CFACT display, Bonn climate conference

The game is not over yet, but the climate talks in Bonn are. For the time being. Another session is already scheduled for August, and it might very well be that the free-lunchers will squeeze yet another in, during the buildup of expectations before Cancun. After the enormous debacle before, during and after Copenhagen, it seems unlikely that the general public hysteria could be regenerated. You can’t fool all the people all the time, but remember that you can still fool some.

The general observations among the CFACT team were mainly twofold. There was, in a way, a greater respect and understanding towards our climate realist work. Even some serious interest, especially from the delegates among whom, it would be impossible that not at least some have started to seriously doubt that all this was such a brilliant idea from the start.

On the other hand, hostility seems to have grown among the more militant alarmist NGO’s. CFACT even had the table cleared by a militant lady one night, a most mysterious lady, who then even showed up the next day and said that we had no right to be there, as we were ”deniers”, and that she had destroyed the stuff. For some reason however, possibly the fact that one person on our team immediately called for security, she refused the polite discussion she was offered, and took off. When yours truly walked after her, she approached a police and accused me of stalking her. Pursuing the offender, might have been a better word,and that’s what the apparently partly amused officer thought too.

Apart from having all that fun, there is however bunch of gibberish to read, in the usual UN way. It is quite clear that the leaders have become more competent since Copenhagen, and absolutely set on working out a binding treaty this year. Details are hard to find, but developing countries are seriously starting to ask when they will get the money they were promised. The world government ambitions are not gone, just polished a bit.

As fun as you can have here, it can get rather scary at times, when you consider the implications of the politicians going berserk once again and with more skill than last time.

Until then, enjoy the World Cup Soccer games, kicking off tonight. It’s a fair game. And Fun!

How splendid in this often pessimist debate, to get the chance to present some good news!

According to the global health statistics from WHO, things are going in the right direction, in some cases remarkably well. Since 1990, infant mortality has decreased by 30 percent. Malnutrition is going down, access to drinking water has gone up, and even the spread of HIV has been halted.

It’s still a long way to go, but at least the WHO points out, in their own analysis that the most essential prerequisite for the creation of healthier societies is growth and sound politics, in other – though not directly WHO’s – words, free markets and democracy. One of the few complaints in the study, is that chronic diseases that used to be a problem for the industrialized world, now are more common in developing countries. Sad enough, but a rather natural consequence of decreased epidemics and higher life expectancy. Call it a luxury problem if you wish, but at least I – with my rather bad allergy – is happy to have been born and still be alive. About a hundred years ago, when allergies did not exist in Europe, that would have been a lot less likely. Two of the both worse and common illnesses in the developed world (The developing countries, sadly, are still fighting with Malaria, due to western stupidity some decades ago), diabetes and cancer – both chronic – are horrendous things. Scientists are working frantically to find the best cures. What is needed for this endeavour is nothing less than expensive education and research, technological development and heavy investments . Even the companies are pitching in, creating less expensive equipment not dependent on a steady access to electricity.

Another piece of news that could be either good or bad, is that Christina Figueres from Costa Rica, has been appointed new head of the UN Climate section, after Yvo de Boer. Good, if she can put some sense into the debate. Not so good if she continues the fight to dramatically reduce the possibilities for growth and prosperity that her predesesors sadly carried out.

Investing your money and savings for your pension in funds that advertise themselves as more “ethical” than others? Maybe it’s time to think again.

Environmental watchdogs are increasingly pointing out funds as dubious, because of investments in different energy companies. In a recent – undercover – study (Swedish) non of the four checked banks proved to offer the clean investments they advertise.

Fraud? Not really, but certainly hypocrisy.

The criteria change and the transparency should not be taken for granted. Funds that exclude energy companies naturally do not exclude wind and solar energy, and oil companies can be accepted as long as they claim to be investing in new technology. No one looks at what companies expropriate land with the help of government, only – sometimes – if they can be suspected of taking part in a downright military conflict. Well, even the latter can be discussed. What if the company are on the side of the god guys? Yes, who are the good guys…? Should the hotel chain to which the “Hotel Rwanda” belongs be excluded for involvement in a conflict? Or, for that matter, any company doing business in communist China?

In churches and help organisations, most often run like big corporations, the – typically professional – financial analysts are often furious over stricter criteria, simply because they may mean less revenue, and consequently less money for charitable work.

More and more funds are even putting global warming into their names. They should be free to do that, but to expect to fall in the the category of ethical funds because of an asserted ambivalence towards CO2, in a debate where it’s not at all certain that any global warming is going on, and especially not if it then would be caused by human activity, is more than pretentious.

Anyone should be free to select investments based on convictions, and anyone should have the right to proper information. As this dubious market looks today, my recommendation would be to simply go for the most prosperous investments, in the more solid belief that prosperity and growth is and will be the best antidote against humanitarian and environmental problems.

Yes, discussion is possible; no, scientific progress is not a matter of international voting to find the truth. (This would be comparable to letting the dictatorship countries vote on human rights at the UN; sorry, my mistake, they already do that.)

As the late Aaron Wildavsky would have said, what counts in today’s debate is not rational evaluation of risk; but instead the potential catastrophic impact of largely theoretical and infinitesimal hazards. What if the tap water in Paris causes cancer? What if antennae for mobile phone networks pose serious health risks?

Where is the proof? “We’re not talking about risk calculus, but about the potential damages”, argue the precautionary zealots. But with an unqualified “if”, anything is possible and all potentially dangerous activities must come to a halt, as the recent Icelandic saga showed. Allègre points out that the decision to block air traffic worldwide was based on a theoretical model which had never been tested. This also applies to other recent health scares (eg bird flu, H1N1 …)  Sounds familiar?

Dealing with the future implies collecting the unknown by small samples, ie through scientific research, experiments entailing trial and error to gather more knowledge. There can be no insurance policy against uncertainty, and hence no “trial without prior guarantee against error”. Yet politics thrives on this need to peddle government-based certainty in a chaotic world.

We need to distinguish between probabilities and calculated risks. The first is basically speculative by nature and only the second may form a reasonable basis for policy action. Panic-mongerers will prosper by selling disaster plans to the public and decision-makers. But our governments would do better to join the cooler heads coalition. Lest we all die in fear of the unknown, in order to reach certainty at last.

LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON (Wisconsin)

Thanks to Jody Clarke and the Atlas Foundation for their sponsorship of Barun Mitra’s and Manuel de Araujo’s Presentations in Copenhagen.

Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Maldives and the Cook Islands will all disappear soon, say shortly after Christmas according to delegates. (Hence probably today’s pledge by the Danish government to receive some of the 20 million (!) people supposedly left homeless in 2008 by the disastrous effects of climate change; no scientific reference or source was given to back this number up however.)

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a Swedish expert on sea level change and in 1999 an expert reviewer to the IPCC, begs to differ. He has extensive experience in field work in most of the areas that are allegedly under threat of becoming the new Atlantis. In a presentation this week, he stated:

“(For the year 2100) our best estimate was + 10 cm (…) significantly lower than the estimates by IPCC (2001). (…) There are physical limits for how fast ice can melt. The maximum rates recorded were those related to the melting glaciers of the last Ice Age. The corresponding sea level rise amounted to (…) 1 meter per century. Consequently, all claims of a sea level rise by 2100 exceeding 1m can directly be discarded as physically impossible.”

Further, no change has been observed in the concerned areas including Bangladesh. Even Venice, once thought to be condemned, is not threatened by chronic “aqua alta” as sometimes thought; a significant deceleration since 1970 has even been recorded.

The conclusion seems obvious: let’s consider the facts and forget about the models, lest we get swamped by science fiction.

Ends Inconvenient Friendship With Tibet

By Einar Du Rietz, Copenhagen

Maybe these guys are serious about the Copenhagen treaty after all. Wednesday evening it became clear that Denmark has reversed its policy on China and Tibet by abruptly recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Denmark promised to act with “caution” in future contacts with the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of Tibet. This is clearly an effort to bribe the Chinese into some sort of climate treaty. According to China’s People’s Daily, a diplomatic note agrees that “Denmark recognizes China’s sovereignty over Tibet and accordingly opposes the independence of Tibet.”

The Danish going solo has been irritating to other European countries. After all, they don’t hold the EU Presidency. Chances are however that the Danish population won’t be too happy either. The Lama has met with Danish Prime Ministers and government officials repeatedly over a long time, most recently he met with Prime Minister Rasmussen in May 2009.

Though business has worried about the small trade war with China that ensued after the meetings, the timing can hardly mean anything other than that Rasmussen kicked his official friend in the teeth to save his own face during the ongoing Copenhagen Climate Chaos.

The UN was founded to safeguard nations and human rights against aggression. It is casting aside its first principles. As Denmark and the UN abandon Tibet to advance a treaty that is all pain no gain, we wonder, have democracies and a world organization ever abandoned a peaceful world leader before?

The Economist

First, there is little insurance policy against natural disasters; insurers know this and adjust their offer accordingly. Second, any insurance against highly unlikely events does not come cheap (this applies also to any new climate “treaty” but for other reasons).

The debate on warming, as the late Aaron Wildavsky said, is based on the inverse Cassandra rule: every possible disaster scenario ultimately claims orchestra seats, quite apart from its likelihood of materialising. Should this absurd principle come to rule public policy for the environment, Pandora’s Box is wide open (to use another Greek reference).

This means that we are no longer dealing with rationally weighted probabilities; but exclusively with the potentially catastrophic consequences of very unlikely events.

“If sea levels rise by seven meters”, says Al Gore, “then …”. Yes, indeed; the consequences would be huge for the world. But the “if” amounts to a hypothesis with no scientific basis; end of story.

Yes indeed: there is a certain probability that a good-size meteorite will hit the Earth in the next decades. True, governments could decide to build elaborate missile systems to avert potential damages. This has not been done because the cost has been judged too onerous in proportion to the risk involved.

Another quote, using a fantastic “if”:

“If we already had energy and transportation systems that met our needs without using the atmosphere as a waste dump for our carbon dioxide pollution, and I told you that you could be 2% richer, but all you had to do was acidify the oceans and risk killing off coral reefs (…) risk melting the ice-caps (…) would you take all of that environmental risk, just to be 2% richer?”
The author, Ken Caldeira (Carnegie Institution) says that no audience has yet replied yes to his question. Small wonder, because it is the wrong question and therefore a poor trade-off.

The proper question would be:

“Do you agree to an internationally binding treaty on climate change which would submit the global economy to a ‘world governance’ in charge of reducing CO2 emissions, the outcome of which is unknown?”

This is what Copenhagen is ultimately about.

Photos: freedigitalphotos

One of the largest energy companies in Europe, Swedish state owned Vattenfall has come under heavy media attack recently, and so has the responsible minister for industry, Maud Olofsson. The main reason is that Olofsson failed to disclose details from a deal with the German government in connection with the latest nuclear power project. Under the insurance agreement, Vattenfall would go completely bankrupt if there were a serious nuclear accident.

Let’s start there. Nuclear power is a blessing in many ways a blessing. It’s clean, non polluting, and – yes – it’s safe. Relatively. All energy production carries hassles of some sort. But, and that’s important, if the horrible happens, the results can be devastating. The risk with today’s reactors is very tiny, but in case of a major catastrophe, isn’t it fair that those responsible have to pay?

Vattenfall has for years now tried to come across as a green company (  Vattenfall Song also above with the air guitarr man). One of the difficulties lies in the fact that some of the major activities in Germany are not nuclear, but brown coal mines and burning. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that either, but I’d prefer if they did it on their own turf. One of the major atrocities was committed already under the German Social Democrat and Green government, when the last village of the Sorb minority- including the village church – was destroyed. Current prospects include kicking at least 3 000 people out of their homes. Naturally with fair compensation. How a fair price can be determined in a similar situation remains to me a mystery.

The current situation is that Vattenfall is trying to save face. The CEO was replaced and the green commercials intensified. The Swedish government is also trying to save face while the German government pretends it’s business as usual.

A couple of suggestions: Stop the hypocrisy about beeing Green. Stop destroying people’s homes. Apply strict responsibility for Vattenfall’s  activities, as for all industrial activities, without hiding behind the ministers’ skirts. In other words, privatize!