Tomorrow I'll be talking with Ira Flatow for 30-40 minutes about Hurricane Dean, global warming, and the new book. You can figure out how to listen in here.
I don't know if it'll be as exciting as my BoingBoinged Science Friday debate with Tom Bethell of over a year ago...but I hope you'll tune in.
- Log in to post comments
Nice job, Chris, on Science Friday. You know your stuff, cram a lot of info into the short time allotted, and - as much as I believe in my gut that climate change is directly connected with hurricanes - you impressed me with how you framed that connection within the limited scientific record.
You addressed the vulnerability of our coastal regions to storm impact. In my blog, I focus on practical realtime issues such as: What are people doing to avoid climate-related impacts? At what level of perceived risk do governments start spending money, building dikes and relocating residents when good science predicts radical climate impacts and sea level change?
I've quizzed local planners in our county government and the local PR flak for the Corps of Engineers, and climate impacts are just not on their radars. The Corps spokesman pushed back pretty hard against my inference that climate change is anything but a normal process.
But given the potential of tremendously costly coastal damage (not to mention damage from drought and flooding in the interior), and the low, but very credible risks of increased superstorms and significant sea level rise in the short term rather than long term, I wonder what it will take to motivate *at *contingency planning. Perhaps the insurance industry will have to drive it, pointing to the current disruption from sub-prime lending as an example of how lack of foresight can result in huge financial damage.
Great job, Chris!
I didn't know this was going to happen; I just turned on the radio in the car this morning and was surprised to hear Chris Mooney being introduced. Neat!
Chris, I actually do have a question if that's okay. During the caller questioner period, you said that one of the ways governments should respond to the threat of global warming is by instituting a carbon cap. This made me wonder-- do you think a cap and trade system is more appropriate, or a carbon tax?
It seems that politicians universally are advocating cap and trade, whereas environmental commentators seem to usually advocate the carbon tax. However, I've yet to see really any meaningful arguments put forward for choosing either one instead of the other. The carbon tax does seem to be a more straightforward and difficult-to-game way of attaching an economic incentive to lower carbon emissions, which makes that seem potentially more attractive than a cap-based system (though that might not be an advantage depend on how the cap is implemented); on the other side, I've not really seen any specific advantages to a cap-based system put forward. Of course I don't really know much about this subject either way, so I was wondering: Is there some reason you advocated capping rather than taxing emissions?
For the latest on Tropical Low Dean go to 10 News for San Diego California. Dean is expected to reach western Arizona, southern California by this Saturday, with showers in Imperial and San Diego County in California. Tropical Low Dean is expected to break up in the waters offshore of San Diego.
Chris - I just listened to the podcast of your Sci-Fri interview and wanted to say you did a great job.