Plans are afoot to ship vast quantities of coal to China through ports in Oregon and Washington. Coal trains over a mile long would chug through the Columbia Gorge. Likely they'd spew polluting coal dust.
Certainly all that coal, after being burned in China, would markedly further pollute the Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide. This is the best reason for not allowing the northwest to be China's coal shovel.
Science is solidly on the side of those who oppose the export terminals, such as the Sierra Club.
Today I listened to a podcast of Fareed Zakaria's GPS program where he interviewed Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California who used to be a global warming skeptic, but now embraces the scientific facts.
Muller said that natural gas emits one-third of the carbon dioxide that coal does. So even though "fracking" is decried by many environmentalists, the plus side of unlocking new supplies of natural gas is the reduced greenhouse gas emissions if less coal is used.
Muller emphasized how important it is that China, India, and other developing nations cut down on their coal consumption. (I've added boldface emphasis to the transcript.)
ZAKARIA: And what do you think, you know, when you look at the issue of what to do about it, there are people who say, look, the only thing we can do is -- what's called adaptation. We should rotate crops, we should build dikes, we should do those kinds of things, and then there are people who say, no, the problem is so serious, you have to actually get at the root cause and slow down the emission of CO2.
MULLER: I believe in the latter. And you -- adaptation, we're very adaptable species. But adaptation is always disruptive, and it hurts. Let's see what we can do. And the biggest thing we have to do -- we have to recognize that the reason the carbon dioxide is shooting up is not because of the U.S. Ours have actually been going down over the last few years as we switch from coal to natural gas.
Natural gas emits only one third the carbon dioxide that does coal. If we are going to do something about this, there are two things we have to do. One is energy conservation efficiency, that's really important. A huge amount we can do there.
Number two is we've got to switch the world, China, India, and particularly the developing world away from coal and on to natural gas. But that's a solution that a lot of my environmentalist friends don't like because they have decided they have to oppose hydraulic fracturing known as fracking. But in fact that is one of the two biggest things we can do. Energy conservation and the switch to natural gas from coal.
The rest of the interview also is well worth reading. I'll copy it in as a continuation to this post. Muller describes how he overcame his skepticism about both the accuracy of temperature measurements showing global warming, and the role of humans in causing it.
ZAKARIA: So when you look at the historical data now, is it fair to characterize the situation thus, that ever since the industrial revolution human beings have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that that increase in CO2 has been having the effect that we call global warming?
MULLER: That is my viewpoint on this. You can't prove it. It's always possible that something random is happening that just happens to match the carbon dioxide data. But it leads me to conclude that essentially all of this warming over the last 250, 260 years has been caused by greenhouse gases emitted by humans.
Here's the entire interview with Muller:
RICHARD MULLER, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: Thank you.
ZAKARIA: You -- you say in that piece that all scientists should be skeptics. And I think you're right. I remember Niels Bohr once said that every statement should be taken by a scientist as a provisional hypothesis that has to be tested. So, what made you start doubting your original skepticism? What made you look at -- what evidence convinced you that something real was happening here?
MULLER: The issues were so large that about 2 1/2 years ago, my daughter and I began a major scientific research effort in which we recruited a dozen of some of the top scientists in the world, including Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel Prize last year well after he joined our team. So, we felt there were questions that were valid. Questions about data reliability, about data adjustment. About the choice of the stations which had been used. These demanded attention, and I couldn't get the answers. Only way to do it is to do the study ourselves. So after a great deal of work, largely done by Robert Rohde, who I can't compliment enough. His superb work in data analysis which we all carefully participated in. About a year ago, maybe nine months, we came -- I came to the conclusion that, yes, global warming was real. Then over the last three to six months, Rohde was able to extend the record back to 1753. We now had a really long record beginning before the American revolution when Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the ones taking the data. With this long record, we could look for the signatures of the various possible causes. We're able to rule out solar variability, able to rule out volcanoes. They had an effect, but it was short-lived. When we tried fitting it to see whether it looked like carbon dioxide, it was right on. It was a shock to me that how well that carbon dioxide curve fit our new temperature data set.
ZAKARIA: So when you look at the historical data now, is it fair to characterize the situation thus, that ever since the industrial revolution human beings have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that that increase in CO2 has been having the effect that we call global warming?
MULLER: That is my viewpoint on this. You can't prove it. It's always possible that something random is happening that just happens to match the carbon dioxide data. But it leads me to conclude that essentially all of this warming over the last 250, 260 years has been caused by greenhouse gases emitted by humans.
ZAKARIA: Now, do you also worry about the potential effects that this will have on life on earth - because a lot of people talk about global warming and then they say if it gets to a certain point, the higher end of the U.N. estimates, you could have very significant coastal flooding. You could have - and you could have kind of unintended consequences, sort of follow-on effects that could be even more damaging to life on earth.
MULLER: Well, I am deeply worried about it. The coastal flooding, of U.N. estimate is something like between two and three feet. That's not huge. But I am concerned. I think rising temperatures soon will be in a realm that's higher than we, homo sapiens have ever experienced. I do not personally believe that's good for our civilization. I think we really do need to do something about it.
ZAKARIA: And what do you think, you know, when you look at the issue of what to do about it, there are people who say, look, the only thing we can do is -- what's called adaptation. We should rotate crops, we should build dikes, we should do those kinds of things, and then there are people who say, no, the problem is so serious, you have to actually get at the root cause and slow down the emission of CO2.
MULLER: I believe in the latter. And you -- adaptation, we're very adaptable species. But adaptation is always disruptive, and it hurts. Let's see what we can do. And the biggest thing we have to do -- we have to recognize that the reason the carbon dioxide is shooting up is not because of the U.S. Ours have actually been going down over the last few years as we switch from coal to natural gas. Natural gas emits only one third the carbon dioxide that does coal. If we are going to do something about this, there are two things we have to do. One is energy conservation efficiency, that's really important. A huge amount we can do there. Number two is we've got to switch the world, China, India, and particularly the developing world away from coal and on to natural gas. But that's a solution that a lot of my environmentalist friends don't like because they have decided they have to oppose hydraulic fracturing known as fracking. But in fact that is one of the two biggest things we can do. Energy conservation and the switch to natural gas from coal.
ZAKARIA: Your funding -- some of your funding came from the Koch brothers who are famously anti-global warming or believe that it isn't happening. How did that play out? Were they disappointed by the results of your research? Have they asked for their money back?
MULLER: I'm actually -- I find it amusing how many people think they know what the Koch brothers are thinking. It's a caricature of these people who -- and I did speak with them. And they made it clear to me from the very beginning that they recognized that there were serious issues raised about prior estimates to global warming. Everything from global - from urban heat islands to data selection bias to other things. And they knew that I wanted to look into that. That our team would do a good, unbiased job, and all they were asking for was scientific objectivity. So I was very pleased with their fundings. I really sensed they wanted to have this problem solved. And they never gave me any suggestion, any hint of a suggestion about which side they were hoping we would come out on.
ZAKARIA: And you haven't heard from them since you've gone public on these issues?
MULLER: Oh, I actually have talked to them, and they appear to be very pleased.
ZAKARIA: Professor Muller, pleasure to have you on. Thank you so much.
If you want to learn more about Dr. Muller's ideas, he has a new book out, "Energy for Future Presidents," from Norton.
Why is shipping coal to China stupid? In a Clinton-esque fashion, I must say: that would depend upon what "stupid" is.
To the global warming activist, it is "stupid" to enable another country, especially one that does not have the best interests of the United States in mind, to produce even more copious amounts of CO2. To the global warming denier, less demand for coal equals less mining, which leads to less production of mining equipment, which leads to less need for transportation of the coal, which leads to under-utilization of the transportation infrastructure, which leads to less need for fuel, which leads to more unemployment, which leads to diminished quality of life, which makes people even more unhappy.
If we don't supply coal to China, someone else will. And the CO2 will continue to integrate into the atmosphere as long as there are humans on the planet.
So - not shipping coal to China will not even begin to address the problem of global warming. It will only make the US economy weaker, and US citizens unhappier.
What a dilemma! The message to everyone on both sides of the issue is this: No matter what we do as a species, it's going to suck, and suck big-time. The fun has just begun.
Posted by: Willie R | August 09, 2012 at 05:27 AM
Kudos to Muller for taking shrapnel from both sides of the CAGW debate and remaining independent. He’s probably done many recent interviews… this is the third I’ve seen or read in which he has to correct the interviewer’s preconceived bias that the Koch brothers expected something other than objective science in exchange for their research dollars.
You have to wonder how many times each interviewer has repeated the Koch brothers stereotype prior to interviewing Muller without ever having independently confirmed it. After all, when 98% of so-called “journalists” are already repeating the same smear – is it really necessary to confirm the hearsay yourself? Why not just plagiarize the consensus view?
In his 7/30/12 interview with MSNBC/Maddow, here’s Muller’s response when she asked if her introduction of him was correct: “I think it was accurate except for the characterization of the Koch Foundation which always gave us a completely open hand and indicated no preference for what our results would show.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48409332
Then there’s the Progressive Radio Network (interviewers D.R. Tucker and Betsy Rosenberg) who interviewed Muller on 8/01/12 and promoted it with the following: “...Muller’s research is funded in part by the Koch Brothers so this should be interesting.” http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#ixzz22nkSzW84
ROSENBERG: “- we’ve every reason to think they’re (Koch Brothers) actively denying it (climate change).”
MULLER: “No, no, that’s a cartoon characterization that comes about from some articles… The idea, for example that all generals are in favor of nuclear war, and that everybody in industry is a denier, is just a very naive viewpoint.”
And then we have the 8/05/12 CNN/Zakaria interview Brian posted above:
ZAKARIA: “Your funding -- some of your funding came from the Koch brothers who are famously anti-global warming or believe that it isn't happening. …Have they asked for their money back?”
MULLER: “I'm actually -- I find it amusing how many people think they know what the Koch brothers are thinking. …I actually have talked to them, and they appear to be very pleased.”
These all-knowing ideologs feign delivery of “global warming news” to the masses. They feign journalism while they practice advocacy. And they refuse to interview people they think they understand based solely on the condemnation of people they do interview but don’t understand.
Zero journalistic standard… lazy at best, intentionally corrupt at worst. Is it really a surprise that in the days since this interview Zakaria was suspended for plagiarism by CNN, Time, and The Washington Post? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/08/fareed-zakarias-take-gun-control-strikingly-similar-new-yorkers/55652/
Sincerely,
Big Oil
Posted by: DJ | August 14, 2012 at 02:57 PM