Fergus Brown’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  And furthermore...

  Thanks to John, who also alerted me: my response and comments here:
  http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/
  I feel entitled to comment because I have read the Schulte paper.
  regards,

  Turned out nice again...

  On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sean

  Thanks for the feedback. can't say there's a lot to disagree with there, and I understand this isn't about solar vs coal (per se), but the distinction is moot if the target of your concern is dirty coal; cheap no wins in the value measurement.

  What you say about a lot of involved agencies is interesting, because it leads to another thought: one benefit of individual sourcing their power at home with solar and wind is that it cuts out the utility problem to a certain extent. Won't stop the utes from selling their power to someone else, but it could help lower the burden.

  Via the financial pages, I hear that there are about 70 nuclear projects on the drawing board globally as we speak. Given the short-medium term choice between coal and nuclear, which is the lesser of two evils?

  regards,

  Turned out nice again...

  On Coal insider reveals the truth about carbon sequestration posted 2 years, 2 months ago 45 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  you might be right, Sean;

  You clearly are better informed than I on the subject. But I am curious why, for example, either China or Texas might not know this. Surely, is solar was viable on the right scale and cheaper than coal, then the Great Wall would have had 2,500 kms of panels added by now? Do energy companies really choose more expensive otions when they could improve profitability and make a great PR statement by solarising their output.

  I'm not against solar; I just can't see how your argument can be right. Sorry if that makes me dense.
  regards,

  Turned out nice again...

  On Coal insider reveals the truth about carbon sequestration posted 2 years, 2 months ago 45 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  you seem to be forgetting...

  there is a point which Michael made which I think is important and is being overlooked; if you use an economic metric to measure best solution, you'll normally end up losing. This can be illustrated by looking at the Prisoner's Dilemma-type model: everyone knows it would be best for all of us in the long run if we cut emissions now, but self-interest, defined as a cost/return, NPV, whatever economic metric you choose, will always dictate that the emissions continue.

  It occurs to me that DR is attacking along this front; if it can be established that (present) economic self-interest is better served by change than inaction, then there is no longer an excuse. Michael's way is more radical ( and possibly more scary); the way round the dilemma is to change the measure by which we determine present value. narrow the focus to money, and there's a battle to be won: broaden the focus to the 'big picture' of what we really value; comfort, security, nature, happiness, etc., and there is no longer a dilemma; it is then in anyone's best interest to act.

  Turned out nice again...

  On Coal insider reveals the truth about carbon sequestration posted 2 years, 2 months ago 45 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The turn-off factor

  Peter:

  A simple answer to your question would be 'yes', but  of course life is never that simple. Your comments address a whole host of difficulties both for environmentalists and for climate change 'followers' (inasmuch as the two are distinct; read on).

  The first problem is that government and media alike conflate climate change issues with conservation and environmental issues. That they are intimately connected is a given, but the tendency to attribute every environmental 'ill' to climate change has become habitual in the UK media. Not only is this demonstrably untrue, it also serves to confuse the public rather than enlighten us. As you suggest, this also leads to the supposition that the solution to any given environmental problem will be provided by a solution to the GW question, which tends to devalue the significance of some real and pressing problems, in particular those of habitat destruction, pollution and deforestation.

  The second problem is the backlash I observe in online 'friends' when climate change is discussed; 'I am sick and tired of everything being blamed on CO2' is a common and understandable response. The danger is that disenchantment stimulated by media hyperbole on CC is having a knock-on effect for the environmentalist; tarred with the same brush, third parties find it easier to dismiss concerns about real problems as 'ranting' under these circumstances.

  We know that the two issues are linked, because they both address problems with the world we live in, and the future world we wish to live in, but given the level of confusion that exists at the moment, perhaps a better strategy, temporarily, is to draw a line between the two issues and clearly identify when a perceived problem is of environmental import irrespective of CC, as well as identify when an argument about the consequences of CC damaging life on earth exists alongside and beyond the more immediate and pressing issues which deserve urgent response.

  It is a coincidence, perhaps, that some of the solutions to one type of problem closely resemble some of the solutions to the other, but the fact that a solution serves to address both types of problem should be a good reason to argue that it is all the more pertinent and necessary.

  I Hope this makes sense...

  Turned out nice again...

  On Other enviro issues are getting less attention posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses