Comments
BBC Report on Pielke Jr’s Aston University Talk
BBC Environment analyst Roger Harrabin surprisingly manages to report on Roger Pielke Jr’s Aston University talk:
The UK’s plans to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 are fundamentally flawed and almost certain to fail, according to a US academic.
Roger Pielke Jr, a science policy expert, said the UK government had underestimated the magnitude of the task to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
He added that it would be more effective to “decarbonise” economic growth rather than focus on targets.
Professor Pielke’s intervention was rejected by economist Terry Barker, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Pielke’s analysis does not tell us how fast an economy can de-carbonise, just how much it has done so in the past when there has been a weak carbon price,” he said.
“[His] proposals are diversionary…….
CRN: Well, we wouldn’t want to divert the IPCC away from their wealth redistribution agenda via the unjustified demonisation of CO2 and imposible targets, would we?
Pielke Jr was supported by Gwyn Prins and Colin Challen MP:
Professor Prins told BBC News: “Professor Pielke is far from being a so-called ‘sceptic’ on reducing CO2, so this makes his analysis all the more telling.
Colin Challen MP, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group, said: “This raises questions which I do not think have been factored into the thinking behind the Climate Change Act.
“The task (of cutting emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050) is already staggeringly huge and, as we have seen, well beyond our current political capacity to deliver.
BBC News website: UK’s CO2 plan ‘certain to fail’
Pielke Jr’s discussion paper (pdf)
February 13th, 2009 at 8:35 am
The time for carbon trading has passed, its objectives have became redundant. At over 400 parts per million our only alterative is to immediately start legislating out coal and think nuclear. It’s safer!
This is a radical statement, however I think we must give it strong consideration.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
You’re assuming (wrongly) that 400ppmv is a problem – it isn’t. Fossil fuels and nuclear will provide the bulk of our energy needs until we come up with viable alternatives.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I dont beleive AGW is anything like as bad as what is projected.
IN 1988 Hansen projections for 2008 have not been met— but we may still have a problem.
Whatever happens Carbon Trading / offsetting is not the answer.
It would penalise the poor, whilst the affluent could carry on as before offsetting their CO2 emissions. IF IF IF co2 emissions are as bad as they say then we do need to reduce them drastically and offsetting a rich persons get out. Its a bit like being a paedophile and saying this OK because I pay money to the local school—- NO ITS NO ALL RIGHT