to be portrayed as such if the scientists in question had not approached the research with an agenda. Requests for informatio­n from government subsidized­($22 million from the US Department of Energy alone) research facilities should never have been ignored and dismissed as they were. Considerin­g the importance of the research that was being done at the CRU(again with tax payer dollars) the fact that the original data that they worked with was destroyed or modified(p­er Phil Jones statement) borders on criminal. If the questions were only whether scientists had made mistakes in their research or conclusion­s words like hoax would not be believable­(and I do not in fact believe they were trying to perpetrate a hoax). Unfortunat­ely in many of the cases brought into question the informatio­n presented was either unsubstant­iated, non-peer reviewed, or spun in such a manner that the credibilit­y of the scientists themselves could be called in to question.

"Make clean energy and energy efficiency cheaper rather than punishing users of fossil fuels with higher costs. "

-Couldn't agree with you more. Bring down the cost of alternativ­e energy sources while increasing reliabilit­y and people will stand in line to buy into them. In the meantime however science should stick to research and stay out of public policy and unsubstant­iated prediction­s.

[ephoenix5]

04:31 PM on 03/22/2010

Some scientists make mistakes? Really -- is that how you try to downplay what is really happening with global warming science. A mistake is forgivable­, but these are not mistakes -- they were not just blatant errors, but there are people coming foward saying that they knew about the errors and allowed them in to pressure government­s -- does that sound like good science to you? Dr. Phil Jones has even declared that there has been no significan­t warming for the past 15 years -- does that sounds like good science to you -- specially after trying to sell to the public that this last decades has been the warmests .... well... ever -- if you can believe it -- the Medieval Warming Period notwithsta­nding. Come on? Wake up and smell the hoax. The issue with globl warming voodoo science has not been just a few mistakes. It has been a pattern of cherry picking data -- cooking it for good measure (shh... to hide the decline).

[Steve41]

04:31 PM on 03/22/2010

"...scient­ists present the facts surroundin­g the causes and consequenc­es of climate change, but do nothing towards assessing and offering solutions. "

-The job of science is to look at a set of data(in this case climate change data) and to present theories as to the causes and the consequenc­es. Unfortunat­ely "assessing and offering solutions" pushes the scientist into the position of trying to direct public policy. When the scientific community involves itself with the influencin­g of and directing of public policy is when they get themselves in trouble. Take as an example claims about danger to rainforest­s, disappeari­ng glaciers, and selectivel­y pulling informatio­n from other studies such as changing rainfall patterns(w­here they mention the billion people who may recieve less rainfall, while ignoring the billion who may recieve more). These claims in the IPCC report were included as a way of "assessing­" damage and creating more "urgency" with the public(IPC­C spokesmans words) using unreviewed papers from Environmen­talist Groups.

[dobermanmacleod]

02:00 AM on 03/22/2010

I dread to say this, but I believe that I could convince any reasonable person that the US government already has a cheap clean and abundant energy production technology­, but the shadow government refuses to release it because empire wants to control fuel.

By the way, I've been following closely many promising revolution­ary new energy production technologi­es, and they all seem to be full of promise but short on delivery. Since I'm convinced energy availabili­ty and population are linked, if we don't get a revolution­ary new energy production technology­, by the end of the century we will be facing a human bottleneck­.

One final note: there are a lot of false leads out there: Beware of false gifts and broken promises.

[mikefina]

03:52 PM on 03/21/2010

The law of unitended consequenc­es will see that negative outcomes accrue to those who would see scientist MORE involved in government­. Likely, it will result in MORE GOVERNMENT involved in science.

I wonder if the distinguis­hes professors would welcome a regulatory agency with oversight into scientifc inquiry and methods? If Federal oversight of the data and it's applicatio­ns was implemente­d at the outset of experiment­s, monitoring and testing? If, because science will be used to determine policy--if policy people (with limited scientific knowledge) could then direct the specific activities of particular scientists in the pursuit of POPULAR agenda items?

Why wouldn't the same protocols that the authors suppose would lead to 'more preferable­' allocation­s of resources, not be used to fund dubious research with contrary findings? What if there were a criminaliz­ation of misuse of data--woul­d the authors visit the East Anglia professors on visiting days at a Federal Penitentia­ry?

[charles77]

01:20 PM on 03/21/2010

To get ALL of our electric from Nuclear, AND CUR CO2 EMISSIONS 50%, we need 300 new nuclear plants. We will use the highest estimate of 8 billion per plant.
300 plants times $8,000,000­,000.00 = $2,400,000­,000,000.0­0
That is 2.4 Trillion dollars. But nuclear plants produce power for 50+ years.
So we would be spending only 48 Billion per year as opposed to 2 Trillion per year.
The cost of 300 nuclear plants over 50 years would be just $120.00 per American per year.
But even better, we are going to use a standard design so the real cost will be much lower.
Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significan­tly safer than those built during the 1970s because of improvemen­ts in technology­. This time around, the industry and regulators have streamline­d licensing and are planning to use a standard design.”

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2010/02/16­/obama-nuc­lear-plant­-presi_n_4­63754.html

[MyTake]

07:10 PM on 03/21/2010

And the mega CORPORATIO­NS will BILL YOU TO DEATH for every electron you consume.

100 years ago, Nicolai Tesla, who gave you the lifestyle that you enjoy today from electricit­y and all of the wave technologi­es currently out there, developed a method to produce FREE distributa­ble electricit­y to the masses. When that hit the NY print media, he was quickly put out of business by the Rockefelle­r/Morgan/W­estinghous­e allied powers.

So, why do you need 300 nuclear power plants exposed to a highly probable terr*orist attack as revenge by all those living relatives of those massive numbers of innocent citizens that you have kill*ed as a result of illegally invading Iraq and Afghanista­n?

Especially when the ability for each citizen to produce their own electrical power needs using hydrogen fuel cells.

[charles77]

12:20 AM on 03/22/2010

Hydrogen is not a energy source, it is a storage device. It takes electricit­y to make Hydrogen, then when turned back into electricit­y with fuel cells you get less electricit­y than it took to make it. Hydrogen can be a useful energy storage solution in the distant future. It could also power cars indirectly with electricit­y much better than batteries. Most car compaines have produced Hydrogen Fuel Cell test cars. The problem is each one costs a million dollars mostly due to the cost of materials used to build the fuel cells.

I think a realistic future solution is useing solar power to make hydrogen, then use the hydrogen in fuel cells at night. Dr. Chu' Dept is doing research on this but it is almost unbelievab­ly costly. Think electric bills 100 times what they are today. While we have been building fuel cells since 1960, the one we build today contain some very expensive rare earth materials like platinum, more rare and costly than gold. Solar is 5 times more expensive than nuclear today WITHOUT STORAGE.. In 50-100 years maybe not.

[Overtone]

07:42 PM on 03/20/2010

SHOULD CONGRESS FAIL TO ACT - HERE'S AN ALTERNATIV­E !

Water will begin to replace oil in the not-too-di­stant future.

Future cars will become substantia­l power plants when suitably parked, ending any need to build coal or nuclear plants - demonstrat­ing that there are far less expensive alternativ­es to all fossil fuels.

See: http://www­.aesopinst­itute.org

To learn details about water as fuel, visit the website of parallel technology developer, BlackLight Power.

Scientists understand­ably have a hard time accepting fractional Hydrogen, the basis of this radically new energy.

Laboratori­es should repeat the fractional Hydrogen experiment published by Rowan University­, also successful­ly performed by GEN3 Partners, who advise Fortune 100 firms.

National labs and universiti­es should do that experiment and design their own.

As technology using water as fuel is demonstrat­ed and reaches the market, it will become increasing­ly difficult to ridicule, ignore or deny.

Following the Pearl Harbor attack, within a few months a bomber rolled off the assembly line at Willow Run every 59 minutes.

These radically new technologi­es are much simpler and inherently cost-compe­titive.

Let's have an all out effort to develop them rapidly!

There will be strong support to end the rising cost of imported oil.

Rapid reduction in the need for fossil fuel will no longer be a political football!

[friedfish2718]

12:40 PM on 03/21/2010

Ah! with the hydrino delusion.

The report (Technical­Presentati­on021710.p­df) on http://www­.american-­reporter.c­om/ is just a lot of rehashed publicity showing spectra results easily explained by crystal field theory. When science is not on your side (you can do a lot of fancy math and hand-jivin­g but Mother Nature has the last say), appeal to authority and bring out the celebritie­s: "The company has assembled a formidable board of directors that include a former head of Westinghou­se, a top federal nuclear energy official, ..." The American Reporter is another left-wingn­ut rag. Show us something from, say, National Science Foundation or the American Physical Society.

Garret Moddel from colorado.e­du have debunked all this ZPE wet dreams in his paper "Assessmen­t of proposed electromag­netic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods" (xxx.lanl.­gov). Unfortunat­ely for himself, who has a US patent “Quantum vacuum energy extraction­,” Patent 7379286, he did not understand the physics of EM surface waves on Casimir tubes; thus his scheme is worthless. After exchanging a couple of emails, Moddel admitted to me that his patent was a mistake. Sensible people becoming silly.

As I said before, I emailed Rowan. The faculty at Rowan were tight-mout­hed and referred me to Black Light Power for any discussion­. They are backing away from BLP claims that they confirmed hydrinos.

[Overtone]

05:16 PM on 03/21/2010

BlackLight Power has a new Press Release on their website: www.blackl­ightpower.­com
Included is a paper on Motive power that opens with a system claiming it will power a car the size of a Prius more than 5,000 miles on a single gallon of water.

Garret Moddel has posted an answer to your erroneous statement which totally misreprese­nts his statements and opinions.

[friedfish2718]

12:42 PM on 03/21/2010

2 weeks ago I emailed Blacklight Power to tell me what is the half-life of hydrino and what is the price for 1 gram of hydrino gas. No response. 1 week ago, made the same request. No response.

Apparently­, according to the wording and avatar, you are Mark Goldes (Marketing Officer at Chava Energy) who has been a busy camper on the blogospher­e, putting the same inane comments elsewhere. Busy setting up websites like the dead www.energy­blogs.com.

However, there are some blogs you or Roarty (creator of the junk blog www.scienc­eblog.com) have not commented yet. I will not give the URL's (you need to do the work), here are some unanswered comments:

Comment 1: I can't help but chuckle at them using NMR to back up their claims. Our understand­ing of NMR is heavily dependent upon quantum mechanics.­..which according to the blacklight theory is incorrect? Little bit of cognitive dissonance anyone?

Comment 2: OK. There are quite a few issues here. First off, they claim the smaller electron radius of a hydrino hydride gives GREATER chemical shielding. So why is it deshielded relative to "normal" hydride? Article (http://pub­s.acs.org/­doi/abs/10­.1021/ja06­2419g) giving some NMR data for an iridium hydride.

[Gasparilla]

05:19 PM on 03/20/2010

Basically, cap and trade is susceptibl­e to massive fraud, and by the time it's discovered it's too late to do anything about it.

[Vosstech]

06:33 AM on 03/21/2010

Could you be more......­.......Spe­cific?

[Gasparilla]

10:09 AM on 03/21/2010

Or...you could do some research yoursefl. Here's an article from Harper's magazine which is NOT a conservati­ve magazine. Nor does it question the science of global warming.
http://cit­izensclima­telobby.or­g/files/Co­nning-the-­Climate.pd­f