March 30, 2009 by Allen
Sunday's New York Times carried several columns discussing the impending need for dramatic action on carbon emissions before the damage from global warming overwhelms the world. One column was by Thomas Friedman arguing that if one follows climate science you see that some of the world's best (I'm not sure who determines that status) scientists they are warning that climate change is happening faster and will bring bigger changes quicker thn we anticipated just a few years ago. Could the fact that there is a meeting of climate change scientists and government policy makers in the near future on the road to the Copehagen meeting to negotiate the follow-on agreement to the Kyotot Protocol.
We won't get into all of Friedman's arguments but another article in the paper's opinion section discussed the debate among climate scientists about the use of "tipping points" in their arguments for quick and radical government action on climate change. The article pointed out that reports recently issued by both the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Program focused on tipping points as a prime concern.
Two California Institute of Technology professors have studied the polar ice and argue that that thin ice flows have the capacity to regrow quickly as summer ends making the concern about shrinking Arctic ice not the concern all the climate science hysteria has unleashed. Dr. Wettlaufer has pointed out that scientists need to be "caustically honest about what we know and don't know." What a refreshing thought - scientists being honest!
The final article was in the magazine, which chronicled and interviewed Dr. Freeman Dyson one of the world's foremost physists who studied under Hans Bethe and Robert Oppenheim. He has become a student of climate science, especially the role of carbon dioxide, and believes the global warming issue is bogus. Of course the article's author interviews some of the leading climate scientists who describe Dr. Dyson as having lost his mind and they dismiss him. Unfortunately, he probably knows more about carbon and its interaction in the environment than they do, but what's new about that situation.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration has embraced increased regulation of carbon and carbon emissions. Whether anyone knows or can imagine all the unintended consequences of carbon regulation, as opposed to carbon taxation (and letting free markets make the adjustments) is a huge question. We are afraid the carbon regulation train has left the station and we now embarked on a brave new journey. The energy business will be impacted meaning oil prices will be impacted.
Subscribe to the Energy-Musings RSS feed.
