Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Stoat

Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.

Profile

Me My family and me. More...

Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy

Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list Subscribe to globalchange
Email:
Browse at groups.google.com
I've been using Google Reader recently, following the lamented death of Planet Fleck, and I suppose I have to admit its better. Here are some "shared items" if, for some reason, you want to read what I read.

« Warming Wine | Main | Boring old climate sensitivity »

IREA more interesting than expected

Category: climate communication
Posted on: July 28, 2006 12:04 PM, by William M. Connolley

RC has a post on a leaked letter from the little-known IREA (Intermountain rural electric authority, since you ask) (though to be fair I should point out that desmog seem to have posted first). The IREA are worried because most of their lectric comes from coal and so are trying a PR campaign to persuade people that GW is all solar, or somesuch junk. RP Jr is up in arms about this, from his usual perspective - policy, with no interest in the science.

The frustrating thing about this is how pointless it all is. Most of the IREA "briefing" is straightforward junk, or simply misleading. There is, of course, room for an interesting discussion about *policy*. IREA don't want that, or they would just leave out all the science. They could say "we accept the std.consensus on the science of global warming - now, lets get on and discuss what to do about it!". Clearly, they are afraid of doing that - I rather suspect, ironically enough, because of their own ignorance. They have, unwittingly perhaps, accepted the over-the-top message that GW is automatically catastrophic, and so find themselves obliged to deny GW. Which is boring.

Of course, if they were going to discuss *policy*, there would be no reason to slip Michaels $100k - he is getting that for his views on the science.

Finally, RP praises the IREA for their description of how they view different policy options. They view a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system as the least desirable options. They support voluntary programs and investments in technology. They also view the participation of India and China as essential to any international agreement. They want all industries involved in any political action on greenhouse gases, and they don't want the economy to be harmed. Why is this weird? Because don't-harm-the-economy is what everyone wants; because India-and-China is code for no-Kyoto; because voluntary programs means near-nothing. This isn't a discussion of policy options: its an attempt to prevent any action. The obvious solution is a carbon tax. Easy to do, and is directly to the problem. IREA don't want that because its very bad for coal burners, which they are, by proxy.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/17300

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.