Follow and stream @GreenNewsReport!…
(Or use “Click here to listen…” link below.)
Welcome aboard to the GNR’s newest affiliate partner, the TuneIn mobile radio app! Grab the free app and listen to the latest GNR anytime from your mobile device!
IN TODAY’S RADIO REPORT: Water Wars: Midwest drought threatens Mississippi & Colorado Rivers, winter wheat crop; Fracking industry goes after Matt Damon; Climate change denial industry steps on cartoon rake [clonk!] again!; PLUS: Some good news for a change — a new light powered by gravity … All that and more in today’s Green News Report!
Green News Report
with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen
12/18/2012
‘Green News Report’ – December 18, 2012 | With Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen... · · · · · ‘Green News Report’ – December 18, 2012 | With Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen...
0:00
0:00
Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.
IN ‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (see links below): EPA tightens soot rules by 20%; Japan: nuclear operator TEPCO admits ‘collusion’ with regulators; Chevron to pay $1.8m in UT settlement; Study links pesticides to long-term brain damage; Sharp lessons from Deepwater Horizon report; Florida’s rivers ‘sicker’ than ever; Mercury in seafood: Where does it come from? … PLUS: VIDEO: A city-sized iceberg breaking off from a glacier will blow your mind … and much, MUCH more! …
STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY’S ‘GREEN NEWS REPORT’…
- Midwest Drought: Now Threatening Winter Wheat:
- Drought expands in many farm states (Reuters) [emphasis added]:
Drought continued to expand through many key farming states within the central United States in the past week, as scattered rainfall failed to replenish parched soils, according to a report issued Thursday by state and federal climatology experts.
Drought conditions were most pervasive in the Plains states, including in top wheat producer Kansas, according to the Drought Monitor report.
- Texas drought affecting winter wheat crop (KWKT)
- WATER WARS: Shippers vs. Farmers over Mississippi River Lows:
- Mississippi River Faces Shipping Freeze As Water Levels Drop: (Guardian UK):
The Mississippi as seen from Ed Drager’s tug boat is a river in retreat: a giant beached barge is stranded where the water dropped, with sand bars springing into view. The floating barge office where the tugboat captain reports for duty is tilted like a funhouse. One side now rests on the exposed shore. ‘I’ve never seen the river this low,’ Drager said. ‘It’s weird.'”
- Army Corps declines lawmakers’ request to boost Mississippi River level (AP):
The Army Corps of Engineers has turned back requests by federal lawmakers and the barge operators to release more water from the Missouri River, believing the drought-starved Mississippi River it feeds still will remain open to shipping. The industry, however, warns that the situation is growing increasingly dire.
- Army Corps delays rock-blasting on Mississippi River indefinitely, as excavation is successful (Washington Post)
- End Times for the Colorado River?:
- Colorado River won’t meet needs of users in 7 Western US states, 50-year report finds (Washington Post):
“The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the dry West,” said Dan Grossman, an official with the Boulder, Colo.-based organization. “We can’t keep bleeding the river dry. The basin study says loud and clear that it’s time for a new approach that puts conservation first.”
- Colorado River water supply to fall short of demand, study says (LA Times):
Federal report predicts a drier future for the seven states that rely on the Colorado for water. A range of solutions, some impractical, are proposed.
- Feds predict end times for Colorado River water (Grist):
With California agriculture and 40 million people relying on the Colorado, this insatiable demand for water won’t dry up overnight. But there are some changes we can make on the road toward 2060. Might I humbly suggest we start first with dismantling the Palm Springs golf courses?
- {CLONK!}: Climate Science Deniers Step on Cartoon Rake Again:
- After Denier Disinfo Faceplant: What We Now Know about the Next IPCC (Climate Crocks)
- A Contrarian Spin on the Next Big Climate Report (NYT Green)
- Bid to Heap Blame on Sunspots for Climate Change Has Backfired (Independent UK) [emphasis added]:
[C]limate scientists pointed out that Mr Rawls has selectively quoted from the draft report and has ignored other parts of the document stating that solar activity and cosmic rays cannot explain the increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century, as sceptics have repeatedly claimed.
- Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change (New Scientist) [emphasis added]:
A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun’s variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.
- Fracking Industry Goes After Actor Matt Damon:
- VIDEO: Promised Land Trailer (YouTube)
- Fracking lobbyists prepare case against Matt Damon’s Promised Land (Guardian UK):
Energy in Depth prepares ‘cheat sheet’ of pro-fracking talking points before release of Gus Van Sant drilling-rights drama
- Drilling Down Series: NYT examines the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry (NY Times)
- Matt Damon: Promised Land Co-writer John Krasinski’s “Brain Works a Lot Faster” Than Mine (Vanity Fair)
- With U.S. awash in natural gas, why aren’t fuel bills falling? (Washington Post):
The answer is that fuel is only part of the fuel bill. A lot of what homeowners pay goes to building new power lines or tending to aging gas pipelines. In one recent rate case, a utility got a rate increase to cover pension costs.[but there’s more…]
- With Large Oil Reserve, California Faces Fracking Debate (KQED)
- PA Report Left Out Data on Poisons in Water Near Gas Site: (NYT Green)
- VIDEO: David Roberts talks fracking on MSNBC’s ‘Up With Chris Hayes’ (Grist)
- Dept of Interior delays ‘fracking’ rules (The Hill’s E2 Wire):
The Interior Department no longer plans to finalize rules this year that will impose new controls on the controversial oil-and-gas development method called hydraulic fracturing, a spokesman said.
- GOOD News: Revolutionary Light Powered by Gravity:
- VIDEO: GravityLight: lighting for the developing countries (Gravity Light via Vimeo):
GravityLight is a revolutionary new approach to storing energy and creating illumination. It takes only 3 seconds to lift the weight which powers GravityLight, creating 30 minutes of light on its descent. For free.
- DONATE: GravityLight: lighting for developing countries.: We have developed a realistic alternative to Kerosene lamps by harnessing the power of gravity. We need your help to make it happen.
GravityLight: lighting for the developing countries from Therefore on Vimeo.
‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (Stuff we didn’t have time for in today’s audio report)…
- EPA tightens soot rules by 20 percent (Washington Post):
The new rule is a result of a 2009 court ruling that said the EPA standards for the amount of soot permissible in the air on an annual average ignored the advice of scientific advisers by maintaining the standard established in 1997 and must be rewritten. That limit was 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air; on Friday, the EPA cut the level to 12 micrograms.
- Chevron to pay $1.8 million in Utah settlement: Chevron to pay $1.8 million to Utah in settlement after funds tapped (AP)
- Study links pesticides used by sheep farmers to long-term brain damage (ENN):
Several hundred farmers in the UK are believed to have suffered debilitating health problems from exposure to organophosphate pesticides (OPs). A large number of them were sheep farmers, following government orders in the 1980s and 90s to treat their animals with the chemical to protect against the spread of a disease called sheep scab.
- Ouch! Sharp Lessons From Deepwater Horizon (Mother Jones):
The science journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) has published a Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Special Feature taking a look back 20 months after the explosion that killed eleven people and upended countless lives along the Gulf Coast. Specifically at what happened, what we learned, and what could be done better the next time around.
- Mercury in seafood: Where does it come from? (Grist):
“Most of the fish that people in the U.S. eat are from the open ocean. And most of the mercury that goes into the open ocean is from atmospheric emissions, which comes from fossil fuel burning,” says Chen, a food chain biologist from Dartmouth. Coal-fired power plants are the biggest source, globally.
- VIDEO: A city-sized iceberg breaking off from a glacier will blow your mind (Grist)
- Florida Rivers Getting Sicker: Orlando Sentinel:: Florida’s rivers are in trouble. That’s what the Orlando Sentinel found after a yearlong evaluation of some of the state’s biggest and smallest, most urban and remote, cleanest and dirtiest, protected and abused rivers.
- Fukushima: TEPCO Nuclear Operator in Most Frank Admission Over Nuclear Disaster: (Reuters):
The operator of a Japanese nuclear power plant that blew up after a tsunami last year said on Friday its lack of safety and bad habits were behind the world’s worst nuclear accident in 25 years, its most forthright admission of culpability.
- Posed at AGU: “Is Earth F**ked?” (Climate Crock of the Week):
Sobering to come away from the world’s largest scientific meeting with a very real and urgent question. One that would have seemed science fiction a generation ago.
- No Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card on Sea Level (NYT Green) [emphasis added]:
“We now know that snowfall in Antarctica will not save us from sea level rise,” one of the study’s authors, Anders Levermann, said in a statement. “Sea level is rising “” that is a fact. Now we need to understand how quickly we have to adapt our coastal infrastructure, and that depends on how much CO2 we keep emitting into the atmosphere.”
- UK lifts ban on fracking to exploit shale gas reserves (CNN):
Britain’s government lifted its ban on a controversial mining process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Thursday, allowing companies to continue their exploration of shale gas reserves. Energy Secretary Edward Davey said the decision was subject to new controls to limit the risks of seismic activity.
- Los Angeles: EPA finds contamination at former rocket test site (SF Gate):
Lingering radioactive contamination exists at a former rocket test lab outside of Los Angeles that was the site of a partial nuclear meltdown, federal environmental regulators said Wednesday.
- How Corruption Is Strangling U.S. Innovation (Harvard Business Review) [emphasis added:
[T]his isn’t the overt, “bartering of government favors in return for private kickbacks” corruption. Instead, this type of corruption has actually been legalized. And it is strangling both US competitiveness, and the ability for US firms to innovate. The corruption to which I am referring is the phenomenon of money in politics.
- New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
- COVER STORY: It’s Global Warming, Stupid (Businessweek):
Yes, yes, it’s unsophisticated to blame any given storm on climate change. Men and women in white lab coats tell us-and they’re right-that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.
…
If all that doesn’t impress, forget the scientists ostensibly devoted to advancing knowledge and saving lives. Listen instead to corporate insurers committed to compiling statistics for profit. - CO2 Emissions Rises Mean Dangerous Climate Change Now Almost Certain (Guardian)
- Study: Sea Levels Rising 60% Faster Than Projected, Planet Keeps Warming As Expected (Climate Progress)
- Ocean Acidification: Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean (New Scientist)
- Global warming targets further out of reach, UN says (Phys.org):
Based on current pledges, global average temperatures could rise by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) this century — way above the two degrees Celsius being targeted, said a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report.
- Thawing of permafrost to be ‘major factor’ in global warming, warns UN report (UN News Centre)
- Must-Read: Economist William Nordhaus Slams Global Warming Deniers, Explains Cost of Delay is $4 Trillion (Climate Progress):
Nordhaus’s blunt piece – “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong” – is worth reading because he is no climate hawk.
- Essential Climate Science Background:
- Skeptical Science: Get the FULL DEBUNKING of ALL Climate Science Denier Arguments
- Report: Humans near tipping point that could dramatically change Earth (CS Monitor) [emphasis added]:
Human activity is affecting Earth in many ways, but a new study suggests that continued population growth and its impact on climate and ecology could trigger a more profound chain reaction of effects within little more than a decade.
- VIDEO: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change (TED Talks):
Top climate scientist James Hansen tells the story of his involvement in the science of and debate over global climate change. In doing so he outlines the overwhelming evidence that change is happening and why that makes him deeply worried about the future.
- VIDEO ANIMATION: Time history of atmospheric CO2 (NOAA Carbon Tracker YouTube channel):
- VIDEO: Animation Charts Modern Global Warming (NYT Green)
- Thinking Big: NREL Study Shows 80 Percent Renewables Possible By 2050 (Climate Progress)
- Part 1: The brutal logic of climate change (David Roberts, Grist) [emphasis added]:
It’s simple: If there is to be any hope of avoiding civilization-threatening climate disruption, the U.S. and other nations must act immediately and aggressively on an unprecedented scale. That means moving to emergency footing. War footing. “Hitler is on the march and our survival is at stake” footing. That simply won’t be possible unless a critical mass of people are on board. It’s not the kind of thing you can sneak in incrementally.
It is unpleasant to talk like this. People don’t want to hear it.
- Part 2: The brutal logic of climate change mitigation (David Roberts, Grist)
- How to Buy Time in the Fight against Climate Change: Mobilize to Stop Soot and Methane: A short list of relatively simple actions taken to reduce greenhouse gases other than CO2 could help put the brakes on global warming–if implemented globally (Scientific American)
- World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns: If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change (Guardian UK) [emphasis added]:
The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels… “The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.”
- Concise Overview: The IPCC report on extreme climate and weather events (Real Climate)
- The Real Global Warming Signal (Tamino)
- No, global warming hasn’t stopped (New Scientist)
- VIDEO: Climate Scientists Michael Mann on “A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future” (TEDx, YouTube)
- Earth’s Plant Growth Fell Because of Climate Change, Study Finds (NYT Green)
- Heads in the Sand: Warning: “Climate change is occurring “¦ and poses significant risks to humans and the environment,” reports the National Academy of Sciences. As climate-change science moves in one direction, Republicans in Congress are moving in another. Why?
Reader Comments on
‘Green News Report’ – December 18, 2012
13 Comments(Comments are now closed.)
13 Responses
(Comments are now closed.)
More reasons to buy organic food or better yet grow our own.Human sludge in our corporate farmed produce.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blo...-fresh-produce
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.
http://online.wsj.com/article/S...s_opinion_main
As Upton Sinclair said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The entire article is based on the analysis of a Wall St. financier with no formal training in any of the relevant scientific disciplines, whose opinions have not been published or peer-reviewed, by an author who owns a coal mine.
“Net effect” is an interesting way of trying to make it sound not so bad that we are changing the chemical composition of the only atmosphere of the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life.
Setting aside the numerous patently false assertions (like warming has stopped, computer models are unverified) in his article for the moment, due to lack of time (SkepticalScience.com and RealClimate.org may have gotten to it)…. Unintended consequences, feedbacks known and as-yet-unknown (permafrost, ocean warming, methane clathrates) — none of these are mentioned in his opinion that humanity can continue to dump our waste everywhere without negative consequences, that physics and known facts of geologic history won’t apply to us or the planet this time.
It’s a fact that extreme weather events are increasing in the U.S. and around the world, with only a .8 degree Celsius increase since pre-Industrial times. It’s a fact that actual observations occurring today match scientists’ predictions from the last 20 years — only much more rapidly than they predicted.
That suggests that, if anything, scientists have been too conservative in their predictions of the speed and impacts of warming.
I understand the deep desire to invest in the idea that the science is wrong and there will be no consequences. It fails on risk management, and on values, Davey.
If the Wall St. Journal and all the other wishful-thinkers are right in their predictions, that would be wonderful news. But if they are wrong and the global scientific community is right, as they have been so far, it will be too late to stop it and (most of the scientific evidence indicates) it will very possibly be catastrophic.
You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else’s kids and grandkids. Why is that?
Davey Crocket, @2
You are being a good citizen by hallucinating properly, however, those who are responsible will pay dearly.
Denial is getting beyond absurd:
(The State of the Climate, NOAA). This is the latest data.
Well, I spent 40 minutes with a reply when my browser crashed. Oh well.
Not gonna repeat it other than to reaffirm that Al Gore IS a scientist as well as Pachauri, and that all of Gore’s predictions HAVE come true.
Michael Mann (the scientist) was in the room when the Nobel prize was granted and he more than anyone adheres to your Upton Sinclair quote.
” the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life. ” WE AGREE YAY!!
“You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else’s kids and grandkids. Why is that? ”
You and I want the same thing for the good earth and our kids. I just understand risk differently than you and my different view results in different behavior.
Sorry to hear your browser crashed. 🙁 I don’t know about Al Gore’s predictions because I have not seen his film. I read the scientific literature from, you know, actual scientists.
You haven’t acknowledged the parameters of the other half of the risk management equation, in which the scientific evidence suggests that the climate system is far, far more sensitive than the WSJ and the like believe — the projections that show global temperatures rising to 11° Fahrenheit or more, with long-tail feedbacks over centuries.
To put it in the starkest possible terms, using the worst case scenarios outlined in the academic literature on both the scientific data and the economic data:
If the global scientific community is wrong, we get a cleaner world and may have an economic boom, or an economic hit.
If you’re wrong, everything dies.
That’s the other side of the risk management equation. If we wait until you know for certain, it will be too late. That is a risk that you are willing to take.
—i recovered my earlier–thought lost–post
Desi:
Yes, I think Michael Mann has this posted right next to his, “I was in the room when the Nobel prize was awarded.” plaque…
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
—
So you are saying Mr. Lewis is wrong because he is a successful financier?
Lets consider Mr. Pachauri. He has a degree in mechanical and industrial engineering but spent most of his career in economics. If you equate an engineering degree to being a scientist then you do not understand the difference. If you equate economics to climate science, then, well…
Of course, Al Gore is the real scientist…on that, I am sure that we all agree.
“Only planet in the universe capable of supporting life.”
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT! YAY!
Climate has a very long time constant and I believe that it is foolish to make long-term predictions on very short-term measurements.
I do not believe the models (you and I have been over this before…no reason to rehash it).
“Predictions” There have been lots of predictions that did not come true. Gore predicted polar ice could be nearly ice free by the end of summer 2012. Did not happen.
“It’s a fact that extreme weather events are increasing”
Well, I am not sure. How do you define “extreme?” That is critical to your assertion! It is very easy to find data you like and use it of course, but it may not paint an accurate picture.
I did not say that “science is wrong” but I think scientists can be wrong. Happens all the time.
“You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else’s kids and grandkids. Why is that?”
We have the same goal…live on and preserve a cool blue ball. I am not an ogre as you imply. I just believe that climate science has been co-opted by climate charlatans. It has become a religion.
Regarding risk…a very interesting topic. Most people do not understand it. We have spent boatloads of money to make sure that not one person dies from a terrorist attack on a plane. It has really ruined air travel for all of us. Has it made us safer? Who knows. I doubt it frankly. In fact it has caused me to drive on certain business trips so the reality is that airport scanners have made me less safe. Funny thing about unintended consequences.
I believe in managing risk, not removing it (removing it is impossible).
Thanks for the long reply 🙂
Postscript:
Here is the analysis of Mr. Lewis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012...es/#more-75982
Davey, are you unclear on what the IPCC does? The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not do any scientific inquiry itself; it is a survey that puts the thousands and thousands of earth systems science studies into a summary that can be accessed by governments and individuals for policy decisions.
Therefore, Pachauri (an administrator of the IPCC), Gore, Lewis, and everyone else can have relevant opinions to offer within their areas of expertise as it relates to potential policy responses. But they are not scientists and their opinions on the scientific data are not as relevant as that of actual scientists, who warn we are on a trajectory that brings catastrophe into the realm of possibility.
Global insurance companies — the ones who have to pay up for extreme weather events — see a clear increase in extreme weather events, like Munich Re did in their October 2012 report, “Severe Weather in the United States”.
Munich Re and other are offering their opinion on potential policy responses, based on their relevant experience. They are experts in risk management.
The vast majority of the people with the relevant experience and formal training to evaluate the scientific data say we are headed for the worst end of the risk management equation.
Desi#7
You might be the most reasoned person on this blog (no offense to the others of course).
Let me follow your argument…”there is no downside to a cleaner world.” OK, I agree. I want clean air, clean water, preserved natural resources, etc. I am very much a conservationist. I recycle, I conserve water. When I am backpacking/camping, I practice LNT. I am happy to move from coal to natural gas…it is cleaner and it is cheap. Windmills are ugly so I am not to fond of them. Solar has a long way to go (I have heard the Germany story…lets get to the end of that book before making that call). I think it will get there eventually but we may have to burn up the fossil fuels first. Give me a cheap alternative to my F150 burning unleaded fuel and I will consider it. It is not an electric car…at least not for another XX years.
Back to climate…I posted the article because it gave some balance to your other posts. Moreover, it agreed that there is some warming…just not as much as the alarmists.
Davey Crocket,
You posted:
Evidence points to Santa Clause being real, but it is not good evidence.
Here is good evidence so you can compare:
(Embryonic Look At Civilization’s Future – 5). Nearly unanimous means about 98% of climate scientists.
Read up on Agnotology, the study of the origin and proliferation of ignorance in society.
Here ya go, Davey: the debunking of that WSJ article from the folks with the relevant experience to evaluate those claims:
WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud.
Thanks, Dredd, for posting the link to the World Bank report, just one of the recent evaluations of our current emissions trajectory that indicate the climate is more sensitive to our emissions dump and we are headed for dangerous levels of warming. Of course the climate change denial industry, whose wildly successful business model is predicated on the public bearing the cost of the industry’s pollution, is delighted to have the WSJ shill for them. It’s like Tom Sawyer with the fence — get the public to pay you to dig up the public’s reserves, sell it back to them at a premium, pocket the profits and socialize the pollution, with enough left over to buy politicians to keep it all going.
Just so’s ya know, Davey — the arithmetic is clear. According to those who actually know what they’re talking about, we can’t “burn up the fossil fuels first”. Even the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report bluntly says:
IEA is not known for being tree-hugging hippies. Nature’s proven carbon capture and storage system is already doing the work of storing all that ancient carbon that once made the planet so warm, Antarctica was lush and green. Besides, since when was it considered good planning to burn through our natural resources as quickly as possible? Do people just not care if there’s anything left for their kids and grandkids?
Also, those people trying to warn you aren’t “alarmists”. They’re scientists. The global scientific community is deeply worried. It would be nice to believe they are just in it for the money like the fossil fuel industry. The scientist who can prove climate science is wrong stands to make a great deal of money.
Davey, you haven’t yet acknowledged the other half of the risk management equation if you and the WSJ and the climate change denial industry are wrong — the one that scientists and the insurance industry say we are headed for. Worst case scenarios do occur, and humans have already proven we don’t do so well on managing the really big risks, even when they’ve been predicted (see: Wall St. crash, Fukushima, Hurricane Sandy, etc…),
There is some good news, tho. If it’s all natural, then there’s nothing we can do about it; but if it’s human-caused, there’s a human solution. Or, at least, a fighting chance at one.
Davey, you may also find this summary of the predictions vs. observations regarding computer climate models that you say you don’t believe “in #8):
There is much more here: 2012: Another record-setter, fits climate forecasts
The upshot of the review is that real-world observations indicate the computer models that you “don’t believe” have actually underestimated the speed and sensitivity of the climate to our dumping wastes into the biosphere, and we are seeing an increasing frequency of extreme weather events around the world come true much sooner than the models predicted. What is your take on that?
Still waiting for an acknowledgement of the other half of the risk management equation, the one that indicates we are headed for the worst case scenario. What actions should we take, and at what point would you advocate taking action? Should we wait until the global average temperature officially goes up beyond 2°C?
Are there any benchmarks or thresholds that you would support for taking action?