Your 2012 climate change scorecard
By Philip Bump
21 December 2012
As our friends at 350.org like to remind us, climate change really comes down to math. Put x amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, see y degrees of warming. Our goal — meaning, our goal as an evolved, aware species that would rather not be plagued by droughts and megastorms and constant flooding and armed conflict — is to reduce how much carbon dioxide we’re putting into the atmosphere each year instead of continually increasing the amount. We’re not good at this. And time is running very low: We either need massive, quick action or it’s too late. Given that this particular year is nearing its end, we decided to figure out how the math for 2012 stacked up. Did we, on balance, change our ways so that our net greenhouse gas emissions declined, or did we yet again increase how much we’re polluting? Are we running in the positive or the negative or what? Well: Scorecard! Getcher scorecard! The minus column
Things that reduced climate change • Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline — for now.
President Obama’s move in January to postpone the contentious pipeline wasn’t the final word, and it may end up having been more important politically than environmentally. But the rejection has prompted tar-sands companies to reconsider producing tar-sands oil at all, which is good news for the climate, given how much more greenhouse gas such fuel produces. Obama could still OK the pipeline, but it doesn’t make much sense for him to. Effect on climate pollution: -2
Methodology for this: I picked a number between -10 (leads to reduction in pollution; good) and 10 (increases it; bad). Want to fight about it? […] The plus column
Things that increased climate change • The United Nations did nothing.
Fifty thousand people met in Rio; who-knows-how-many traveled to Qatar. And that all resulted in a vague promise to maybe do something in 2013. The U.N.’s ability to mandate change is certainly limited, but that it didn’t mandate any at an enormously critical time is not just incompetent, it’s immoral. Oh, also? The big U.N. climate report due in 2013 was leaked early. But more importantly, it won’t address permafrost melt, one of the biggest negative feedbacks in the warming cycle. Meaning that if the U.N. ever actually does take action, it will be taking action on overly optimistic information. Effect on climate pollution: 8 • The presidential campaign was all about how great coal is.
As the U.S. decided who it wanted to lead the country for the next four years, the options with which it was presented failed to suggest that they’d lead on the critical issue of climate. Both Romney and Obama French-kissed the coal industry for an extended period of time, which was as ugly as that image makes it sound. The media didn’t hold the candidates to account on the topic either, with one debate moderator even dismissing the issue as unimportant. Effect on climate pollution: 2 […]
Your 2012 climate change scorecard
I won`t lament any loss of product exported from the tar sands. But it is interesting to see you try to propel the propaganda of the religion of anthropogenic global warming even as it continues to be obvious the modeling exercise is an unproductive kludge that bears no relationship to reality. Being wrong does not verify methodology.