Volcanic Rocks can save us from Global warming?

A group of scientists at Columbia has used deep ocean-floor drilling and experiments to show that volcanic rocks off the West Coast and elsewhere might be used to securely sequester huge amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, captured from power plants or other sources. In particular, they say that natural chemical reactions under 78,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) of ocean floor off California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia could lock in as much as 150 years of U.S. carbon dioxide production.

War over Arctic- Can it Happen?

The coming Perfect Storm

Related;
Biofuels Worsening Hunger and Global Warming--So Yank the Subsidies!

Food Price Rises Threaten Efforts to Cut Poverty

Econ Talk of the Day- Kenneth Arrow

Kenneth Arrow at World Bank;

Arrow’s discussion focused predominantly on the question of futurity and the uncertainty associated with it. To highlight this, Arrow commented that the same issues and questions that were unknown and of which society was uncertain in 1979 remain so today. He cited the demand for nuclear energy, safety of containment, and even the possibilities of alternative technologies as examples. On the subject of nuclear waste disposal, Arrow underscored the very real possibility of poisoning and killing people due to the accumulation of nuclear waste. But in the practice of burying nuclear waste, today’s society can enjoy reduced energy costs. He questioned the trade off, this discounting of the future and whether it was worth the cost.

Another example Arrow gave regarding the current mode of thinking about the future centered on the emission controls. While it results in increased expenses in manufacturing costs, or what it costs to run one’s car, etc., the payoff is that in the future there will be lower emissions, lower CO2 content, etc. The final product then, said Arrow, is that future generations benefit. He emphasized that this should, be viewed as a permanent cost. The caveat is that if a mistake is made, it’s not correctible. Society’s actions are basically irreversible and the consequences are unknown. The question, he said, is like any other investment. One invests in something and expects something back in the future. That’s positive discounting in the economy, but the real question, Arrow said, is why the future is discounted at a positive rate. What’s the trade off? Citing the theories of various economists and philosophers, Arrow noted the most morally controversial issue is that which extends to future generations. It is the belief that anything in the future is worth less than it is today.

Schelling opened by disagreeing with Arrow’s premise that all future generations to come after us are not morally equal to us, and that nowhere in the world are future generations morally equal to us. Schelling proposed to take the argument a step further, adding that that nowhere in the world are other contemporary people equal to us. He stated that if today’s approach to foreign aid paralleled the way Arrow approaches climate change, the world would be looking at levels of income, marginal utilities of consumption in Bangladesh and Zambia and Nigeria and Ecuador. Yet, he offered, no one ever proposes we deal with Ecuadorians or Bangladeshi’s. Americans, Schelling said, deal with the people of these countries as morally equal to themselves in terms of the claims they make on their wealth. On the subject of climate change, Schelling stated that the dangers of climate change for Americans are exaggerated, arguing that it may be necessary simply to motivate action. Aside from possible catastrophes, Schelling stated that he does not believe the standards of living in the U.S. will be affected by climate change due to the country’s level of productivity, income, and infrastructure.

During the question and answer period questions were asked about policy change, consumption and the possibility of global consensus. Arrow ended the session by stating that the biggest question at hand and which remains unanswered is what caused the great depression. If we don’t know what caused the depression, Arrow said, we cannot be sure that we have control over the future.

Related;
Nobel Laureate Arrow Sees `Significant' Climate Change

Return to Amazon

Airing on PBS, on April 2nd;

Twenty-five years ago, Jean-Michel Cousteau explored this fabled region with his father, the legendary Jacques Cousteau. Since then, an area the size of Texas has been deforested. This is a region of urgency and conflict, where human enterprise and expansion not only compromise the health and ecology of the river and rainforest basin but also inflict consequences on a global scale. Yet, as the Ocean Adventures team witnesses in this intimate exploration, new beacons of hope and sustainability are emerging from the Amazon as the fight for the future of the region unfolds.

American Dream is in the Toilet!

Garbage Warrior

Mr. Armstrong vs Mr. Gore

Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School challenges Al Gore $20,000 that he will be able to make more accurate forecasts of annual mean temperatures than those that can be produced by climate models. Scott Armstrong’s forecasts will be based on the naive (no-change) model; that is, the forecasts would be the same as the most recent year prior to the forecasts.

Related;
Environmental Forecasting and the Policy Process

There are many weaknesses in current climate models. Current models do not provide forecasts; they provide the modeler's own speculations or scenarios. Given the complexity and uncertainty involved, it is unlikely that these models will prove to be a useful guide. Scientific forecasts are derived from evidence-based models. To create a scientific forecast, several principles apply: it is important to avoid complex models and unaided expert judgment and to be conservative when uncertainty is high. In order to have an accurate forecast for global warming, there are several contingencies. First of all, there must be accurate forecasts in long-term temperature change, the effects of that change, and the effects of feasible policy changes. Climate modelers claim that their models are scenarios, not forecasts, but continue to refer to them as forecasts or predictions. Climate "experts" use models to present their own opinions and make adjustments to suit their assumptions. When making forecasts for complex and uncertain future events, experts have no advantage over nonexperts. Processing facts is most important.

After auditing the current climate change models, most of the forecasting principles were contravened, and there is not a single scientific forecast to support global warming. Forecasts by climate experts are of little value. Climate may change in the future, but because of the uncertainties that exist, the most sensible forecast right now is no change. To produce accurate results, modelers need to use scientific approaches to climate forecasts, avoid alternative sources of bias, consider alternative explanations, examine empirical evidence, use valid empirically based methods, provide full disclosure, present findings clearly, and obtain peer review.

Al Gore refuses to gamble on the environment

Fish can get lost in sea

Reef fish get lost as climate changes

CLIMATE change might be causing reef fish to get lost, unable to return to breeding grounds from the open ocean, which could have profound implications for the survival of reef ecosystems, Australian scientists say.

Climate change-induced environmental stress, including warmer and more acidic seawater, could be hindering the development of the ear bones in young reef fish, which rely on sound for navigation, the marine experts said on Friday.

The scientists from the James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science found that fish with asymmetrical ear bones struggle to return to their home reef.

'In our opinion, ear bone asymmetry in the early life stages of reef fish interferes with their capacity to find and settle on coral reefs,' fish ecologist Monica Gagliano said in a statement.

Fish at the end of their 'ocean stage' after hatching navigate by homing-in on reef-associated sounds, such as the gurgling of fish and the snapping of crustaceans, said the scientists, whose study was published on Friday in the British scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Vertebrate animals make sense of sounds by comparing differences in the acoustic signal between their two ears. To do this well, ear structures must be relatively symmetrical.

Asymmetrical ear bones do not appear to make the fish deaf, but might interfere with the ability of the fish to hear effectively.

The scientists said ear bone asymmetry could be closely linked to rising sea surface temperature and acidity, caused by high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as well as localised stresses. Oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, acting as a giant sink for the greenhouse gas.

Fish ear bones, like fish skeletons and reef-building corals, are made from calcium carbonate. When seawater becomes more acidic, there is less calcium carbonate available for building calcium-based structures, including fish ear bones.

The scientists studied damselfish, which are abundant on Australia's Great Barrier Reef and western Australia's Ningaloo Reef, and found that at hatching, 41 per cent of a sample group of fish had symmetrical ear bones and 59 per cent asymmetrical.

When the scientists examined the ear bones of fish returning from open ocean to settle on the reef a few weeks later, far fewer asymmetrical fish made their way back to the reef.

The scientists also found that those with asymmetrical ear bones that did make it to the reef took longer to do so than their symmetrical counterparts.

Peter Gallagher not convinced by the Garnaut report

The Garnaut Climate Review Interim Report—I’m not convinced (Australia's equivalent of the Stern Report)

Related Podcast;
Climate Change, Energy and the Way Ahead

Reports Watch

Europe in a Globalised World

Chapter 1
The European Economy: Macroeconomic Outlook and Policy
Chapter 2
How much real dollar depreciation is needed to correct global imbalances?
Chapter 3
The effect of globalisation on Western European jobs: curse or blessing?
Chapter 4
Industrial policy
Chapter 5
Global warming: The neglected supply side

Hedge Funds: Regulators and Market Participants Are Taking Steps to Strengthen Market Discipline, but Continued Attention Is Needed

Since the 1998 near collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), a large hedge fund--a pooled investment vehicle that is privately managed and often engages in active trading of various types of securities and commodity futures and options--the number of hedge funds has grown, and they have attracted investments from institutional investors such as pension plans. Hedge funds generally are recognized as important sources of liquidity and as holders and managers of risks in the capital markets. Although the market impacts of recent hedge fund near collapses were less severe than that of LTCM, they recalled concerns about risks associated with hedge funds and they highlighted the continuing relevance of questions raised over LTCM. This report (1) describes how federal financial regulators oversee hedge fund-related activities under their existing authorities; (2) examines what measures investors, creditors, and counterparties have taken to impose market discipline on hedge funds; and (3) explores the potential for systemic risk from hedge fund-related activities and describes actions regulators have taken to address this risk. In conducting this study, GAO reviewed regulators' policy documents and examinations and industry reports and interviewed regulatory and industry officials, and academics. Regulators only provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO has incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Under the existing regulatory structure, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission can provide direct oversight of registered hedge fund advisers, and along with federal bank regulators, they monitor hedge fund-related activities conducted at their regulated entities. Since LTCM's near collapse, regulators generally have increased reviews--by such means as targeted examinations--of systems and policies of their regulated entities to mitigate counterparty credit risks, including those involving hedge funds. Although some examinations found that banks generally have strengthened practices for managing risk exposures to hedge funds, regulators recommended that they enhance firmwide risk management systems and practices, including expanded stress testing. Regulated entities have the responsibility to practice prudent risk management standards, but prudent standards do not guarantee prudent practices. As such, it will be important for regulators to show continued vigilance in overseeing hedge fund-related activities. According to market participants, hedge fund advisers have improved disclosures and transparency about their operations since LTCM as a result of industry guidance issued and pressure from investors and creditors and counterparties (such as prime brokers). But market participants also suggested that not all investors have the capacity to analyze the information they receive from hedge funds. Regulators and market participants said that creditors and counterparties have generally conducted more due diligence and tightened their credit standards for hedge funds. However, several factors may limit the effectiveness of market discipline or illustrate failures to properly exercise it. For example, because most large hedge funds use multiple prime brokers as service providers, no one broker may have all the data necessary to assess the total leverage of a hedge fund client. Further, if the risk controls of creditors and counterparties are inadequate, their actions may not prevent hedge funds from taking excessive risk. These factors can contribute to conditions that create systemic risk if breakdowns in market discipline and risk controls are sufficiently severe that losses by hedge funds in turn cause significant losses at key intermediaries or in financial markets. Financial regulators and industry participants remain concerned about the adequacy of counterparty credit risk management at major financial institutions because it is a key factor in controlling the potential for hedge funds to become a source of systemic risk. Regulators have used risk-focused and principles-based approaches to better understand the potential for systemic risk and respond more effectively to financial shocks that threaten to affect the financial system. For instance, regulators have collaborated to examine some hedge fund activities across regulated entities. The President's Working Group has taken steps such as issuing guidance and forming two private sector groups to develop best practices to enhance market discipline. GAO views these as positive steps, but it is too soon to evaluate their effectiveness.

Assorted Climate Change

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

What to do about climate change?

Climate change will wipe out Quebec skiing, study predicts

Obama says stronger than McCain on climate change

Addicted to Oil

Animal Waste Facts

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Australia's Productivity Commission critiques Stern Report

The Productivity Commission today released a staff working paper titled The Stern Review: an assessment of its methodology. This technical paper contains a detailed examination of key elements of the Review’s analytical approach. Originally prepared as an internal research memorandum following release of the Stern Review’s report, the paper is being made more widely available given its ongoing relevance in light of Australia’s Garnaut Review.

The staff paper finds that the Stern Review made some important analytical advances. The Review sought to move beyond analysis based on the mean expected outcome to one that incorporates low probability, but potentially catastrophic, events at the tail of probability distributions. The Review also attempted a more comprehensive coverage of damage costs than most previous studies.

The paper also finds that value judgements and ethical perspectives in key parts of the Stern Review’s analysis led to estimates of future economic damages being substantially higher, and abatement costs lower, than most previous studies. The paper notes that the report could usefully have included more sensitivity analysis to highlight to decisionmakers the consequences of alternative assumptions or judgements.

Where are they now?

Bono and Al Gore from Davos

All things Climate Change

Climate Policy Map

Quote of the Day

The temperature has risen about 10 degrees since this morning. If you extrapolate that, we will all be burned to a crisp before the end of the month.

- Thomas Sowell


Related;
2007 Was Earth's Second Warmest Year in a Century

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century...

A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was the result of a failure to apply NOAA adjustments to U. S. Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different database (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (the contiguous 48 states) and only the last several years in the 21st century. The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude on the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.

Death by Sewer Gas

Peter D. Ward, paleontologist talks with Carl Zimmer.

via Gene Expression

Is Stern Correct?

December edition of Australian Economic Review has a policy forum on the economics of climate change-excerpt from one paper below.

Is Stern Correct? Does Climate Change Require Policy Intervention?
Paul H. Jensen, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
and Elizabeth Webster

At face value, many of the criticisms of the Stern Review have merit—it is clearly not without its flaws. In particular, it lacks transparency, fails to provide sensitivity analyses and there are discrepancies between sections. However, these concerns should be made in light of the fact that it is a government report tackling a very complex issue. As in any modeling exercise, assumptions need to be made about these parametric values in order to make the model tractable and Stern has made a valiant attempt to do so. Although it is not an academic publication (nor does it purport to be), the Stern Review does a sound job at quantifying the costs of climate change—the assumptions made are well founded in economic utilitarian principles. And the idea that governments should provide their citizenry with some insurance against the possibility that catastrophic climate change may occur sometime in the future is not quite as ludicrous as many people seem to argue. After all, the underlying principle is quite similar to that of the provision of a national defence force, which is essentially a very costly insurance policy against the (small but highly uncertain) probability that a country will be invaded.

It also seems unfortunate that many of the economist critics of Stern have focused on the choice of discounting factors to the almost complete exclusion of what are probably more serious concerns—the environmental irreversibilities. These concerns include the melting of the permafrost, changes in deep ocean currents and the permanent destruction of the barrier reef and ecosystems, to name just a few (Neumayer 2007 is an exception). Typical economic cost–benefit tools are not equipped to make clear and sensible decisions when irreversible investments are involved—they implicitly assume that ‘goods’ today and ‘goods’ tomorrow are perfect supply-side substitutes. What we are hearing from the scientific community is that it is quite probable that this is not the case. However, we simply do not know how likely such irreversible events are.

Related;
Stern review discussions in World Economics journal

Regulating Carbon Emissions with Differentiated Taxation

Time to Change U.S. Climate Policy

Carbon taxes are not likely to be politically feasible in the U.S. for addressing climate change in the short term, according to Robert Hahn and Peter Passell. The time is now ripe for the U.S. to consider adopting a cap and trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Stern gang

Recalculating the Costs of Global Climate Change- Hal Varian

AEA 2008 Conference Papers

AEA Conference Papers- some of the papers are now online

Related;
The economics of climate change

* Introduction
* Part 1
* Part 2
* Part 3
* Q & A