- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Obama administration should lead energy transition
R.K. Pachauri, an engineer and economist by training, is director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, India, and a corecipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his role as chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC periodically issues consensus reports on the science of climate change. Senior editor Janet Raloff spoke with him about changes he hopes to see from the Obama administration.
Pachauri: In the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2007], we tried to bring out the finding that there’s enough observed evidence to say warming of the climate is unequivocal and that over the last five decades or so, the bulk of that warming has taken place as a result of human actions. So the world is getting to see that climate change is not something in the distant future. It is already taking place and will only accelerate if we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use energy more efficiently.
How much do you expect the current recession to affect government climate-protection policies?
The financial meltdown is a major distraction. And it’s serious all over the world. So I realize that to talk about climate change, right now, and what needs to be done to meet this threat is perhaps going to fall on deaf ears. But this financial crisis is not going to take away the reality of climate change.
Once this meltdown sort of settles, I expect there’s going to be a period of deep introspection. People are going to start looking at some of the things that are fundamentally wrong. Like energy waste. Like importing huge amounts of foreign oil.
What timetable do we have for staving off catastrophic global change?
We [in the IPCC] have estimated that to stabilize global temperature increases at just 2° to 2.4° Celsius, we have only about seven years to turn around global emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. By 2015 they’ll have to peak. By 2020, we’ll need to put in place a 25 to 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a huge challenge.… But I believe these emissions reductions are possible. We’ve carried out assessments of the sort of mitigation strategies needed and find that the costs are really minimal. The necessary technologies are here.… There will be some discomfort during the transition to lower-carbon technologies, but at the end of the day, we’ll be better off. And our children will be much better off.
The United States has not led the world in climate-controlling policies. How problematic is that?
At the 2007 global climate change conference in Bali, the United States refused to sign on to the declaration [for commitments to curbing greenhouse gas emissions]. Toward the end of the meeting, a delegate stood up from a little country called Papua New Guinea and told the U.S. negotiator: “You either lead or get out of the way.” And there was thunderous applause.
The U.S. was completely isolated.
In a world where the United States is a declining superpower, in relative terms, remaining on the outside will result in a huge loss of prestige, of political credibility — and, I would say, market opportunity.
President-elect Barack Obama has the opportunity to use the power of the pulpit and make a big political issue of the fact that its addiction to oil is hurting the U.S. in a variety of ways.
What would you have Obama do?
The president should lay down a target that within seven years the U.S. will reduce oil imports by 50 percent. And that doesn’t mean go out and drill in Alaska or everywhere else.
In terms of innovation, the U.S. still has a unique ability to lead and work toward energy independence. [Obama] needs to bring about a major energy transition.
On the supply side, he can expand the use of nuclear energy and develop more renewable technologies. Of course, there also needs to be more research and development. And incentives can help drive a transition to more efficient use of energy in buildings, more visionary automotive designs and greater development of alternatives to cars — such as efficient high-speed trains that link major cities.
I hope the new president also will convene a meeting of world leaders to talk about what needs to be done in ushering in a new energy future. That would have symbolic importance, especially since U.S. technologies influence goals and aspirations across the globe. If the U.S. is slow in making a transition to cleaner energy, I think it’ll affect everybody else’s resolve.
If I get 20 minutes with the new president, I’m going to … tell him that ‘as leader of the strongest nation on Earth, you have a responsibility to lead the world in change. Please consider it a moral responsibility.’
Found in: Climate Change, Earth Science, Ecology, Environment and Technology
- Math Trek : Teaching a computer to spot a bogus Bruegel
- Comment : Making informed decisions about mammograms
- Math Trek : Seeing in four dimensions
- Math Trek : Do subatomic particles have free will?
- Math Trek : Florence Nightingale: The passionate statistician


"The president should lay down a target that within seven years the U.S. will reduce oil imports by 50 percent. And that doesn’t mean go out and drill in Alaska or everywhere else."
Please, what we need are innovative energy solutions, not broad imperatives!
Joel Fairstein
Solar Labs
Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation has been studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
...leader of a multitude of similar jerks who have sold their scientific souls to the anti-Man philosophy of religion
I had thought that Science News would care enough for its previously good name that it would have chosen the stance re the IPCC and their Climate Change hogwash that science is not done by an Intergovernmental Panel - and would have been active in reminding its readers that the concept of consensus belongs in the trash folder with demagoguery - not out in the light of day that true science has brought us.
May he and all his minions suffer personally all the pain that their dishonesty causes all the rest of us on this planet, who would so like to be left alone to try to pursue some happiness in what remains of our singular lives on this planet, instead of having control freaks spend money stolen from us by our governments to support their working tirelessly to steal whatever is left us, for the alleged benefit of nonexistent unborn generations ad infinitum.
Check out this article: [Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
Please login or register to participate.