From Guest Blogger Kristine Orion: As Evidence Mounts, Climate Change Legislation Becomes More Likely
Climate change is poised to take center stage in the U.S. legal arena once more, spurred by a threatened lawsuit by one of the champions of the theory. Dr. Michael E. Mann is often credited with popularizing the idea of climate change among the general public and was responsible for creating the famous graph illustrating the sharp increase in temperatures worldwide due to the impact of the Industrial Revolution. As a result, Dr. Mann has been a consistent target for climate change skeptics. The most recent attack came from the conservative journal National Review, which published a blog post naming Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” Mann has threatened to sue the National Review for defamation of character because of this quote and the tone of the blog post.
While this potential defamation of character suit is unlikely to have a significant effect on most companies, the record high temperatures across the U.S. during the summer of 2012 are likely to spur an additional round of environmental regulations and proposed laws that are certain to affect business operations across the country. NASA scientist James Hansen recently released a new study that indicated that global warming has been a factor in the recent sustained high temperatures experienced worldwide. Hansen stated, “Our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.” This definitive statement has been echoed by many others in the scientific community and is likely to inspire increased public debate on the topic of climate change.
As more scientists join the chorus of voices calling for stricter environmental regulations, businesses should consider adjusting their current operations to incorporate environmentally responsible and green-friendly practices. Switching to clean energy sources to include solar power or investing in renewable energy products can make a significant difference in the quantity of greenhouse gases produced by the company. Implementing green energy policies can create a positive impression of the company with its customers. In almost all cases, companies can benefit from the services of a qualified climate change law firm to ensure their compliance in this evolving legal field. These legal professionals can provide advice and counsel on the latest legislation and allow companies to work proactively to meet new standards even before they are in force.
The renewed focus on climate change throughout the world is likely to result in increased legislation to combat this environmental threat. Companies that make the move to renewable energy and green-friendly production practices now are likely to have a significant advantage over their competitors in the future. By making a proactive decision to implement green energy policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remain in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, businesses can prepare for expected increases in regulations and legislation designed to combat global climate change.
“While this potential defamation of character suit is unlikely to have a significant effect on most companies, the record high temperatures across the U.S. during the summer of 2012 are likely to spur an additional round of environmental regulations and proposed laws that are certain to affect business operations across the country.”
Don’t count on it. Although warming may be acknowledged, the deniers may assert that human action has had nothing to do with it.
It would be easier to get support to reduce CO2 emissions if there were more promotion of practical solutions rather than pushing “solutions” that are likely to be found impractical after we spend untold billions of dollars on them.
Surely it is not beyond the intelligence and common sense of those who deny a human responsibility for climate change to recognise that the present largely fossil fuel driven energy scenario is environmentally damaging in other ways such as acid rain, environmental damage from substances leaking from mine tailings, oil spills etc.
It is also clear that over time, less and less fossil fuels will remain to be extracted and that the cost of doing so will inevitably rise in the long term regardless of whether there is any consequential climate change. This is very much the opposite of renewable energy technologies which continue to reduce in cost as technology improves, scale increases, and innovation drives greater efficiency from a less costly bill of materials.
I do not understand why the idea of anthropomorphic climate change is considered a controversy in the USA whilst in nearly every other country, it is widely accepted as a fact! Regardless of this, there remains a good strong case for energy efficiency, diversity of energy supplies to include more renewables on a “pure business case” based on reducing costs and hedging against future energy cost risk.
There is also the further argument that no one is infallible or perfect, so that “what if I am wrong” is a reasonable consideration. No one expects to crash when they drive a car, but we all assuming we are responsible people take out motor insurance just in case. For the climate change denialist I would say
” if society backs cost effective applications of renewable energy and energy efficiency as an insurance against the denialist position being wrong,” what will it cost society to implement? Answer – very little, society as a whole may even make a profit.
What might it cost to be wrong and not take these measures? Answer potentially a great deal up to the very continued existence of humanity.
I also can’t see any possible reason other than vested financial interests to seek to block or slow down affordable measures to improve energy efficiency and to increase the proportion of energy derived from renewable natural energy flows.
“I do not understand why the idea of anthropomorphic climate change is considered a controversy in the USA whilst in nearly every other country, it is widely accepted as a fact!”
Until a few years ago, the vast majority of the U.S. public DID accept climate change as fact. That changed because of action taken by interests that would be adversely impacted by phasing out fossil fuels. They mounted a campaign that successfully convinced much of the public that either climate change was not occurring, or that if it is occurring the changes are natural and we can do nothing about it, or that we really don’t know. They also convinced the public that any action taken to reduce CO2 emissions would have a very serious negative effect on the economy.
Surveys indicate that at least a small majority of the U.S. public still believes that climate change is real and that we are causing it. However, most of these people are also concerned with other issues, such as the state of the economy and how it affects them, and many are concerned that reducing CO2 emissions would hurt them economically.
Many of us who have diligently studied energy issues do not believe that renewable sources of energy have more than a niche rôle to play, such as for small island nations or remote areas where connecting to the grid would be impractical. As I have stated elsewhere, I was once in favor of renewable energy but after taking a trip around the country and seeing many stationary wind generators, wondered of renewables were really practical. Wind an solar power are intermittent sources of power. After searching diligently and finding no credible quantitative that renewables could, by themselves, provide adequate and reliable power for large prosperous countries, I reluctantly decided that nuclear power was the only practical answer.
While studying nuclear power issues and reactor designs, I came across the lithium fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) which, to me, looked like a probable solution to the problems commonly associated with nuclear power. Although I am not totally certain that LFTR technology is the solution, to me it looks like a very good bet and good sense requires doing more work on it.
Few people (there are exceptions) who oppose nuclear power are aware of the existence of LFTR technology. Before condemning nuclear power, people should study various reactor designs and nuclear technologies to qualify themselves to have an opinion. The Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power system is not really a different nuclear technology, but it does seem to do a good job of solving cost and safety problems. The waste problem could be solved by reprocessing the waste which is mostly unused fuel. But I see LFTR technology as far better for reasons that will become apparent to anyone who watches the following Youtube presentation, which is also available from Amazon on DVD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
I also highly recommend the book “Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin; it is readily available from the usual sources.
People would be more likely to accept human-caused global warming as real if they were presented with realistic solutions to it and, as I have previously indicated, many of us do not see renewables as a realistic solution.
China will be providing technical support to build a new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power plant in the U.S. It is expected to be operational as soon as 2016. That means that, if all goes well, it will take less than four years to build it and put it into operation!!
http://english.people.com.cn/90778/7993593.html
The big problem with sdipneng too long smelling the roses while we wait for the world to realise what you and I know Paul, is that time marches on, and physics isn’t waiting for us to catch up. For me, I have hope that there is still time to short-circuit that catching up process, and that’s by (a) building the movement for change which can result in (b) exquisite pressure being placed upon existing politicians who are capable of acting as needed, and (c) electing others who are committed to taking these actions, who can then (d) apply political pressure to the other parties to lever action from them whether they like it or not. In other words there will be conditions when one of the lumbering old parties needs support from newly elected Greens members of the House of Representatives to form government. That’s just Australia of course but such political upheaval is on its way all around the world. .So I agree, Copenhagen is not going to deliver what’s needed; but its a rallying point for movement building it is incredibly important.
I have just became aware of the importance of another reason that some people deny climate change. Moreover, they have considerable influence, especially among a certain influential wing of the Republican party.
Some very religious people believe that everything that happens is the will of God, that God is controlling everything, and that it makes no difference what we do. This belief does not include all Christians, nor is it limited to Christianity. I became acutely aware of it when I lived in Fiji (1994 – 2004) and was on the National Road Safety Council. Many drivers believed that it made no difference how they drove since the outcome was always determined by God. Someone I talked to who had lived in an Arabian country for a few years observed the same outlook there. Thus, it should not be surprising that some religious people strongly oppose the idea that we should be concerned with the environment, including climate change.
This also at least partly explains why many Europeans are more willing to address climate change than Americans are; Europeans tend to be less religious and those who are religious tend to take a less literal view of religious texts.
On the other hand, there are very religious people who believe that people have been given the responsibility to care for other people and the environment. Among them are members of Interfaith Power and Light.
I am not proposing a solution for this problem since I do not know what the solution is. However, that does not mean that their is no solution.
Another problem is that many people who are concerned about climate change seem concerned only with solutions which may be applicable to the U.S. and other prosperous countries. That excludes countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, most African countries, and many south and central American countries. Those countries have an exceedingly high poverty rate and often experience potable water shortages. To lift their people out of poverty and provide adequate safe potable water, they will have to increase their energy usage by several times what it is now. Although renewables can help to some degree, renewables can make only a small dent in their problems. And, if those countries continue to expand their use of fossil fuels, what we do here in the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions will make little difference. That is reality.