Earthsky FC_NAS, Interviews
Albert Carnesale: ‘Limiting carbon emissions might help economy’
04-08-2009 - Earth
That’s Dr. Albert Carnesale of UCLA. He’s an expert on international affairs and security – and chairman of a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on America’s Climate Choices. The committee has launched studies – requested by our Congress – to inform U.S. climate policy.
Albert Carnesale: It’s different in the sense that we were asked specifically, what should we be doing – what should be America’s response to climate change.
Ninety seven percent of active U.S. climate scientists, responding to a 2008 survey, agree that humans play a role in causing global warming. Dr. Carnesale said – even in a tough economy like we’re seeing in 2009 – limiting carbon emissions might lead to economic opportunities.
Albert Carnesale: Well, for example, should we have a price on carbon that’s emitted in to the atmosphere, carbon dioxide? If the answer to that is yes, in one way or another, whether it’s a tax or a cap and trade program, that will open opportunities for alternative energy sources in ways that are not currently, economically viable. That’s new kinds of jobs, new kinds of research and development.
And as fuel prices rise, it might make even more sense, said Carnesale, to insulate homes better for lower bills and a smaller carbon footprint.
The United States, with less than 5 percent of world population, emits roughly one-quarter of the total amount of carbon dioxide added to Earth’s atmosphere each year. Scientists now predict that Earth could warm from two to five degrees by mid century, largely depending on what actions are done today to limit CO2 emissions not just in the US, but across the globe.
Our thanks to:
Albert Carnesale
Committee on America’s Climate Choices
Chancellor Emeritus, Professor
University of California, Los Angeles
“There are very few people left who do not accept as fact that the Earth is warming, that climate change is taking place, and that man is contributing to that trend. The challenge is real, and the problem will be great if we do nothing.”
This comment is absolutely absurd! There are MANY skeptics from everyday people, to the most prominent scientists in the world. It’s a scientific fallacy to ignore facts and move forward simply because their is a “consensus”.
“Ninety seven percent of active U.S. climate scientists”
Define “climate scientists” please… How many did you survey? How many were affiliated with the IPCC? How many were affiliated with political groups? How MUCH of a role?
Taxing people and companies to create growth? Are you serious? Where is the alternative viewpoint? This is ridiculous, I would never play this podcast on the radio unless I had to, which I do.
Here’s a link to the 2009 survey , “Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real,” taken of over 10,000 scientists and experts at the American Geophysical Union.
I am one of those people who is not convinced that global warming is real. The fact is that the many satellites that measure temperature and sea level rise have said all is “NORMAL”.
Jorge,
I looked over that survey and they contacted over 10,000 but according to the survey only 3,146 actually responded. That’s only a 31% response. Doing just an internet survey is a poor way to sample a group.
They took a list of scientists from a magazine, a sample, contacted them via internet, and an even smaller sample actually answered. It would have been better if they were able to get a response greater than 31%.
Thanks for the link though
how did you get this job
The effective restoration of the global economy {and forward movement toward the preservation of the environment} could be initiated so simply, sensibly and responsibly………………. by following ‘Ten Commandments’ for Economic Revitalization.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d5aa24e-23a4-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html
Ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Published: April 7 2009 20:02 | Last updated: April 7 2009 20:02
1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks – and hence the most fragile – become the biggest.
2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bail-out should be free, small and risk-bearing. We have managed to combine the worst of capitalism and socialism. In France in the 1980s, the socialists took over the banks. In the US in the 2000s, the banks took over the government. This is surreal.
3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.
4. Do not let someone making an “incentive†bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show “profits†while claiming to be “conservativeâ€. Bonuses do not accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.
5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. The complex economy is already a form of leverage: the leverage of efficiency. Such systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy; adding debt produces wild and dangerous gyrations and leaves no room for error. Capitalism cannot avoid fads and bubbles: equity bubbles (as in 2000) have proved to be mild; debt bubbles are vicious.
6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning . Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them “hedging†products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.
7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidenceâ€. Cascading rumours are a product of complex systems. Governments cannot stop the rumours. Simply, we need to be in a position to shrug off rumours, be robust in the face of them.
8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. The debt crisis is not a temporary problem, it is a structural one. We need rehab.
9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert†advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).
10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger) materials; we will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the “Nobel†in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties.
Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.
In other words, a place more resistant to black swans.
The writer is a veteran trader, a distinguished professor at New York University’s Polytechnic Institute and the author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Since 1998 the earth has been cooling. Fact. The sun is the culprit, not humans. Fact. We have been warming overall since the emergence from the last ice age with several major deviations along the way. None of the climate models showing global warming work when fed historical data and their results are compared to reality.
Man is not causing global warming. Pure and simple. If the globe would warm a bit, it would be a good thing. Agriculture could be carried on at higher lattitudes and we could easily feed more people. If if continues to cool, the opposite is true.
“Climate Policy” is a dangerous idea. It means that bureaucrats will have control of our economies and our very lives. Famine and starvation will result. Government bureaucrats know nothing about anything real. They do, however, control the purse strings. “Scientists”, being human learn quickly which side of the toast the butter is on. If they are paid to “find” global warming, bet your life they will “find” it. The bureaucrats will continue on their merry way and destroy the life we have come to expect. And when the economy is gone and folks get riled, martial law is soon to follow. And then the environment will not matter. The little people will just try to survive and the powers that be will act in insane and stupid ways with no controls whatsoever.
The fear of global warming is real. Global warming is not. The fear is instilled in folks to generate a response. If we bow to the fear, we will cease to exist as a free peoople. And if we are not free, why be at all?