Lord Smith Not Resigning

[fluffy666]

I always wear a seat built and was knocked down whilst filling up with petrol.

This is how I see the Policy aspect of GLobal warming...they do a load of stuff to save the Earth but it just happens to be the wrong stuff.

Current policy is that we send huge amounts of cash to prop up a bunch of Russian neo-fascists who we are currently fighting a proxy war with, and a bunch of fanatical Wahhabis who, last time I looked, wanted us all either dead, converted to Islam or, preferably, both. And emit a large amount of acute and chronic pollution in the process. And do it knowing that we'll have to change at some point anyway.

I'm puzzled as to haw we could possibly have energy policy more wrong. Heat our homes with tactical nuclear weapons? Power our cars by shooting baby kittens out the back?

[Si1]

This does seem likely. I would tend to think that, given the broad spectrum of adaptations to extreme conditions already present, life on Earth will adjust in the long term. Whether or not we would do so well or be able to support such a large population in the same circumstances is another matter and will be dependent on how current trends play out.

The whole thing seems rather like an argument against wearing car seat belts: I might never be involved in a crash in my entire life (already wrong in my case but I assume you take my point), but given the likely consequences if I was involved in one without a seatbelt why take the risk? Especially when, to extend the metaphor, there's quite a lot of evidence building up that suggests the risks of crashing are getting higher.

I see it as planning for something like the oil running out, eg it might not happen (there is s range of simulated possibilities for climate change ranging from the benign to the highly catastrophic) but that risk at the catastrophic end of the spectrum is something we should try to mitigate by our actions today; not so much taking singular action as fluffy seems to advocate, but hedging our bets and making progress where we can

However since this requires altruistic cooperation internationally then acting badly (in a way that messes up the economy) could also be catastrophic so we certainly need to hedge our bets in our actions and also realise that human nature may not permit us to cooperate sufficiently to change, in which case we'll have to risk the potential catastrophic consequences

Still doesn't mean we should pretend it isn't there

[Si1]

Current policy is that we send huge amounts of cash to prop up a bunch of Russian neo-fascists who we are currently fighting a proxy war with, and a bunch of fanatical Wahhabis who, last time I looked, wanted us all either dead, converted to Islam or, preferably, both. And emit a large amount of acute and chronic pollution in the process. And do it knowing that we'll have to change at some point anyway.

I'm puzzled as to haw we could possibly have energy policy more wrong. Heat our homes with tactical nuclear weapons? Power our cars by shooting baby kittens out the back?

Hysterical arguments like this do you no favours

[fluffy666]

Hysterical arguments like this do you no favours

Yes sir. Should I perhaps run all my posts past you first?

[Si1]

Yes sir. Should I perhaps run all my posts past you first?

Whatever

[Neverwhere]

I see it as planning for something like the oil running out, eg it might not happen (there is s range of simulated possibilities for climate change ranging from the benign to the highly catastrophic) but that risk at the catastrophic end of the spectrum is something we should try to mitigate by our actions today; not so much taking singular action as fluffy seems to advocate, but hedging our bets and making progress where we can

However since this requires altruistic cooperation internationally then acting badly (in a way that messes up the economy) could also be catastrophic so we certainly need to hedge our bets in our actions and also realise that human nature may not permit us to cooperate sufficiently to change, in which case we'll have to risk the potential catastrophic consequences

Still doesn't mean we should pretend it isn't there

Absolutely. It's not something I would personally choose to gamble with given the current balance of probabilities, but with politician's tendency to place ideology above evidence and so many big players making so much money out of the status quo this seems unlikely to change at present. For what it's worth I do think there are economically viable options - scandinavian energy models for instance, or heavily taxing imports from non-compliant countries in conjunction with a push towards stronger internal regulation and self sufficiency - but I can't see them being pursued in a political climate that favours financial services and HPI as the drivers of the economy. I suspect that nothing serious will be done unless we reach a point sometime in the future where there is either a serious loss of life in a particularly extreme weather event or food security becomes a real issue (it being pretty hard to reliably produce food in unpredictable and highly varied weather systems). Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but it's not something I would willingly put money on.

[Si1]

Absolutely. It's not something I would personally choose to gamble with given the current balance of probabilities, but with politician's tendency to place ideology above evidence and so many big players making so much money out of the status quo this seems unlikely to change at present. For what it's worth I do think there are economically viable options - scandinavian energy models for instance, or heavily taxing imports from non-compliant countries in conjunction with a push towards stronger internal regulation and self sufficiency - but I can't see them being pursued in a political climate that favours financial services and HPI as the drivers of the economy. I suspect that nothing serious will be done unless we reach a point sometime in the future where there is either a serious loss of life in a particularly extreme weather event or food security becomes a real issue (it being pretty hard to reliably produce food in unpredictable and highly varied weather systems). Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but it's not something I would willingly put money on.

I think the economics (and implicitly the food production) are more favorable than that

However, a very prescient point I came across is that, in economic terms, the Vietnam war did not halt Vietnam's economic growth, ergo there can be enormous human suffering with a dislocation such as from severe AGW despite the economy holding up

As to it being a gamble, well it isn't if energy security (implicitly again, including energy diversification) is an equally weighted aim

That way you very a tangible benefit even if AGW effects are benign

[Si1]

Duplicate

[Rare Bear]

Apparently if he resigned he would still have another 10 jobs to fall back on.

Environment Agency boss Lord Smith engulfed in crisis over his 11 jobs

Unbelievable, isn't it? Maybe the trough isn't quite big enough.

How on earth did someone with a first class honours degree in English, and a PhD with a thesis on Coleridge and Wordsworth get to be in charge of anything?

[Rare Bear]

Idiot.

Actually, Snowflux, if you believe in man made global warming, and clearly you do, you should be screaming for an absolute ban on the import of Chinese tat and no taxpayer subsidy for breeders.

[SarahBell]

How on earth did someone with a first class honours degree in English, and a PhD with a thesis on Coleridge and Wordsworth get to be in charge of anything?

And all at once I came upon a crowd

of shimmering reflections all across the road

Forsooth and damn said Bill and Jane

Somerset Levels are flooded again.

[Neverwhere]

I think the economics (and implicitly the food production) are more favorable than that

However, a very prescient point I came across is that, in economic terms, the Vietnam war did not halt Vietnam's economic growth, ergo there can be enormous human suffering with a dislocation such as from severe AGW despite the economy holding up

As to it being a gamble, well it isn't if energy security (implicitly again, including energy diversification) is an equally weighted aim

That way you very a tangible benefit even if AGW effects are benign

Sure. There are numerous policies that could help address Britain's role in AGW while also bringing social benefits - such as energy independence, a level economic playing field for British companies (at least in the internal market) and land value tax - so would still be worthwhile pursuits even in the unlikely event that all of the current evidence for AGW is overturned.

Not so confident about food production given the system is already fairly stressed (prevalence of monocultures, tree and hedge removal, soil additives, pesticides that do not differentiate between pests and pollinators or moulds and beneficial mycellium, etc) not to mention heavily dependent on crude oil. Introducing unpredictable weather patterns into this mix is unlikely to be good for productivity. Probably not too hard to spread bet against this by growing a mix of crops that will thrive in any of the possible conditions (i.e. some which will crop well in drought, some in deluge, some in excessive heat, some in unseasonal cold) and reducing some of the pre-existing stressors, but this would require a massive shift in mindset for the big players.

[Si1]

Sure. There are numerous policies that could help address Britain's role in AGW while also bringing social benefits - such as energy independence, a level economic playing field for British companies (at least in the internal market) and land value tax - so would still be worthwhile pursuits even in the unlikely event that all of the current evidence for AGW is overturned.

Not so confident about food production given the system is already fairly stressed (prevalence of monocultures, tree and hedge removal, soil additives, pesticides that do not differentiate between pests and pollinators or moulds and beneficial mycellium, etc) not to mention heavily dependent on crude oil. Introducing unpredictable weather patterns into this mix is unlikely to be good for productivity. Probably not too hard to spread bet against this by growing a mix of crops that will thrive in any of the possible conditions (i.e. some which will crop well in drought, some in deluge, some in excessive heat, some in unseasonal cold) and reducing some of the pre-existing stressors, but this would require a massive shift in mindset for the big players.

Firstly energy security is system the same as national energy independence

I take a conservative view of such things

Similarly, This common assertion that commercial agribusiness and financial hedging of risk is somehow fragile is also something I disagree with, the empirical upshot has been very very significant improvements in national scale food production and provision, it is the left leaning academics who's mindsets are mistaken

[Neverwhere]

Firstly energy security is system the same as national energy independence

I take a conservative view of such things

Similarly, This common assertion that commercial agribusiness and financial hedging of risk is somehow fragile is also something I disagree with, the empirical upshot has been very very significant improvements in national scale food production and provision, it is the left leaning academics who's mindsets are mistaken

Soil health in a monoculture system is often poor because mineral accumulators and nitrogen fixers are not present together so fertilizers need to be added, many of which are produced from petroleum or mined phosphorus, neither of which are unlimited in supply and the latter in particular negatively impacts mycorrhiza as plant roots produce less organic acids in high phosphorus environments, reducing opportunities for symbiosis. Monocultures are also more vulnerable to pests of all kinds purely because large block plantings mean that once any kind of pest enters the system it has ready access to multiple host plants. Negating this through pesticides brings about it's own problems in that insecticides also adversely affect pollinators, fungicides adversely affect mycorrhiza (again), and herbicides prevent any mineral accumulating or nitrogen fixing plants from entering the system and reducing the need for fertilizers. Including a moderate amount of trees and hedges tends to help with erosion and water absoprtion when rainfall is unusually high (and possibly soil conditions during droughts, though I'm not sure whether or not this balances out with their own water consumption in practice) so removing them for increasingly larger open fields is sure to reduce this ability.

I would consider any system that requires a fair amount of external inputs to maintain it, especially from finite resources, to be somewhat fragile. Not sure why this would be considered "left leaning", or even what that means beyond some sort of unthinking tribal allegiance, but fair enough if you disagree.

[Si1]

Soil health in a monoculture system is often poor because mineral accumulators and nitrogen fixers are not present together so fertilizers need to be added, many of which are produced from petroleum or mined phosphorus, neither of which are unlimited in supply and the latter in particular negatively impacts mycorrhiza as plant roots produce less organic acids in high phosphorus environments, reducing opportunities for symbiosis. Monocultures are also more vulnerable to pests of all kinds purely because large block plantings mean that once any kind of pest enters the system it has ready access to multiple host plants. Negating this through pesticides brings about it's own problems in that insecticides also adversely affect pollinators, fungicides adversely affect mycorrhiza (again), and herbicides prevent any mineral accumulating or nitrogen fixing plants from entering the system and reducing the need for fertilizers. Including a moderate amount of trees and hedges tends to help with erosion and water absoprtion when rainfall is unusually high (and possibly soil conditions during droughts, though I'm not sure whether or not this balances out with their own water consumption in practice) so removing them for increasingly larger open fields is sure to reduce this ability.

I would consider any system that requires a fair amount of external inputs to maintain it, especially from finite resources, to be somewhat fragile. Not sure why this would be considered "left leaning", or even what that means beyond some sort of unthinking tribal allegiance, but fair enough if you disagree.

I was about to get in a big argument with you

That is, it isn't the same to say that monoculture is bad (I agree) than to say that financially led farming will automatically take this poorer route

HOWEVER, the example I was going to show you turns out to be effective private farming with excellent government advice - the case of Brazil - which seems to have reaped the benefits of modern farming technology that decidedly DOES embrace sustainable practices (they just increase profits and therefore yields and future investment in more sustainable (which can also be high tech) practices)

http://www.economist.com/node/16886442

So there :-)

[Neverwhere]

I was about to get in a big argument with you

That is, it isn't the same to say that monoculture is bad (I agree) than to say that financially led farming will automatically take this poorer route

HOWEVER, the example I was going to show you turns out to be effective private farming with excellent government advice - the case of Brazil - which seems to have reaped the benefits of modern farming technology that decidedly DOES embrace sustainable practices (they just increase profits and therefore yields and future investment in more sustainable (which can also be high tech) practices)

http://www.economist.com/node/16886442

So there :-)

I can't say that I'm a fan of the destruction of unique regions of bio-diversity like the Brazilian cerrado, but putting that aside some of the agricultural practices in Brazil once farmland is established are a good example. For instance this guy http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/08/features/post-organic was on Radio 4 a few months ago, his approach is quite interesting and it's apparently pretty effective considering his farm now produces around a third of all the world's sugar.

In relation to my previous post I was concentrating on our position in the UK where we are, at present, notoriously bad at public-private partnerships and sufficiently investing in practical industry and supporting research. Globally we've had a food surplus for a long time and yet this food has not been readily accessible for every member of the global population, so that rather puts the emphasis on the UK's ability to maintain it's economic position in order to support imports or to move on to a less monoculture-centric system which could cope better with unpredictable weather patterns.

Btw I'm not primarily suggesting a starvation situation, although I guess that might be an outlier possibility, but rather that insecurity of supply in the medium to long term could increase costs and therefore prices, and that this would most likely have a negative impact on quality of life (similar to how housing costs are increasingly sucking up the lion's share of earnings).

[Neverwhere]

The whole thing seems rather like an argument against wearing car seat belts: I might never be involved in a crash in my entire life (already wrong in my case but I assume you take my point), but given the likely consequences if I was involved in one without a seatbelt why take the risk?

I just received a phonecall about my "recent car accident" that "occurred in the last twelve months"! What the hell!? Are these people monitoring HPC? Don't think they could have picked the info up elsewhere as have only ever been in one as a child, when clearly somebody else was driving

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

I just received a phonecall about my "recent car accident" that "occurred in the last twelve months"! What the hell!? Are these people monitoring HPC? Don't think they could have picked the info up elsewhere as have only ever been in one as a child, when clearly somebody else was driving

Maybe they thought it was odds on because you are a woman

[SarahBell]

Maybe they thought it was odds on because you are a woman

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheek!

The man who reversed into us should probably have his knackers cut off for refusing to speak to his insurance company about it.

Luckily we had him on some of the photos from the scene so we could confirm it was him driving.

The monkey shitb*gs (Sorry that's my brain auto-correcting) keep ringing up trying to get us to claim. We must have had easily 100 calls.

I am now telling them we are doing them for harassment when they ring.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheek!

The man who reversed into us should probably have his knackers cut off for refusing to speak to his insurance company about it.

Luckily we had him on some of the photos from the scene so we could confirm it was him driving.

The monkey shitb*gs (Sorry that's my brain auto-correcting) keep ringing up trying to get us to claim. We must have had easily 100 calls.

I am now telling them we are doing them for harassment when they ring.

Can't you make a claim against them for some repetitive strain type affliction you got from picking up the phone.

[Neverwhere]

Maybe they thought it was odds on because you are a woman

So rampant sexism or invasive internet monitoring it is then. I'm not sure which would be more comforting...

[SarahBell]

Can't you make a claim against them for some repetitive strain type affliction you got from picking up the phone.

I am on the verge of seeking damages for the trauma of reliving the accident. It was on the way back from a funeral too which makes it even more depressing thinking about it.

[Danny Deflation]

The current climate change is a warming trend (if you have any evidence to refute this please post), both terms are colloquially interchangeable in this context. As to the use of the term 'catastrophic' the argument being made is that the evidence available suggests that the climate is warming, that human actions are implicated in this process,

Agree that the climate is changing, but your assertion that it is us humans who are responsible is nonsense.

[Neverwhere]

Agree that the climate is changing, but your assertion that it is us humans who are responsible is nonsense.

Oh dear. My assertion is that the evidence suggests it:

http://www.southampt...anic_crust.page

http://www.skeptical...print.php?r=384

If you're aware of any countermanding evidence please post it, otherwise you're just expressing wishful thinking.

[Danny Deflation]

If you're aware of any countermanding evidence please post it.

If human activity has any effect on climate change, then it is negligible compared to the influence of other factors: volcanoes, continental drift, the earth's tilt and orbit, solar cycles and variations (the Sun will have FAR more effect on our planet than any number of cars' CO2 emissions), and so on.

Sadly, the climate change guilt trip is used to pass unpopular policies (eg, green taxes) and there are to many interested governments and business for us to have a fair debate.