Town Square

A New Climate Change Consensus

Original post made by POGO, Woodside: other, on Aug 7, 2012

A thoughtful and measured opinion piece from Fred Krupp about climate change from today's Wall Street Journal.

Web Link

"If both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion. Here are two:

The first will be uncomfortable for skeptics, but it is unfortunately true: Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse—with profound damage to the economy—unless sustained action is taken. As the Economist recently editorialized about the melting Arctic: "It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them."

The second proposition will be uncomfortable for supporters of climate action, but it is also true: Some proposed climate solutions, if not well designed or thoughtfully implemented, could damage the economy and stifle short-term growth. As much as environmentalists feel a justifiable urgency to solve this problem, we cannot ignore the economic impact of any proposed action, especially on those at the bottom of the pyramid. For any policy to succeed, it must work with the market, not against it.

If enough members of the two warring climate camps can acknowledge these basic truths, we can get on with the hard work of forging a bipartisan, multi-stakeholder plan of action to safeguard the natural systems on which our economic future depends."

Both perspectives are equally important. I commend this well written piece to you.


Like this comment
Posted by Alfred E Newman
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 am

Pogo: will read it later this morning. Thanks for the 'rec'.

Being in the 'green' camp, I'm curious of the author's definition of "must work with the market".

Is the term 'market' about the
- overall effect on jobs in the US?
- effect on existing markets in a larger sense, as in GDP?
- or on market segments, ie.. energy? or to really drill down - share price for BP?
- or on the specifics, such as the price of energy down the road
- does the author include broader measures for the term market, such as the price of corn in a drought year induced by climate change?

Look forward to it over a cup of coffee.

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Aug 7, 2012 at 8:53 am

My take: the author is saying you can't ruin the economy by imposing draconian, impractical measures.

What I like about Krupp is that he points out what needs to be accepted and done by both sides, without resorting to denigrating characterizations.


Like this comment
Posted by Corn, Beef; Hash & Wine
a resident of Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
on Aug 13, 2012 at 10:10 am

A two-fer....

Hottest July evah!

Hottest MONTH evah!

"The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation."

How are those corn and beef prices doing?

Wait until climate changes effect Napa Valley grape growing. I wouldn't spend money on the inflated vineyard prices at this point... Who knows, maybe some cooler climes are going to be great grape growing regions in 25 years. Wonder where?

Like this comment
Posted by solar works
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jun 19, 2014 at 10:26 am

Two years ago. Have the two sides agreed on anything? Sure seems that one side is pretty adamant about change. John McCain used to admit to warming. What happened?

Like this comment
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Jun 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm

California certainly has to be anointed the leader in pointless and useless spending in wasting what are supposed to be funds to deter Climate change and reduce Green House Gases (GHG).

The State legislature just passed SB-862, directing from Cap and Trade revenues (taxes), $250 million for High Speed Rail (HSR) this next year, along with $400 million to repay a previous loan to the High Speed Rail Authority, used fund High Speed Rail.

Also included is that forever in upcoming years, the High Speed Rail project is to receive 25% of what ever revenues (taxes), the Cap and Trade auctions yield.

Yet, High Speed Rail will be a net polluter of GHG for the next 50 years at least. Even when running at full projected ridership in 25 years from now, HSR would only at best reduce GHG amounting to 1% of the California targets.

All of this to fund Governor Brown's legacy project. Our government at it worse. Senator Hill voted for this legislation, just in case you didn't know

Like this comment
Posted by Matt
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jun 24, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Meanwhile, off in the lands that like to lead the way....

Web Link

German Solar achieves 50% milestone - 50% of power demand met was from solar

"Fraunhofer ISE research institute revealed that solar panels in the eastern European country generated a record breaking 23.1 GW of electricity in one hour on June 6th. On June 9th, a national holiday, solar energy production peaked at 24.24 GW, which equaled approximately 50.6 percent of the electricity demand."

"A recent analysis by the consulting firm Eclareon discovered that solar power in Germany has achieved grid parity. Which means that once all the costs are accounted for, the price of commercial solar is equal to retail electricity rates. Wind power also reached record breaking output levels last year, producing 25.2 GW and accounting for 39 percent of the electricity demand in a single day in December."

Some folks want to claim the earth is flat, some folks move forward.

Like this comment
Posted by Global Warming
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jul 6, 2014 at 6:53 am

Forbes Magazine has an interesting article about Global Warming citing NOAA data. The title of the article is:

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Web Link

Global Warming, the religion of the Left, has suffered another yet another unprovoked attack from those right wing theists.

Like this comment
Posted by Edward David
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 6, 2014 at 10:27 am

Oh, good grief!

It's call GLOBAL warming, not AMERICAN warming.

Good Lawdy! This is like the fools who use weather events as barometers for climate. "hey it's cold in Menlo today, therefore it must be cold everywhere!"

Seriously: get a clue.

The author of the linked Forbes Op-Ed "science" is James Taylor, a Forbes columnist, a paid spokesman/lobbyist/lawyer for the Heartland Institute which is a "think tank" funded by Exxon and the extraction industry.

With zero science degrees (he's a lwayer, after all,) he regularly makes absurd statements like this: “Without a doubt, the warming of the past 100 years has been a welcome respite from a long and deadly Little Ice Age. The possibility that humans may have contributed to the recent warming does not make it any less welcome.”

All along, Taylor has been making ridiculous claims about his "science training" claiming: “I’m a scientist by training as well”. When pushed for an explanation, he comes up with this: “I successfully completed (some) Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.”

I took some nighttime accounting courses at the JC - that makes me a CFO, right?

Like this comment
Posted by Denier fantasies
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on Jul 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm

Our local denier troll is back, folks. What he won't tell you is the state of GLOBAL CLIMATE, in fact, he never engages at all when presented with facts; he just pulls another big oil funded canard out of his (browser) thus leading to Pogo's favorite - a (one sided) dialogue of the (fringe) deaf.

His point? America must be the be all, end all as far as global climate. THe problem is when you look at the globe...

NOAA: "The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally .... This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. ... Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

Wow. Think our denier will address that? Probably some malarkly about how greedy scientists have a secret society where they divvy up the grant money, while the goodhearted folks in Big Oil and Big Coal are doing whats best for the environment!

Yup those greedy scientists, all of them literal "thousand-aires", are in it for the bucks while the billion dollar companies have no profit motive at all! Makes perfect sense to him.

*** Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. ***