Belgium fossil-fuel free in nine steps
According to the Flemish Green party, Belgium can become fossil-fuel free and in a video they identified nine steps (translated from Dutch) to do that. When I found this article this week on their website, I was rather curious how they envisioned becoming fossil-free. Until then, I came across vague claims. Unfortunately, this campaign is no different.
The page was not dated and there was also no date incorporated in the the url slug, but since the campaign was inspired by Trump becoming president, I guess it is from the beginning of this year. The greens stated that now a “climate denier” became president, it was time for Europe and Belgium to show leadership in clean, renewable energy.
The proposals are presented in the present tense. I understand that this is a way of planting the idea in the heads of the people that it is possible already now. They also give an example of a country that accomplished this step already to support their claim. The problem is that they are also present them in the present tense, although some of them are not accomplished yet. This gives the impression that more is being accomplished than there is in reality.
These are their nine “steps” to become fossil-fuel free (transcript of the video, translated from Dutch):
This week, I came across this tweet from the IPCC:
Apparently, there is (in the meantime “was”) a meeting in Montreal to agree the outlines of AR6. Interesting. However, it was the quote of Youba Sokona that caught my attention (my emphasis):
“This meeting will pave the way for IPCC scientists to continue assessing the science of climate change in line with policymakers’ priorities“.
That sounded rather odd to me. My initial thought was something like: they couldn’t make it much clearer that this is politicized science in action. Okay, I understand that he probably didn’t mean it that way. He probably meant science relevant to policy or something similar.
Then I remembered that there was a description of the writing and review process on the IPCC website. Maybe I could figure out from this process how much the science is in line with policymakers’ priorities or vice versa?
I quickly found the page that described the IPCC process: principles and procedures. This is the summary of this process:
In previous two posts, I explained a television news item explaining the scientific paper in which was proposed that there would be fifty times more deaths in the period 2070 to 2100. This post will focus on the dubious contribution of the expert in that news item. It was not really clear to me why he was invited. I expected that he was interviewed to explain the content or conclusions of the paper, but that didn’t seem to be the case.
The expert had seven lines in total, yet only two of them were related to the paper. These are his first two lines (translated from Dutch):
The heat is clearly the effect that will make the majority of victims. Flooding by rivers, by sea, but also by forest fires and extreme weather, storms etc.
Continuing from previous post in which I described the start of a television news item on the modeled impacts of future weather on Europe. After that introduction, an expert was brought up to explain the paper a bit more, in this case Serge De Gheldere. As far as I know, he is an engineer (specialized in material technology and product design) who got his climate training from no one less than Al Gore, so I was a bit puzzled what his expertise was concerning this specific paper.
He first explained the outcome of the paper (translated from Dutch):
VTM news August 5, 2017: fifty times more deaths by weather
The hyperbole level was high in this news item from the VTM news of last Saturday: Fifty Times More Deaths By Weather. This is how it is introduced (translated from Dutch):
South and Central Europe are moaning under a heatwave these days and this has consequences. In Italy, for example, is it up to 46 degrees and there are already three deaths. It is an example of what will happen much more by the end of this century: people who die from extreme weather. That is what researchers of a working group of the European Commission say. According to their study, there will be about 152,000 deaths by weather-related phenomena per year between 2071 and 2100, mainly caused by climate change.
That 50 times more is compared to the weather-related deaths in the reference period 1981→2010 and projected into the future with demographic and climate models. The study at issue is titled Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: a data-driven prognostic study and is written by Giovanni Forzieri et al of the Joint Research Center of the European Commission.
It was quite hectic in the last month. Now the dust is slowly starting to settle, I will try to pick up blogging again. The subject of previous post was the statement that climate scientists are as certain about climate risks as oncologists on cancer risks that come with smoking. I ended that post being confused whether the authors meant that the evidence of climate risks is as strong as the evidence of the link between smoking and cancer or that there is the same “overwhelming” consensus as the medical scientists have on the link between smoking and cancer.
Scientific American seems to suggest the former, the scientific paper that was linked to in Scientific American the latter. This post will explore the case that they meant that the “evidence of climate risk is as strong as the link between smoking and cancer”, so this post will be about the evidence of the cancer risks linked to smoking and whether the evidence of climate risks is in the same ballpark.
Before I look into this, I can somehow understand the comparison between medical science and the climate science. Both study a very complex system. Medical sciences study the human body and climate scientists study the Earth with its climate system. The complexity of the human body and its interactions means that there is not one conclusive proof, but there are multiple lines of evidence. We hear the same thing about climate science.
So far, so good.
Via the Cliscep post “Don’t call me an alarmist,” says alarmist, I landed on this livescience article: Treading the Fine Line Between Climate Talk and Alarmism. It is an op-ed written by Sarah E. Myhre about climate change communication and her wish not being called an alarmist.
One thing that caught my attention in the op-ed was this statement:
We would never fault an oncologist for informing patients about the cancer risks that come with smoking. Why would we expect Earth scientists to be any different, when we’re just as certain?
It is not clear from the text what we should expect from those Earth scientists. Luckily, the links goes to an article in Scientific American, titled “Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer”. So apparently, she means that the Earth scientists know as much from climate risks as medical scientists about the link between smoking and lung cancer…