Now that the worst seems to be over, it is time to start thinking about the next flood. Today’s piece in the Independent is a small start.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia is a leading research centre on climate change. They are known for the data that they provide, particularly their estimate of the annual, global mean surface air temperature since 1850 or so. One of their servers was hacked and some 1000 emails and 3000 documents were stolen, most of them 10 years old. These emails were posted on the web, and are now being scrutinised by every one who has a grudge against climate change or climate policy, and against people who harbour such grudges.
What has emerged? There is a lot of chit-chat, and bitching about colleagues (with perhaps ground for a defamation suit or two). There are attempts at blocking other people’s careers, but no signs of success. There are hints of data manipulation. None of this surprised me. There are also indications of a systematic obstruction of freedom of information requests.
What does this mean? Not much really, although some people may end up in jail for stealing data and others may lose their jobs for breaking legal and academic rules on transparency.
Doubt has been cast over the CRU data. Insiders never really trusted their data, and it is actually little used as an input to other climate research. The global mean temperature record is used for communication rather than research. Most of the temperature graphs you have seen in the newspaper are from the CRU, but independent research has corroborated their main findings. Statistical analyses similarly have used alternative data series, and the results are broadly the same.
Some people have portrayed the climate debate as noble scientists versus savage businessmen. That image is now shattered, but it was pretty naive anyway. There are bad apples on both sides of the debate.
So? Objectively, nothing has changed. Climate change is still real, and still a real problem. A carbon tax is still the right policy. Subjectively, things are different. It is harder to argue that wise scientists of impeccable standing recommend action. Proponents of climate policy have to make a real case. I do that here.
UPDATE (26 Nov)
This story keeps growing. The latest person to get entangled is John Holdren, the science and technology advisor of President Obama. While Holdren’s email contains nothing untoward (in fact, he’s remarkably patient and polite), it does demonstrate a closeness between Holdren and people who are tainted.
Another new development: One of the CRU emails has language that may be read as financial irregularity.
UPDATE (30 Nov)
CRU has belatedly agreed to open its data bases.
It appears that it deleted duplicate records. While that is fine for archiving reasons, combined with the poor documentation of CRU’s algorithms, it does imply that the CRU’s homogenized data cannot be reconstructed.
UPDATE (2 Dec)
Penn State U had already announced an internal inquiry into the conduct of Michael Mann, citing the results of an earlier inquiry (but omitting the results of another) in its press release.
U East Anglia has now also announced an internal investigation, and Phil Jones (whose mailbox was hacked) has temporarily stepped down as director.
My prediction that the mainstream media of Ireland will soon report on this matter, is unfounded.
I’ve written about the Green New Deal before. Here’s my main points in a nutshell:
Why does this bear repeating? Well, Labour just promised 80,000 jobs while Commins et al. just reconfirmed the negative impact of energy taxes on employment.
Minister Gormley just released a 1232 page review of waste policy. The press release is short and vague, but it does announce an increase of the landfill levy to €75 per tonne in 2012. It’s €15/t now, so that’s a 400% increase. The average price at the landfill gate is about €140/t. This will go up to €200/t, a 43% increase. Curtis et al. show that the effect on the volume of waste is small.
The press release also announces an incineration levy of €20-38/t. I do not know the details of the contract between Dublin City Council and Coventa/Dong, so I do not know whether its Dublin taxpayers or C/D shareholders who will be paying the annual €12-24 mln.
The summary report has a number of recommendations:
And this will of course cut emissions, create jobs, and save money.
A more detailed assessment will follow shortly.
Minister Ryan has mandated that 4% of transport fuels be renewable from July 2010 onwards. The Irish Times covers the story three times (1, 2, 3).
There are a number of things that strike me. The Department’s press release states that “[t]he obligation will be on the companies in question and at no cost to the taxpayer”. True. The cost will be to the traveller.
The opposition and the farmers quickly noted that biofuels would be mostly imported and called for support for domestic production. That could well violate EU and WTO rules. It would pose a cost to the taxpayer, and make biofuels even more expensive.
The Irish biofuels target of 4% by 2010 anticipates the EU biofuels target of 10% by 2020. It is not clear whether Ireland is engaged in prudent preparation for the EU target, or whether it is marching ahead of the music.
The biofuels target is justified on two grounds. The first is climate change. This is doubtful. A carbon tax would appropriately incentivise biofuels. The biofuels target is double regulation from a climate perspective. It is also not guaranteed that biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The rules state that biofuel emissions should be at least 35% below the emissions of the petrol or diesel replaced. This 35% per litre of fuel. As biofuels have a lower energy density, the saving per kilometre driven is less than the nominal 35%. More importantly, the nominal emissions from biofuels explicity exclude the nitrous oxide emissions from soils. N2O may turn the climate balance in favour of fossil fuels.
Biofuels may not be produced from crops grown on land that was converted from virgin forests. That rule is pointless. If history is any guide, the Brazilians will put corn on soya-land, put soya on pasture land, and chop down the trees to make way for the cows. (This is because of relative transport costs, not because of EU rules.) The “Sustainability Criteria” ignore such second- and third-order implications.
Security of supply is the second justification for the biofuels standard. Diversification does not necessarily bring security. Four percent is small, and most of the biofuels will blended into petrol and diesel. A shortage of oil would increase the costs of agricultural production, and would have everyone scrambling for biofuels. The correlation between the price of oil and the price of biofuels is so high that diversification brings few benefits.
There is great hope for biofuels, however. We have spent the last 10,000 years perfecting plants for food. We have ignored plants for energy. We can therefore expect rapid progress. The promises of second- and third-generation biofuels are astounding — but not ready for the market yet. The current regulation protects an infant industry at the risk of locking it into outdated technologies.