iftttwall

“There’s no more consequential challenge that we must meet in the next decade than the onrushing climate crisis. Left unchecked, it is literally an existential threat to the health of our planet and to our very survival.” That’s Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden, laying out his energy plan for the country.

He wants you to believe that his $2 trillion plan to combat climate change is a bold new agenda to save the planet. In fact, it’s the same old worn-out jobs programs for Democratic Party interests that he’s been pushing since he became a senator in the early 1970s.

“Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world,” says writer and activist Michael Shellenberger, who Time named a “hero of the environment” in 2008. He stresses that deaths from natural disasters “have declined 80 percent over the last 40 years, including in very poor countries.” What’s more, says Shellenberger, “carbon emissions have peaked in rich countries. They’re going to peak in poor countries in the next 10 or 20 years.” His new book, Apocalypse Never, makes the case that climate alarmism, which has become a central part of the Democratic Party’s platform, is flat-out wrong and counterproductive for both the environment and the economy.

A major problem of Biden’s rehash of the Green New Deal is that renewable energy sources such as solar power simply can’t scale up to deliver the electricity that a modern society needs. Shellenberger notes, for instance, that solar farms require 400 times more land than natural gas or a nuclear plant because of the physics of sunlight or wind.

Before Biden revealed his massively expensive green energy plan, he had already promised more than $6 trillion in new spending over the coming decade, paid for through a mix of borrowing and hikes in income and corporate taxes. This comes at a time when the COVID-19 lockdown and emergency spending will push the debt above 100 percent of GDP by the end of 2020, and when the federal government is running vastly larger deficits than it did even at the height of the 2008 financial crisis.

Shellenberger says that if politicians were really serious about combating global warming, they would get behind fracking and nuclear energy, which is both clean and practical. Biden doesn’t mention nuclear power, though, because it won’t create jobs for “longshoreman” and “ship builders” or fulfill any other progressive fantasy, such as his dream of a “modern day Civilian Climate Corps” based on the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps.

In Apocalypse Never, Shellenberger argues that environmentalism has become a substitute for religion in an increasingly secular world. Environmentalists, he says, are “treating nature as a new god. They start treating science as a new religion. And that’s when things just go absolutely bonkers and problematic.”

Joe Biden’s “clean energy plan” may make his followers feel saved and it might even help get him elected. But if past is prologue, it won’t create many jobs or help “heal” the planet. It will just mean spending gobs of money we don’t have in a massive giveaway to special interests.

Produced by Nick Gillespie. Graphics by Isaac Reese.

Photo credits: Caro/Oberhaeuser/Newscom, Dan Parrett/Newscom, Michael Bryant/Philadelphia Inquirer/TNS, Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom, Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom, Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom, Patrick Fallon/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom, Scranton Times-Tribune/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom, Scranton Times-Tribune/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom, Tracy Robillard/ZUMA Press/Newscom, SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom.Music credits: “Cold River,” by Repina, “Levitate,” by Out of Flux, licensed by Artlist.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39nFtP7
via IFTTT

The hopeful prospect that doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might yield a relatively mild increase in global average temperatures is unlikely, according to a comprehensive new study.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is conventionally defined as the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature that would occur if carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were doubled and the climate system was given enough time to reach an equilibrium state. Scientific American once called it “the most important number in climate change.”

First, let’s consider where the planet’s climate stands right now. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the pre-industrial level about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 415 ppm today. The additional carbon dioxide has been added largely due to humanity’s burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, along with plowing down forests. According to ice core data, today’s carbon dioxide levels are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years, and more recent research suggests that the current level is the highest it’s been in the past 23 million years. Average global temperatures are currently about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels.

In 1979, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences conjectured that ECS was probably somewhere between 1.5°C and 4.5°C per doubling of CO2. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. In other words, the best estimate of sensitivity remained basically the same more than three decades later.

The new study narrows the range of the probable temperature increase. With doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide, the eventual warming would probably be between 2.6°C and 3.9°C. There would be less than 5 percent chance of staying below 2°C—and a 6 to 18 percent chance of exceeding 4.5°C.

Their evidence stems, in part, from a better understanding of the atmospheric feedback processes. The researchers evaluated the evidence for how changes in carbon dioxide, water vapor, surface reflectivity, and, most importantly, cloud cover affect global temperature trends. One of the greatest uncertainties with respect to future global temperature trends has been whether changes in clouds will tend to cool the planet. The researchers conclude that warming-induced changes in clouds will tend to boost rather than moderate future temperatures.

They also argue that the empirical data for historical warming of 1.2°C over the past century or so suggests that an ECS of 1.5°C is implausible. And as a third line of evidence, they looked deeper into prehistoric climates, including the succession of ice ages and the mid-Pliocene warm period, to see how changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels correlated with changes in global average temperatures. In the depths of the ice ages, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was just below 200 ppm; global temperatures were between 3°C to 7°C lower than the pre-industrial average.

During the mid-Pliocene warm period, carbon dioxide levels hovered around 400 ppm and average global temperature was 1°C to 5°C warmer than the pre-industrial average. Sea level was 20 to 30 meters higher than now, indicating significant reductions in Antarctic glacial ice. The paleoclimate data, they conclude, suggests the ECS is likely to fall within 1.5°C to 5°C, with highest likelihood around 2.5°C.

The researchers integrate the data from these three strands of evidence to find that the earlier lower-bound estimate of a 1.5°C ECS is improbable. Cloud feedbacks will not likely cool temperatures, historical temperature increases are already approaching the lower bound, and mid-Pliocene warming that was higher than now occurred with lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. On the other hand, both historical and paleoclimate evidence suggest that an ECS greater than 4.5°C is also unlikely. The researchers conclude that there is a 66 percent chance that the ECS is  2.6°C to 3.9°C; they offer a broader 2.3°C to 4.5°C range to cautiously account for alternative views, assumptions, and unknown unknowns.

If the current annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 2.3 ppm is sustained, it will reach double the pre-industrial level before 2090. Keep in mind that the difference between an ice age when continental glaciers buried about one-third of the global land area and today, when they cover around 10 percent, is a temperature increase of as little as 3°C.

For more background, see “What Climate Science Tells Us About Temperature Trends” and “Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?” 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2CVP2Zz
via IFTTT

SCOTUSBlog published my new essay, titled Invisible majorities: Counting to nine votes in per curiam cases. Here is the introduction:

When the Supreme Court issues a signed opinion, each of the nine justices will indicate their position: affirm, reverse or recuse. But not all opinions are signed. The court sometimes issues unsigned per curiam decisions – so named after the Latin phrase meaning “by the court.” In such cases, the justices’ positions are not always so clear. All we know for sure is that at least five members – a majority of the court – agreed with the unsigned order. Individual justices can, and do, write separately to express their concurrence with, or dissent from, a per curiam ruling. But the failure to write separately does not necessarily indicate assent. As a result, it is often impossible in these cases to figure out which justices were in the majority, and which were in the dissent.

This past term, the court issued per curiam rulings in two pairs of “companion” cases: the “faithless elector” cases and the Creek Nation cases. In these decisions, it was difficult to count to nine.

I still remain perplexed by the votes in the Creek Nation cases.

The voting lineup in one of the Creek Nation companion cases is even more ambiguous. On July 9, the court decided McGirt v. Oklahoma and Sharp v. Murphy. Both cases presented the same question: whether portions of eastern Oklahoma remained land reserved for the Creek Nation. McGirt split 5-4. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. He found that the territory retains its status as a Native American reservation. He was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Roberts dissented, joined by Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh. The dissenters argued that Congress had disestablished the reservation.

Murphy was decided with a one-sentence per curiam opinion: “The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma.” But Gorsuch was recused in Murphy – and as a result, only four members of the McGirt majority remained. There had to be at least five justices to form a majority in Murphy. (If the court had split 4-4, and there had been no majority, the per curiam ruling would have stated that the 10th Circuit is affirmed “by an equally divided Court.”) We can safely assume that the remaining four members of the McGirt majority remained: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But who was the fifth vote? Thomas and Alito noted their dissents from the Murphy per curiam opinion, presumably for the same reasons they dissented in McGirt. So they’re out.

That leaves Roberts and Kavanaugh. One or both of them must have voted with the majority – even though they vigorously dissented in McGirt. Why? Perhaps they deemed McGirt binding precedent, which must be followed. Or one of them joined the per curiam decision as a courtesy “fifth” vote to create a majority. It is impossible to know for sure. But at least one member of the McGirt dissent must have put aside their disagreement to join the Murphy majority.

I appreciate the chance to write on these nerdy issues.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30Fef2L
via IFTTT

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided Bearden v. Ballad Health. As the brief opinion makes amply clear, the judges did not think much of the appellant’s advocacy. The opinion by Judge Thapar begins:

As our court has previously explained, there are good reasons not to disparage your opponent, especially in court filings. “The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away . . . ; and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.” Bennett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 584, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The most important reason here is that counsel’s colorful insults do nothing to show that his clients have standing to bring this lawsuit. We affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

And what sorts of insults were at issue?  A few examples from the opinion:

• That MEAC “surrendered to [Ballad] much in the manner Marshal Petain surrendered France to Adolph Hitler.” R. 48-1, Pg. ID 942.
• That the Ballad merger was an “Octopus which was birthed by [two individuals] on one of the local golf courses while [they] were walking down the ‘green fairways of indifference,’ to the health, safety and welfare of millions of people.” Id.; see also id. at 949 (referring to the merged entity as “the Levine-Greene Octopus”).
• That Ballad and MEAC are “intertwined in an incestuous relationship, the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Id. at 950; see also id. at 943 (describing the defendants as in “an incestuous, antitrust relationship”).
• That the Tennessee Department of Health’s failure to supervise the defendants “is akin to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation allowing criminals to rape, murder, pillage, loot and plunder on its watch, while its agents stand by.” Id. at 951.
• That “a virus has been effectively introduced into the Ballad Board which has sickened all 11 directors, and which requires their permanent quarantine.” Id. at 954.

And that’s only some of it.

Not only does the Court reject the appellants theory of standing, Judge Thapar adds this cautionary note at the close of his opinion.

One last note. Like the district court, we take a moment to remind plaintiffs’ counsel that, as an officer of the court, he is expected to treat other parties in the case (as well as their counsel) with courtesy and professionalism. “Careful research and cogent reasoning, not aspersions, are the proper tools of our trade.” U.S.I. Props. Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 860 F.2d 1, 6 n.2 (1st Cir. 1988). That is of course not to say that legal documents must be written in dry legalese. Nor is it to criticize passionate and forceful advocacy in aid of a client’s cause—a lawyerly virtue that counsel has displayed at points in this litigation. But just as one cannot “equate contempt with courage or insults with independence,” we cannot dismiss the disparaging statements in this case as mere stylistic flourishes or vigorous advocacy. Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 14 (1952). Counsel will best serve his clients if he remembers this going forward.

This is all good advice, though I am not sure appellant’s counsel will want to hear it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hsHBIi
via IFTTT