A lot of dumb things get printed about climate change in newspapers and on serious websites. People put forward dubious arguments on why it isn’t happening, isn’t caused by people, or isn’t a problem. They misrepresent policies like carbon taxes, which could play an important role in mitigating it. They make dubious moral arguments, such as saying that having emitted greenhouse gasses in the past gives you the right to do so in the future.
In order to help counter this, and advance the resistance agenda, I encourage readers to submit letters to the editors of publications that print such claims. Please include any that you write as comments here, with links to the original article and any situations in which your letters actually get published. Having a bunch in one place could serve as a useful archive of pithy rejoinders to common climate change fallacies and misrepresentations.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
A couple of previous letters to the editor I’ve written:
To the Chilliwack Times
To the Edmonton Sun
Huh… I don’t remember this picture being taken at all. You’re good!
My letter to The Edmonton Sun is on their website. I don’t know if it was in the physical paper.
While it is true that emissions from oil sands mining and upgrading are smaller than the emissions that ultimately result from burning the fuels produced, this does not make exploiting the oil sands environmentally acceptable (“Oilsands emissions not so bad, says study,” 18 June 2009). The amount of climate change the world will experience depends on the total quantity of greenhouse gasses humans put into the atmosphere. Since capturing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is infeasible, producing vehicle fuels from the oil sands inevitably adds to that quantity. If we are to avoid dangerous global climate change, we need to accept the need to leave most of the carbon in remaining fossil fuels underground.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Sir,
Your article (“Beyond oil,” 9 July 2009) contains two misrepresentations that ought to be addressed.
Firstly, it claims that wind cannot “compete with the cheap and dirty coal” because it has variable output. By combining energy from wind farms in varied locations, using energy storage technologies such as pumped hydroelectricity, and practicing demand management with a smart grid, it will be possible for the variable output of wind to be corrected for. By definition, the United States and rest of the world will eventually need to move entirely from non-renewable to sustainable forms of energy.
Secondly, the article refers to so-called ‘clean coal’ as the “holy grail” for environmentalists. Even if a coal station could safely capture and store 100% of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would be far from environmentally benign. Air pollution from coal is a major cause of death and illness around the world, and coal mining takes an awful toll on both human beings and the natural world. Far from being a holy grail, ‘clean coal’ is the aspiration of those who want the future to resemble the status quo to the greatest possible extent, namely coal-fired utilities.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Sir,
Your recent article (“Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites,” 29 July 2009) is a disappointing misrepresentation of the key facts about climate change. The scientists who have developed our understanding of climate change and raised the alarm about it aren’t ‘ayatollahs’ defending some holy truth. Rather, they are methodical and intelligent people who have done much to uncover the complex workings of our planet’s climate system, and identify the serious consequences that human activity is having upon them.
The factual claims contained in the article are broadly false or misleading. We know from ice core samples and other sources that carbon dioxide concentrations are at their highest level for more than 600,000 years. Further, the fact that a carbon cycle exists – in which the roles of plants and animals in producing and consuming oxygen and carbon dioxide are balanced – does not mean that the unbalanced introduction of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels into the atmosphere will have no effect. Indeed, the key physical and chemical properties of greenhouse gasses have been known for more than a century. Simply attributing factual claims to Ian Plimer without evaluating them independently is sloppy journalism that elevates the spreading of rumour over the evaluation of fact.
Climate change is a very serious challenge facing the human race: one that calls upon us to profoundly alter where we get our energy and how we treat the planet’s ecosystems. Giving attention to those who are misleading the public about the nature and seriousness of the issue is a poor way of serving those who rely upon The Vancouver Sun as a source of accurate and useful information.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
If anything, climate change predictions understate the case
Vancouver Sun
July 30, 2009
I was disappointed to read Jonathan Manthorpe’s July 28 column, “Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites.” It is unworthy of a distinguished foreign affairs reporter.
‘Global warming as new religion?’ Give me a break — climate change is serious
By Jim Hoggan, Special to the Vancouver SunJuly 30, 2009
There is a strange conviction, in certain circles, that the world’s environmental community has grown superhumanly strong — an idea that, with the cock of an eyebrow or the curl of a lip, any leading environmentalist can strike fear into the hearts of academics, politicians and businesspeople around the globe.
As the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, the leading environmental organization in Canada, I wish that it were so. To borrow the fiery rhetoric of Vancouver Sun columnist Jonathon Manthorpe, I would be delighted, if only for a day, to be one of the “ayatollahs of puritan environmentalism” or the “Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming.”
29 July 09
Vancouver Sun Gushes Over Denier Book Eviscerated by Climate Scientists
In contrast, here’s the book reviews by real scientists of Plimer’s pot-boiler. Imagine if these found their way onto the back cover…
“Naive, and reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted.” – Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University’s Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability. He also described the book as a case study “in how not to be objective”.
“Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.” – David Karoly, a meteorologist at Melbourne University and a lead author for the IPCC
“Largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.” – Michael Ashley, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales
“Fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variation.” – Ian G. Enting, a mathematical physicist at University of Melbourne
“A cacophony of climate skeptic arguments that have been discredited by decades of research… statements that are at best ambiguous and in many cases plain wrong are repeated, figures purporting to demonstrate climate change is all natural are erroneous, time and spatial scales are mixed up . . . the list goes on. Plimer’s thesis of inaction is a course we follow at our peril ” – Chris Turney of the University of Exeter’s Department of Geography, a past winner of the inaugural Sir Nicholas Shackleton Medal for his research into prehistoric climate change.
“Sloppy…not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist.” – Dr. Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science
Ian Plimer Watch: Monbiot Forces Denier Back into His Hole
Denier darling Ian Plimer, author of the thoroughly debunked book, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – the Missing Science, has done a runner in the face of a challenge to participate in a climate change debate with UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot.
Plimer had originally challenged Monbiot to a face-to-face debate, and Monbiot declined. These are the sorts of publicity stunt that deniers are often keen to initiate because they can stand up and say any darn thing they please, putting at a real disadvantage a debating partner who is committed to telling the truth about science.
Plimer’s homework assignment
Some of you may be aware of George Monbiot’s so-far-unsuccessful attempt to pin down Ian Plimer on his ridiculous compendium of non-science. In response to Monbiot’s request for explanation and sources for some of Plimer’s more bizarre claims, Plimer has responded with a homework assignment that is clearly beyond even his (claimed) prowess. This is quite transparently a device to avoid dealing with Monbiot’s questions and is designed to lead to an argument along the lines of “Monbiot can’t answer these questions and so knows nothing about the science (and by the way, please don’t notice that I can’t cite any sources for my nonsense or even acknowledge that I can’t answer these questions either)”. (Chris Colose and Greenfyre have made similar points). It’s also worth pointing out as Andrew Dodds has done that each question is actually referencing a very well known contrarian and oft-debunked argument, but dressed up in pseudo-scientific complexity.
Another Carbon Dioxide Myth Shot Down
Posted By Philip Lehman
Posted 21 hours ago
In many of the letters to the editor, written by those who are down playing the seriousness of polluting our planet by excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, there is a recurring theme. That theme is, since CO2 is necessary for plant life it follows that more CO2 equals more and/or better plants and therefore this pollution is actually good. This seems to be one of those “last gasp” statements that gets flung out when all other arguments have failed to meet the test of objective, scientific merit. The “fertilization effect” of increased CO2 uptake was once hailed by some as evidence that the earth’s forests could take up more and more carbon dioxide as atmospheric levels increased. The equation was simplicity itself. The more CO2 you produce the better the plant life becomes; the healthier the plant life is, the more CO2 you can pump into the air and this goes on in an endless circle. Sort of like perpetual motion. Even the warming of the planet was seen as a good thing since the longer the growing season the more CO2 is taken up. If only nature were as simple and as uncomplicated as the Manhattan Conference on Climate Change promoters would have us believe.
We have seen atmospheric CO2 levels rise to record levels in the past decades but this level is only half the story, well, 57% of the story. The other 43% of the CO2 we’ve been pumping into the air doesn’t show up as it has been taken up by plants and by the oceans. So we’ve been getting about a 50% discount on our polluting but at a cost to the oceans of increased acidification and the resultant loss of coral reef formation and a severe negative effect on the shell formation of other calcifying organisms.
Even the intuitive idea that the longer the growing season the more CO2 uptake has been proven wrong. An international study of northern boreal forests found that they lose CO2 in response to lengthened autumn warming, offsetting 90% of the increased CO2 uptake that occurred in spring.
For countless centuries our planet has kept a fine balance, creating an optimal environment for its health and ensuring the survival of all its parts. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are altering this balance by pouring greenhouse gases into the air and simultaneously cutting down the very forests that could serve to mitigate this abuse. Even if plant CO2 uptake were the ultimate answer we can’t plant trees fast enough to offset the damage we are doing. Much is not understood about the complex interactions that make up our world and neither simplistic solutions nor convening pseudo-scientific confabs like the Manhattan Conference on Climate Change will make this problem go away. They just become sad attempts to gloss over a very serious problem.
Sir,
I found it odd that your recent article on drought in East Africa (“A catastrophe is looming,” 24 Sept 2009) didn’t mention climate change at all. It is quite possible that the warming that the planet has already experienced is connected to the changes observed in the region’s railfall. Furthermore, it is highly likely that continued unchecked climate change will further exacerbate droughts both there and elsewhere.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Sir,
In a recent article on climate and ecology, (“Avoiding the heffalump trap“, 3 October 2009) you make the glib claim that “[b]ecause people are able to adjust their surroundings to meet their needs” there is “no doubt” that humanity would survive 4°C of climate change. This is potentially misleading for several reasons. For one, as readers of Jared Diamond will note, this capacity hasn’t been sufficient in all cases to prevent the collapse of ecologically stressed human societies. For another, we have no way of knowing that 4°C of warming would not generate positive feedbacks (such as melting permafrost) which would in turn generate much more warming.
One of the most dangerous ‘traps’ that humanity must avoid is the unjustified assumption that we can fail to mitigate climate change and continue to live with any kind of security or prosperity. Hopefully, that lesson will be learned quickly enough that we never experience anything close to the 4°C warming your article discusses.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Sir,
In an especially misguided editorial, you argue that Canadians should “let out a huge cheer and a sigh of relief back home every time [Environment Minister] Prentice receives a [fossil of the day] award in Copenhagen.
That’s because it will be an indication he’s looking out for our interests.”
That statement only makes sense if the only interests you care about are those of the next few years. If you want high human welfare and prosperity for decades and generations ahead, dealing with climate change is not optional. The longer Canada waits to begin the process of going carbon-neutral, the more costly and painful that process will be.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Sir,
In a recent editorial (“The changing climate and Canadian realities “, 7 December 2009), you claim that the oil sands are a “vital resource” and that “[p]roducts from the oil sands are necessary and desirable.”
When all the social and environmental harm generated by the oil sands is taken into account, it is far from clear that they produce a net benefit for Canadians. The most important of those harms is the increased risk of catastrophic climate change that comes from extracting, processing, and burning those fuels. Even if it proves safe and effective, carbon capture and storage will only be able to address a minority of those emissions – certainly not the large fraction generated when the fuels are actually burned. For the sake of future generations of Canadians, the best policy for the oil sands is to leave all that high-carbon fuel safely underground.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
Another letter to the Pembroke (Ontario) Observer commenting on a Lorrie Goldstein column that was equating the movie 2012 with the concern over climate change
Climate Skeptic Science
Posted By Philip Lehman
Posted Nov.28/09
It was interesting reading Lorrie Goldstein’s latest bout of hysteria in last weeks paper. Goldstein, a fervent climate change denier, oh sorry, they’re no longer called deniers since no one is any longer denying that the climate is warming. Now they are called skeptics, a nice tactical retreat. Goldstein was trying to link the seriousness of global warming with a movie who’s target audience seems to be young adults looking for a good adventure film and the tin foil hat set. No doubt the people who are phoning NASA in fear for their future on the basis of a movie are the same people that are scoffing at real scientific research in favour of crystal readings and blandishments from right wing think tanks that are primarily funded by petrochemical industries and are the source of most sceptic information.
He takes Dr. Hansen to task for some intemperate remarks and then twists one of his statements to make it read as though Hansen is predicting the world will end in four years. He also makes it sound as though Hansen were the first scientist to warn about increased CO2 and global warming. That honour belongs to Suante Arrhenius, circa 1900. Then there was G.S. Callendar in 1938 and C.D. Keeting in the 1960′s. A little bit of research would have given him these facts but then research isn’t a deniers strong suit. I notice that he does not even try to refute any of the science behind global warming as that would require quoting credible research done by scientists with an opposing view and that research is difficult to find.
I’m sure that the skeptic crowd will deny my claim of no studies so let’s look at one bit of research done by a denier scientist. This man was listed as an honoured member on the handout I received when I attended the skeptics travelling road show that breezed through town last September and filled Festival Hall with like minded people. Well okay it didn’t fill the hall but it did fill the first four rows, almost. Being a botanist our skeptic decided that glacier research would be a good fit and so published a paper claiming that since 1980, 555 glaciers out of 625 being studied were not melting but actually advancing. This was an incredible bit of news and when asked how he came up with this figure he eventually admitted he’d meant to type in 55% but missed the shift key and came up with 555. Even with this admission of an error the climate denier crew ran with the better sounding figure and for years this was held as proof that climate change was all bunk. Then he was asked how he got the 55%. This he got from a climate deniers web site that claimed since 1980 fifty five percent of the studied glaciers were advancing and quoted a paper to prove it. Unfortunately for them what the paper they referenced actually said was that in one year only, the 1979-1980 season, that 55% of 446 mid-latitude glaciers advanced. So everything about his paper was wrong. Of course the only place it got published was in a pro-denier publication but it’s still part of the denier lexicon and to this day you will still have people writing into newspapers claiming the glaciers are advancing. To read more about this Google – David Bellamy Glaciers. While you’re at it Google – Spain’s wind turbines. You don’t even have to read the full articles, just peruse the headlines to get an idea of what the Spanish people and government really think about their wind turbine program.
And one last thing. A writer to the paper claimed that England would be hard pressed to come up with 296,000 acres to put wind turbines on. I don’t know how small the writer thinks England is but it’s bigger than it looks on a map. Honest. At present England has 457 million acres of farmland and since the footprint of each turbine is one percent of the four acres needed per turbine the other 99% can still be farmed, So that means about 3,000 acres would be lost to wind turbines. To put that in perspective it is less than one third of farmland lost to Edmonton’s urban sprawl from 2003-2007.
Sir,
You recently described how Canada’s Environment Minister wants to clean up the international image of the oil sands (“Time to clean up the oil sands, Prentice says“, 1 February 2009). This is an exercise in public relations, not in sound environmental policy-making. In reality, Canada needs to recognize that the massive amount of carbon in unconventional sources of oil cannot be allowed to enter the atmosphere and put the planet at greater risk of catastrophic climate change. For the sake of future generations of Canadians, we need to leave that carbon in the ground.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Ottawa
The Star needs to remember Dec. 1
I almost spit out my coffee this morning as I was reading my copy of Toronto Star over breakfast.
Neatly inserted behind all the usual sections was one called “New Energy Future – The Energy Challenge and Environmental Responsibility”. The first headline claimed to provide us with a ‘reality check’ on climate change, and scattered throughout the section are smiling feel good stories of employees of the tar sands with little myth buster boxes on tar sands production.
The entire section? Sponsored by Shell Canada.
I’m so glad the Star thinks that its okay to distribute oil company propaganda to millions of Canadians as a supplementary section to inform Canadians with reality checks and myth busters about climate change and the oil sands industry.
Remember Star, when you devoted your entire front page on December 1 arguing that the world needs to unite in the face of climate change at the beginning of the Copenhagen conference?
This move for the Star (obviously because Shell was able to provide the $$$) seems highly antithetical, and has made this blogger extremely disappointed.
I wonder if I had enough money, I can buy a section in the Star devoted to arguing to the existence of unicorns?
I just started Climate Response (www.climateresponse.ca) – a website that serves as a resource to help folks when writing to the media re: climate change and climate change solutions. I also notify members about articles. This is my latest letter to the online editor of the Edmonton Journal.
Response to David Evans, Online Editor, the Edmonton Journal, regarding: Climate alarmists feeling more heat.
Dear Mr. Evans,
I am writing in response to an article published today in the Edmonton Journal – Climate alarmists feeling more heat.
I understand and support the paper’s commitment to balanced coverage on any issue. It’s the hallmark of strong journalism. However, I also appreciate that the articles must be factually supported. I can’t imagine that the Edmonton Journal would, in the interest of ‘balanced’ reporting, invite a writer to explain to readers that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax, providing so-called evidence to back their claims. We all know that the Holocaust happened. The evidence, sadly, is overwhelming.
Climate science has come under fire lately. Trust me, I would welcome any strong evidence that proves without doubt that the thousands of scientists, representing 130 countries, who have been contributing to the IPCC supports since the 1990s have been putting the wool over our eyes all this time (all in the interest of receiving government money). What great news that would be. To learn that the climate is stable – that countless species are not at risk due to a quickly changing climate, that coastal communities are not in danger of flooding, that human populations need not fear new viruses and pests, and on and on.
I am all for critical thinking. I have to say, I’m not impressed by Mr. Gunter’s op-ed piece. And I’m a little surprised that the Edmonton Journal would elect to publish it. Mr. Gunter appears to claim that the work of a scientific community is a hoax – part of some grand conspiracy for what? Not too sure. More grant money? Investment in wind turbines? Attention?
“….the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have corrupted the scientific process in an obsessive drive to prove that climate change is real….” – That is quite the claim. An entire UN body has corrupted the scientific process. Such claims require hard evidence. Unfortunately the evidence Mr. Gunter provides would be thrown out of court if this case were put on trial.
And who has discredited the evidence? The scientists of course. And why should we trust the scientists? This is where I get very concerned. I am all for criticism, especially when it comes to scientific inquiry, but this recent bout of attacks against the scientists themselves is very concerning. It smacks of a witch hunt.
Let’s not kid ourselves here. The stakes are incredibly high for the fossil fuel industry when it comes to climate change. It is in their best interest to continue business as usual. We know that organizations that deny that human activity is causing climate change are funded in part of the fossil fuel industry. For example, the President of the Friends of Science admitted in the Toronto Star(January 28, 2007) that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. The Globe and Mail (Aug 12, 2006) also revealed that the FOS was funded in part by the oil and gas sector and was hiding this fact.
We also know that APCO, a large American Public Relations firm – the same one used by tobacco giant Phillip Morris to fight against an EPA ban on passive smoking – advised on how to discredit the climate science. You can read more on this in James Hoggan’s new book Climate Cover Up.
I also encourage you to read up on the UK’s Guardian newspaper’s investigative series on the CRU Hacking. The Guardian appears to be the only newspaper that did any in-depth reporting on this issue – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails. It concludes that while mistakes were made and certain scientists did not handle the pressure well in dealing with climate change sceptics, the IPCC reports are sound.
As to Gunter’s points that Phil Jones stated in a BBC interview that the earth isn’t warming as rapidly as thought, Jones actually asserted that the long-term trend from 1975-2009 remained at 0.16 C per decade, virtually unchanged since 1998 (and higher than the 1975-1995 trend). Jones stated that the period from 1995-2009 was too short to make any inferences about climate trends. In the interview he went on to say: “I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.” Why is it that Gunter fudged what Jones had to say?
As for NASA, Gunter claims: “… [T]hree years ago a significant error was found in its records… When it reconciled its old records to its new method, recent warm years ceased to be as remarkable. For instance, 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year.” He fails to mention that these temperatures were not global – but US temperatures only.
Gunter also claims – “In 2008, NASA substituted September’s global temperatures for October’s (they claimed accidentally), thereby distorting upward the worldwide averages for the fall of that year — an otherwise rather cool year.” – This mistake, made by NASA’s data provider, was quickly corrected at the time and certainly does not indicate incompetency or wrong doing. – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/
Is Gunter truly interested in scientific inquiry? Does he understand that minor errors are bound to happen but are quickly accessed and corrected? Why is he jumping on minor errors and claiming they are indicative of a crisis? Why is the Edmonton Journal giving voice to writers who provide such sloppy reporting and who appear to have an agenda?
I ask that you dig deeper on this issue. I understand that the Edmonton Journal, like so many newspapers, is struggling these days. I also believe that you can’t afford to publish articles with questionable and unsubstantiated claims. It brings you down. The Edmonton Journal is in danger of losing its own credibility, as a result.
Please take the time to dig deeper on the complex issue of climate change, as you would any issue. As an editor of a major newspaper it is your duty to do so.
Yours respectfully,
Cheryl McNamara
Cheryl,
Your site seems like a great initiative and thanks for posting your letter here.
One thing that may be problematic about it, however, is the length. Newspapers rarely publish anything longer than a paragraph, except sometimes letters from very prominent people or from those who have been personally criticized by the paper in question.
If ordinary readers are going to see responses to bad climate change articles, letter writers are going to need to be able to craft some that are short and effective, even when read by non-experts.
Re “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change” (Op-Ed, Feb. 28):
Al Gore’s thoughtful advocacy for meaningful action on climate change will no doubt bring the climate change “skeptics” out of the woodwork once again.
Our inability to address the climate crisis is both an intellectual and a moral failure. In the 1950s, Sputnik threatened our national pride — and America responded with an intensified focus on science education, building a space program that accomplished wonders.
Fifty years later, the threat we face is not to our pride, but to our planet — and we respond by ridiculing those who sound the warning. Mr. Gore deserves the thanks of future generations, not uninformed mockery.
Warren Senders
Medford, Mass., Feb. 28, 2010
—
To the Editor:
Al Gore’s Op-Ed article was a thoughtful contribution to the frenzied discussion under way on climate change. He went right to the heart of the matter with his comment: “Though there have been impressive efforts by many business leaders, hundreds of millions of individuals and families throughout the world and many national, regional and local governments, our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them.”
Future generations may well be less kind in their assessment of our failure to act.
Thomas F. Malone
West Hartford, Conn., Feb. 28, 2010
The writer is former president of the American Meteorological Society and former foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences.
Sir,
Your article on European energy independence (“EU: Funding Energy Independence“, 9 March 2010) fails to mention the kind of policies that stand a genuine chance of reducing European dependence on Russian gas: namely, those designed to move beyond a fossil-fuel based economy, through measures like improved efficiency, the deployment of renewable energy, and new nuclear construction. In the end, diversifying gas suppliers just keeps European countries dependent on imported fossil fuels. Both for geopolitical reasons – and because of the simple fact that every unit of fossil fuel burned increases the danger of catastrophic climate change – Europe should be working to rid itself of fossil fuel dependence entirely.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
Sir,
Your recent article on unconventional gas (“This changes everything,” 11 March 2010) misses the most important point about fossil fuels and the environment. The amount of climate change the world will experience is determined by humanity’s cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases. If we are to have any chance of staying below the oft-cited ‘dangerous’ level of 2°C of warming, the great majority of the world’s remaining fossil fuels will need to remain underground. Those unconventional gas reserves are not a boon to be exploited, as you suggest, but rather a danger to be feared.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
Good afternoon,
I read your article “A world without coal” with interest, but I must disagree with your conclusions. Continuing to rely upon coal for energy is both dangerous and unethical, largely because of the fact that every unit of fossil fuel we burn inevitably increases the risk that all future generations face from climate change. Furthermore, while coal may seem cheaper than options like concentrating solar power or enhanced geothermal, that is largely because of how many of the costs of coal remain hidden. These include everything from air and water pollution to habitat destruction.
More of the case against coal can be found at: Why bury coal?
Further, some of your economic objections are rebutted at: Objections: cash, jobs, and taxes
We have an opportunity and an obligation to do better than coal. Hopefully, that is something both policy-makers and the public at large come to understand soon.
Best wishes,
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
Re: Edmonton Journal article: Wildrose takes climate debate backward http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Wildrose+takes+climate+debate+backward/2714224/story.html
Dear Mr. Thomson,
Thank you again for another level headed article regarding climate change – Wildrose takes climate debate backward. The debate on anthropogenic climate change is over. The evidence is too over…whelming and available to anyone who cares to take a hard serious look at it. It’s alarming that the Wildrose Alliance is making even the Conservatives look good by stalling what is required right now: discussion and debate on how best to transition to a low carbon economy and the opportunities that this transition presents to Alberta and Canada.
Best regards,
Cheryl McNamara
Response to Winnipeg Free Press article – Prentice should fight climate change to protect Canadian water: expert
Studies conducted by David Shindler from the University of Alberta, as well as University of Regina’s Dave Sauchyn and Peter Leavitt show that the Prairies may very well be heading towards long term drought. Retreating glaciers are part of the problem, as well as lower annual precipitation, increased rates in evaporation, wetland destruction and irrigation.
And yet the population keeps on growing, esp in Alberta. To make matters worth, a great deal of this precious resource is used in oil sands production. It takes two to six barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. It is projected that by 2020, oil sands operations could be using the equivalent of half the Athabasca River’s low winter flow.
Despite the obvious serious nature of this problem, the federal and Alberta governments have reduced monitoring of river flows and ice packs. The policy on the oil sands is full steam ahead taking no heed to the warnings of scientists. I’m afraid that with our current governments, they seem far more interested in corporate welfare than in public well being. By the time the problem hits us hard, politicians who call the shots will no longer be in office and accountable for their shortsighted policies.
Thank you for continuing to post letters here.
Please let us know if any get published.
In response to this letter in the local paper http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2458609
I had this published in the on line edition, but not the print version, of the Pembroke (Ontario) Observer.
Posted By Philip Lehman
In the past, when climate science was a new discipline and each discovery in understanding our role in the warming of the planet was new, the sceptic side came up with a variety of alternative explanations. Some of these included sun spots, volcanoes, undersea volcanoes, cosmic flux, changes in the earths magnetic field, naturally occurring cycles and the list goes on. All of these were investigated and some, like sun spots were found to have perhaps, a moderate influence. In the case of naturally occurring cycles, we were in the wrong phase of these cycles for them to have any influence on the rapid warming that has been seen. Some, like volcanoes, were shown to play a part in the cooling of the planet rather than warming.
They then created their own scientific studies but none were able to stand up to scrutiny. Some remain to this day as examples of poorly done research.
When their own science failed they began attacking the science that hadn’t failed. The Mann (hockey stick) graph was attacked, the accuracy of temperature recording stations was questioned, arctic sea ice measurements were attacked and again the list goes on. All of the accusations were thoroughly investigated. Some, such as the Mann graph, were investigated multiple times and all were found to be accurate in their assertions.
Every attempt at refuting main stream science has failed for the sceptics. Even their theft of private e- mails turned out to be less story than hype. Every accusation of impropriety was again investigated and found to be more sizzle than steak as the saying goes.
Now sceptics are showing their true colours. Cyber bullying and even death threats against scientists who bring forward new research is the latest tactic. How can anyone take seriously any cause who’s fallback position is intimidation as opposed to presenting fact. Even sceptic columns and letters to this paper have gone from trying to promote a point of view to name calling that is more reminiscent of a junior school playground than of scientific debate. Calling those that differ in opinion from you, socialist zombies and a host of other childish names and equating the teaching of children about love and respect for the environment to Hitler youth camps shows how desperate deniers have become in defence of their failing position.
You know you are on the losing side of a debate when name calling and intimidation is the best you have to offer. Now lets get on with the solving of this problem. We are pumping enough CO2 into our atmosphere to raise global temperatures to levels that will cause hardship to much of those who are least able to cope with this man made problem. It is time to begin the rectifying of this most serious of concerns to our world.
Sir,
In a recent article (“You can turn off the lights – or collect solar energy in space,” 1 April 2010), you quoted the U.S. Defence Department’s National Security Space Office saying that “an array of solar collectors over a single square kilometre” “can collect a supply of energy – every year – equal to the energy contained in all of the known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.”
This seems rather unlikely. In his book “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air,” Cambridge Professor David MacKay calculates that providing an average European’s power consumption for one billion people per year would require 340,000 square kilometres of concentrating solar facilities, generating an average of 15 watts per square metre of electricity. That is a square 600km on a side.
The energy contained in all the known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today is substantially greater than the quantity MacKay is talking about generating here. Admittedly, a space-based facility would work with sunlight unimpeded by Earth’s atmosphere, and could be exposed to sunlight at all times of day and night. Still, that doesn’t seem likely to increase energy output by far more than 340,000-fold, as would be necessary to make the claim you quote true. None of this is to say that space-based solar power will never be a useful technology. Rather, it should be recognized that the barriers to its development and deployment on an adequate scale are considerable.
Indeed, given the need to rapidly begin curbing greenhouse gas emissions and achieve deep cuts within the next couple of decades (if we are to have a decent chance of avoiding 2°C or more of temperature rise), space-based solar may simply arrive too late to make a major contribution to the decarbonization of the world’s energy systems and economies. We need to work with technologies that are already commercially available, while putting a price on carbon and phasing out the use of coal and unconventional oil and gas.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
Mr. Thomson,
Thank you for the informative reporting in your article: “Challenging the climate-change deniers.”
It is a great shame that so much misinformation continues to circulate about climate change. As you quote Andrew Weaver and other scientists saying, the question moved beyond “Is climate change happening, dangerous, and caused by humans?” quite some time ago. The challenge now is to find a way to stabilize the climate quickly enough to prevent intolerable impacts on human beings and natural systems.
Best wishes,
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
Sir,
The recent article Neil Reynolds wrote about climate change (“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself,” 19 July 2010) perpetuates a dangerous fallacy – namely, that anything that doesn’t imperil the Earth as a whole cannot imperil humanity. Unfortunately, there is good reason to think that climate change is an exception. It cannot cease the yearly orbit of the Earth around the sun, but it could well undermine the stable climatic conditions that have accompanied the rise of human civilization during the past 10,000 years. By pointing at the robustness of the planet as a reason not to worry about climate change, your article commits an error comparable to seeing a baby driving around on a bulldozer and saying: “There’s no need to worry, that bulldozer will be just fine.”
The Earth will be fine, but for the sake of humanity we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels and move to energy sources that will last forever and which will not destabilize the climate upon which we depend.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
I have elaborated on these thoughts at: http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/07/19/robert-laughlin-climate-change/
Sir,
When Colin Robertson argues that Canada should proceed full steam ahead with the development of the oil sands (“Let’s act like an energy superpower,” 27 July 2010) he ignores the major risk that climate change will pose to humanity, if we continue to dig up and burn all the world’s fossil fuels. The amount of warming we experience depends directly on how many tonnes of oil, coal, and gas we burn. If we have the wisdom to leave those fuels buried, while developing zero-carbon renewable options, we can free ourselves from fossil fuel dependence and its many harmful consequences. These include not only climate change, but toxic air pollution and the destruction of Alberta’s land and water as well.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
A more thorough response is at: http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/07/27/colin-robertson-on-the-oil-sands/
Sir,
The fact that “Canada’s 179 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves rank second in the world” is not something to be celebrated (“Tarred with the same brush“, 7 August 2010). Given that the amount of climate change humanity will experience depends directly on what portion of the world’s fossil fuels we burn, the best approach to the Athabasca oil sands is to leave them safely underground, while building a global economy built on sustainable and carbon-neutral forms of energy. Because most of the emissions from the oil sands take place when the refined fuels are burned in vehicles, the ambitions of the Albertan and Canadian government to deal with them using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology are not adequate, even if CCS proves to be safe and affordable.
Milan Ilnyckyj
Editor, BuryCoal.com
{ 3 trackbacks }