Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Mar 28, 2010 with 34 responses

Concerns Over Global Warming Slipping

Some readers strongly disagreed with me when I placed Climategate as one of the Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2009. However, I have not changed my mind about what I think will be significant and lingering impacts from this event.

I am acquainted with a number of Global Warming skeptics, and I know many more who are on the fence. Many in the U.S. Congress fall into those categories. A story indicating possible data suppression/manipulation of climate data was going to get a lot of mileage. Skeptics are going to use it to full advantage, and many fence-sitters are going to be swayed. So my reasoning was that it would ultimately have significant long-term implications. In fact, I think if there was ever much chance the U.S. would pass major legislation to stem carbon emissions, Climategate squashed that possibility.

Polls have already shown that concern over Global Warming is falling in the U.S. This weekend I saw a story in one of the major New Zealand newspapers that shows concern is slipping here as well. One of the cited reasons? Climategate.

Recession eclipses planet’s problems

Public concern about global warming appears to have eased in the past year, following economic uncertainty and widespread media coverage of climate science slip-ups.

An online survey of 1066 people in February and March found the majority believed climate change was an immediate problem – but the proportion of believers had fallen from 76 per cent in 2008 to 65 per cent this year.

The latest poll follows a Nielsen survey of the Herald Readers’ Panel in December, which found one in five of 2296 respondents thought global warming was a giant con, and a further 28 per cent thought it had not been conclusively proved.

Almost all governments accept the findings of a UN report based on the work of hundreds of scientists which concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate was “unequivocal”.

But public confidence was dented when, shortly before world climate talks in Copenhagen, emails were released showing a few leading scientists tried to avoid releasing data to their doubters, in breach of British freedom of information laws.

Relative to the U.S., those in New Zealand who believe Global Warming is an immediate problem is still pretty strong at 65%. (The latest poll in the U.S. showed 35% thought the problem is very serious, and another 30% somewhat serious). But the New Zealand poll also showed a sizeable fraction who either think Global Warming is a scam, or that it hasn’t been conclusively proven.

One other thing this indicates is something that I have long maintained: Our environmental concerns have been facilitated by cheap energy. We can all afford the luxury of being environmentally concerned as long as it doesn’t inconvenience us. Once we start paying higher prices to protect the environment, people are no longer as enthusiastic. That’s why I believe that we will end up burning all the fossil fuels that we have, and the only realistic solution to rising carbon emissions is that we run out of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Of the 30% in the U.S. who believe Global Warming is “somewhat serious”, how many do you suppose would support 10% higher gas prices – or anything else that hits them in the wallet – to help mitigate Global Warming?

Note: For those who don’t know my own views on this subject, see my recent essay detailing my views on a number of different energy issues.

  1. By D. on March 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Just a note that the title lines in the box “CER Forums: Recent Topic Activity” are hidden if browser font size is large. You should be able to replicate this by hitting “Ctrl +” a few times on Firefox.

    [link]      
  2. By armchair261 on March 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Possible additional reasons for the perceived decline of global warming concerns (at least among the general public):
    - The lack of a powerful and united message from the Copenhagen summit.
    - The economic crisis took center stage. Global warming programs now have more competition for funds.
    - The unusually cold winter may have made some feel the problem has somehow gone away (as if one data point makes a difference).

    [link]      
  3. By Benny BND Cole on March 28, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I am agnostic on global warming, though skeptical. No one seems to discuss that ice ages have been the bane of the planet for the last several hundred thousand years. Only 10,000 years ago, North America was an ice cap, and Death Valley was full of water. Wooly mammoths and sabre-tooth tigers prowled about. Hard to believe.

    In any event, if the planet really becomes too hot, there are much cheaper ways to cool it off. Dust in the air works.

    This is distinct from my belief that, in general, pollution needs to ratcheted down, not up. There are many reasons for this, but the prime ones are that the free market absolutely flops when it comes to reducing pollution, and pollution violates the property and human rights of others.

    I do not see a “right” to pollute air that other people breathe. In contrast, I see an obligation to constantly mitigate and reduce air pollution.

    Additionally, what of the property rights of people downstream from pollution? Their property is contaminated, their property values are reduced. This issue is rarely addressed. You cannot throw contaminated waste on someone’s property–but it okay to pollute their air? That they have to breath (there is no option)?

    Reducing pollution should be the goal–if it helps with global warming, then fine. I just hope we don’t slip into another Ice Age. Now, that would be a problem.

    [link]      
  4. By Russ Finley on March 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Why does my comment need to be moderated?

    [link]      
  5. By Russ Finley on March 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    The scientific method was created specifically in an attempt to keep us from deceiving ourselves:

    “The notion that we routinely hide from the truth about ourselves and our world is not an appealing one, though it may help to explain the human tendency to ostracize the abnormal. Perhaps the reason we are so eager to reject any departure from this fiction we call “normality” is because we have grown dependent on our comfortable delusions; without them, there is nothing to insulate us from the harsh cold of reality.”

    See the man with his head in the sand:

    http://www.damninteresting.com…..ive-vortex

    The only thing that will leave fossil fuels in the ground will be a cheaper source of energy. I’m thinking that a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar may be the answer. Wind and solar don’t need fuel, and nuclear needs very little of it:

    http://biodiversivist.blogspot…..ly-of.html

    [link]      
  6. By savro on March 28, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Russ,

    Sorry about that. The system automatically flags comments from unregistered users that contain 2 or more links (as an anti-spam measure).

    [link]      
  7. By savro on March 28, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    armchair261 said:

    Possible additional reasons for the perceived decline of global warming
    concerns (at least among the general public):

    - The lack of a powerful and united message from the Copenhagen summit.

    - The economic crisis took center stage. Global warming programs now
    have more competition for funds.

    - The unusually cold winter may have made some feel the problem has
    somehow gone away (as if one data point makes a difference).


     

    The economic reality seems to be the chief reason for this. New Jersey just joined a number of other states, including NY State, in moving money from their Global Warming fund to their main purse in order to help cover a tremendous state budget gap.

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..RC20100317

    [link]      
  8. By paul-n on March 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    Armchair wrote;

    “the unusually cold winter may have made some feel the problem has somehow gone away”

    I guess you didn’t watch any of the Winter Olympics then. It was actually one of the warmest winters on record in Vancouver and the Pac NW in general. Just because the poor folks who are unfortunate enough to live in the east get a cold winter, doesn’t mean everyone did.

    That aside, your first two points are right on.

    Smart politicians have long recognised environment in general, and certainly “climate change” as an issue only in good times – i.e. when the people are not really worried about anything else.

    But now people are worried about everything else, and with good reason

    With lean economic times, aging populations, spiralling health care and welfare costs, rising deficits, etc, all the modern (democratic) countries are going to be faced with some very tough decisions about about allocating resources. Quite simply, there is less wealth being generated to pay carry these ever increasing loads, and taking on more debt is no longer an option.

    So, against that, it is only a small, and shrinking, group that seriously wants to allocate more of the shrinking wealth pie to CO2 abatement. For everyone else, they’d rather have their job and be able to afford to live, they’ll worry about the environment when they don’t have to worry about themselves.

    I am in complete agreement with Benny regards pollution control, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

    Pollution control is factored into prices through the various (environmental) regulations that have to be met, and I don’t propose that these should be at all relaxed (with the exception of diesel NOx emissions)

    I think RR is right, we will keep burning what we have. The change won;t come when we run out, it will be when their end is in sight – that is the only thing I can think of that will provide truly universal motivation get off fossil fuels. Until then, they are still the easiest, and (with the exception of nuclear) only large scale option.

    [link]      
  9. By Kinuachdrach on March 28, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    The unscientific scam was unsustainable.  The science is clear — atmospheric CO2 is NOT a pollutant, being essential for life on Planet Earth;  and anthropogenic CO2 is a trivial contributor to the natural Global Warming without which Planet Earth would be a ball of ice.  Thank Heavens for water vapor!

    Just like the usual suspects have clung to their religion of Alleged Anthropogenic Global Warming for far too long, even after people like Gore & Hansen & Jones & Pachuri had been shown to be False Prophets, there are too many people clinging to the belief that governments can run defiicits forever.  The world is changing.  The US government has been warned that its bonds are going to be downgraded unless the Administration cuts back its over-spending & over-borrowing.

    The problem for environmentalists (or the opportunity for the 20 Million or so unemployed & under-employed in Obama’s America) is that the best way to deal with the government’s financial mis-management would be to expand the tax base.  Re-industrialize.  Bring the jobs back from China & India.  But that human-centered approach will increase power demand, not decrease it.

    Bottom line remains — we need very large-scale, price-competitive, post-fossil power sources.  Ethanol, wind, solar are all small-scale uncompetitive power sources.  They will collapse to a few niche uses when subsidies go away — as subsidies must, because the government is bankrupt.  Go nuclear, or go back to the dirty 19th Century.

    The other point to consider is that it does not matter what Western environmental elites cram down the throats for their unemployed subjects — India, China, Russia, Brazil and so many others have not signed on to the Doomers suicide pact.  Yes, they will milk the EU for all the carbon subsidies the Euros are stupid enough to hand out, but those BRIC countries are moving forward, not backward.  They will use the fossil fuels, even if Westerners don’t.  The effect on the planet will be the same (i.e., negligible);  the effect on the lives of Westerners will be tremendous.

    RR is right — we human beings will burn every fossil fuel in sight, and then wish we had more.  Unless we are smart enough to use the technologies at our disposal, move beyond damaging subsidized “renewables”, and embrace the nuclear future.

    [link]      
  10. By Kit P on March 28, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    “The only thing that will leave
    fossil fuels in the ground will be a cheaper source of energy. I’m
    thinking that a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar may be the
    answer.”

     

    Russ F, have you driven up the river
    from Portland to Dayton Washington? I think the reason city folks
    like Russ F likes the idea of wind is that they think the rest of the
    universe should be equally filled with mechanical contraptions.

     

    I think we should keep building
    windfarms to make electricity but I object to any environmental
    activist who suggest they are good for the environment.14

    [link]      
  11. By armchair261 on March 28, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    “I guess you didn’t watch any of the Winter Olympics then. It was actually one of the warmest winters on record in Vancouver and the Pac NW in general.”

    Yes but other parts of the world (which are also more densely populated) had very cold winters… Houston had several snowfalls, Great Britain had one of its worst winters in 100 years, much of Europe was unusually cold, and the US Northeast has record snowfall (I believe – a lot anyway!)

    “we human beings will burn every fossil fuel in sight, and then wish we had more”

    An instructive precedent for this is the story of Easter Island, as told by Jared Diamond in his book “Collapse”. The islanders chopped down every tree on the island, which led to a collapse of island society. Presumably they knew what the loss of wood would lead to, but they kept chopping anyway.

    [link]      
  12. By rufus on March 28, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    We’re not worried. H1N1 is going to get us all first, right?

    You can only keep silliness like “global warming” going so long. Eventually, the folks come “out from under the ether.”

    [link]      
  13. By Wendell Mercantile on March 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Global Warming is real — afterall we are still coming out of the Holocene Ice Age, and it always gets warmer following an ice age.

    The question isn’t whether it’s real, but whether we can or should do anything about it. As sure as God made little green apples, another ice age will follow in several thousand (or tens of thousands) years. Who knows, maybe man-caused global warming today will delay by a few hundred years the day when the next ice sheet bears down on us from Canada.

    [link]      
  14. By russ on March 29, 2010 at 12:48 am

    @RR – This topic makes me appreciate your insistence on having an idea of what you are writing about before starting to hammer on the keyboard! Clearly, many don’t feel that is necessary as evidenced by the comments above.

    İt is amazing to me the way the feds and states are trying to pour money into the topic in their present economic circumstances. When you have multi billion deficits does not seem like the time to starting and enhancing state sponsored subsidies!

    Residential solar PV is only economical if you have super high tariffs such as CA peak rates. Even then the only ones who can participate are the more well to do types so the govs are managing to provide free money to the better off types in a horrible economic scenario.

    [link]      
  15. By Kit P on March 29, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Wendell we are still in an ice age.
    Currently we are in an interglacial warm period where glaciers have
    receded. This started 20k years ago. In the last 12k years have we
    have reached a new steady state that last 10-12k years that is
    similar to many other interglacial warm period.

     

    The only thing that has changed is that
    civilization has advanced to the point where we write things down and
    create computer model and some believe silly ideas.

     

    A million years from now if a written
    record does not exist, the geological record will show the climate
    has not changed and this interglacial warm period is just like the
    ones that came before and the several since.

     

    My money is on the geological record to
    predict the future not computer model. CAGW is just another fear
    monger fad. Who wants to list them all.

    [link]      
  16. By Wendell Mercantile on March 29, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Wendell we are still in an ice age. Currently we are in an interglacial warm period where glaciers have receded.

    Kit P.

    I believe that’s what I said. We are still recovering (warming) after the Holocene Ice Age.

    [link]      
  17. By Kinuachdrach on March 29, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Armchair wrote:  “An instructive precedent for this is the story of Easter Island, as told by Jared Diamond in his book “Collapse”. The islanders chopped down every tree on the island, which led to a collapse of island society.”

    The real analogy, Armchair, would be that the Easter Islanders, acting according to the prophecies of the minor god Gore Pachuri, continued to cut down trees to the very last one — ignoring the huge outcrops of coal, iron ore, & limestone on the islands.  Yes, the Islanders could have used those resources as alternatives to wood, but those resources were forbidden since Gore Pachuri said they could lead to the End of Life.

    And thus the environmental extremists (woops!  the Easter Islanders) perished from the Earth, forgotten & unlamented.

    A generation later, the Chinese arrived in a steel ship, knocked down the huge stone monuments, and began to mine the resources of Easter Island.  Laughing, healthy, well-fed Chinese children made playthings out of the bones of the environmental extremists (woops again!  the Easter Islanders).

    [link]      
  18. By russ-finley on March 29, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Easter Island’s demise was cause by our human instinct to sugar-coat reality (put our heads in the sand). It has served us well in the past, allowing us to reproduce until hitting an environmental limit, which could then be overcome by by a combination of new technology and expansion and usurpation of another group’s resources.

    The ability to self-deceive has evolved in tandem with our intellect as a way to cope with harsh reality, which leads me to the (disingenuous as it is unoriginal) “religion” analogy Kinuachdrach keeps parroting–ironically to denigrate those who have accepted decades of peer reviewed “science” …eyes rolling.

    Blaming Easter Island environmentalists (who were no doubt promoting family planning and sustainable technologies ;-) , instead of the equivalent of today’s waddling Teabaggers in their “Jesus Saves” tee-shirts for the collapse is a good example of our capacity to create alternate realities to suit ourselves.

    Unlike our natural resources, the human capacity for self-deception knows no bounds.

     

     

     

     

    [link]      
  19. By Wendell Mercantile on March 29, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Yes, the Islanders could have used those resources as alternatives to wood, but those resources were forbidden since Gore Pachuri said they could lead to the End of Life.

    Kinu~

    And it’s fortunate the inhabitants of the British Isles ignored the prophecies of Gore Pachuri and started burning coal once they had nearly denuded their green and pleasant land of trees in the 16th century.

    [link]      
  20. By Kit P on March 29, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    “still recovering (warming) after”

     

    The present climate is neither warming
    or cooling in the last 10,000. We have recovered, that was about
    12,000 years ago. Earth’s climate is very stable.

     

    It is true that warming is occurring
    relative to the little ice age. It is a human trait to see patterns
    in random events but it sure looks like civilizations flourish when
    it is slightly warmers with plagues and famine when it slightly
    cooler.

    [link]      
  21. By Douglas Hvistendahl on March 30, 2010 at 9:15 am

    The actual amount of CO2 is quite small. If 1) management intensive grazing, 2) intensive gardening, and 3) garden season extenders (away from the equator) were widely used, it could be easily soaked up. PS. All of these produce a positive cash flow ie you can either make or same money from them.

    [link]      
  22. By Alice on March 30, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Robert is correct, that ClimateGate will continue to have a huge impact on the public’s opinions of global climate change. Climate change induced the scientists of CRU and other institutions to enter the realm of politics. Wielding political influence within science publishing and faculty appointments, they attempted to restrict viewpoints to match their own. Ugly politics that reflects badly upon Mr. Jones and affiliated persons such as Mr. Mann.

    Mr. Obama promised that he would halt the rise of sea levels and I intend to hold him to it — recession or no recession. Mr. Obama was sent to heal the planet and to bring everyone together in hope and change.

    [link]      
  23. By Kinuachdrach on March 30, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Russ Finley demeaned himself by writing: “the equivalent of today’s waddling Teabaggers in their “Jesus Saves” tee-shirts”

    Hate Speech Alert

    And Mr. Finley is not even witty!  That is the real sin.

    [link]      
  24. By Wendell Mercantile on March 30, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Mr. Obama promised that he would halt the rise of sea levels and I intend to hold him to it — recession or no recession.

    Good luck with that. Where I live was covered by 5,000 ft of ice about 12,000 years ago. Where I live was also once under water which is obvious from the sedimentary rocks (limestone and shale) under laying our soil. In fact, wherever one sees sedimentary rocks, that means that area was once an ocean or lake.

    Large parts of the United States (and world) were once under water. And that happened without any human involvement. That was a natural event. Why does anyone think that one person could prevent that from happening again?

    Actually the most serious concern for immediate, adverse global climate change, is the next large volcano eruption, followed closely by a large asteroid or meteorite impact. The next mega-volcano eruption (which could happen next week or a thousand years from now) will make all our present concerns about adverse climate change seem trivial.

    [link]      
  25. By russ-finley on March 30, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Kinuachdrach said:

    Russ Finley demeaned himself by writing: “the equivalent of today’s waddling Teabaggers in their “Jesus Saves” tee-shirts”

    Hate Speech Alert

    And Mr. Finley is not even witty!  That is the real sin.


     

    Nice try Kinuch but …

    I think you may have conflated the terms “witty” and “demeaning” (both a matter of degree and personal opinion).

    The concept of original sin is a good example of the human capacity for self-deception. Eighty percent of Americans think they are going to heaven.

    The definition of hate speech is not precisely defined but the fact that my post is still visible suggests that the moderator does not agree with your definition of it. Also, there are more effective ways to call the moderators attention to a comment than the use of bold font.

     

     

     

     

    [link]      
  26. By Kinuachdrach on March 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Russ Finley demeaned himself by writing: “the equivalent of today’s waddling Teabaggers in their “Jesus Saves” tee-shirts”

    Let’s see: 

    “waddling” – hate speech directed at those unfortunates who are overweight (in Mr. Finley’s eyes).

    “Teabaggers” — hate speech directed at homosexuals, seeking to demean human beings by accusing them of committing a certain homosexual act.

    “Teabaggers” — also hate speech directed at American citizens who revere their ancestors achievement in throwing off the yoke of oppressive government.

    “”Jesus Saves” tee shirts” — hate speech seeking to demean all those who believe in a God who saves sinners.

    So much hate in so few words, Mr. Finley.  Maybe you should get an award.

    And since Mr. Finley brings it up, just what is the opinion of Sam Avro & Robert Rapier about his outburst of hate speech.  Is this the kind of comment they want to see on this forum?

    [link]      
  27. By Native Juran on March 31, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    The most vitiolic poster on this board accusing another of using hate speech… that’s rich.

     

    A cursory examination of your own posting history, Mr. Kinu, would seem to be in order.

    [link]      
  28. By Philip Bogdonoff on April 1, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Official ‘Climategate’ report clears scientists of wrongdoing
    http://www.tgdaily.com/sustain…..wrongdoing

    [link]      
  29. By russ-finley on April 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Climate Gate reinforced my opinion that climate change is real. Nothing more convincing than watching three or four front page hoax claims go down in flames in quick succession. You would think that a line of debunked claims stretching past the horizon would dampen a skeptic’s enthusiasm but then again, the majority of Americans don’t buy the theory of evolution.

    Climate Gate had the opposite impact on many people, reinforcing their suspicion that climate change is a hoax. The difference being that some sought out and read science-based sources to get the real scoop and others stuck with what they last saw in their local newspaper, or most likely, television news. Television is the backbone of ongoing adult education in America. Read “Entertaining Ourselves to Death.”

    One great explanation I’ve seen for the continued existence of the armchair climatologists (on top of my contention that people are capable of and willing to believe anything they want) involves an aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’m not sure how seriously to take parts of this study. The authors were the recipients of the prestigious Ig Nobel prize (get it, ignoble?). The Dunning-Kruger studies are sometimes used (wrongly) to beat debate opponents about the head and shoulders with the claim they are too stupid to know how stupid they are.

    It isn’t about stupidity (whatever that is). It is about ignorance. We can be too ignorant to know just how ignorant we are. You see this a lot in comment fields.

    I read the book Superorganism by Bert Hölldobler and E.O. Wilson. It must weigh five pounds and represents the tip of an iceberg. Who would have dreamed that there is so much to know about …ants. Imagine the equivalent of today’s armchair climatologists engaging Wilson in debate on the subject of sociobiology, or ants for that matter.

    I recall the time I used the Great Wall of China as an example of government waste in an article only to be called on the carpet by a scholar who studies great walls around the world (and apparently there are many such walls). In another article about rhino poaching I attracted a specialist in rhinos with similar results.

    [link]      
  30. By od on April 1, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Kinu, I normally enjoy your posts, but you are really grasping there. The teaparty call themselves teabaggers, in fact when they go on a protest they say they are going teabagging. Apparently they are discriminating against themselves. Laugh

    [link]      
  31. By Wendell Mercantile on April 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Climate Gate reinforced my opinion that climate change is real.

    Russ~

    Of course climate change is real. The earth’s climate changes constantly. It’s dynamic — it’s been changing since the day the earth was created, and it will keep changing until the Sun becomes a red giant and expands out to the orbit of Jupiter.

    The real questions are why anyone would ever think the earth’s climate doesn’t change, and whether humans have the power to change the trajectory of earth’s natural climate cycles.

    My own view is that humans can only marginally affect climate change. Try this little thought experiment: Imagine yourself 15,000 years in the future and that another ice sheet is advancing across Canada and threatening the United States. Do you you think there is anything we could do to stop the march of that ice sheet?

    [link]      
  32. By Kit P on April 2, 2010 at 11:17 am

    “Do you you think there is anything
    we could do to stop the march of that ice sheet?”

     

    Sure spread soot or or a thin layer of
    dirt on the glaciers. More sunlight will be absorbed and less
    reflected back to space.

     

    Of course Wendlell and I will is using
    the be dead 15,000 years in the future.

     

    That is what is some much fun about
    climate prediction, who can prove you wrong?

     

    I basically agree that AGW is very
    small and there is not much we can do about. There is a second reason
    we can not do anything about. Politicians love insignificant
    problems that they can not fix but can demand society change to their
    advantage but not necessarily to the benefit of society.

     

    The big advocates in Congress of AGW
    legislation are anti-coal but also anti-nuke. Politicians who reject
    all but impractical solutions cause their cause to become less
    creditable. When the economy is bad and one of the root causes is
    job loss to China, looking at what China is doing makes sense. China
    is burning more and more coal every year but also building nukes. If
    the only result of reducing ghg in the US is to promote more
    emissions in China, more of the public starts to think AGW is a scam.

    [link]      
  33. By russ on April 3, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Funny part about this topic – if you go to some green site you see just exactly the reverse arguments supporting AGW.

     

    Even better, in both cases the posters have about the same amount of knowledge on the subject which is between very little and nil.

     

    Whether AGW is real or not, a lot of cleanup of the messes made over the years and continuing to be made is certainly in order. 

     

     

    [link]      
  34. By Robin Datta on April 7, 2010 at 2:52 am

    One way to ameliorate Climate Change – the onset of the next Ice Age – is to burn more fossil fuels. Regrettably though, they are peaking or will do so (in the case of coal) in the next few decades.

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!