A competent, knowledgeable interviewer is a pleasure to watch.
The future of Heathrow expansion is uncertain after leading judges ruled that the Government must reconsider its support for a third runway because of the environmental impact.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the Secretary of State for Transport failed to take account of the Government’s commitments to tackling climate change when setting out support for the project in a National Policy Statement (NPS).
The appeal was brought by a group of councils in London affected by the expansion, environmental charities including Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and Plan B, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory, and said it had “killed off” plans for a third runway for good and that the project is now “politically unacceptable”. The Green Party’s Caroline Russell talks to Julia about the expansion and the Government’s plans for net zero carbon emissions.
2018 Sagan Prize winner, Peter Gleick, has written a review of Michael Shellenberger’s new book, Apocalypse Never and it’s been getting a lot of links from Shellenberger’s critics. He starts out with a description of the two opposed philosophies of Cornucopianism and Malthusianism and how they apply to environmentalism. The review is illustrated with side by side drawings of a cornucopia (a horn shaped basket full of goods) and a portrait of Thomas Malthus. A lot of Shellenberger’s criticism of environmentalism is that it’s slipped into an extreme Malthusianism. Malthus is sort of an embarrassment (or should be) for environmentalists. He argued in his famous essay (first published anonymously) that population would grow geometrically and outstrip resources, which only grew arithmetically. One would expect him to be more associated with villains such as Mel Profitt, the Kevin Spacey character in the late ’80s TV series, Wiseguy.
Go to 13 minutes in if it doesn’t start there.
Gleick doesn’t specifically identify as a Malthusian, but he does dismiss Cornucopians with a series of bland links:
Two Cornucopian ideas lie at the heart of this book: The first idea is that there are no real “limits to growth” and environmental problems are the result of poverty and will be solved by having everyone get richer. This idea isn’t original and has long been debunked by others (for a few examples see here, here, here, and here).
The second Cornucopian idea he refers to is Shellenberger’s advocacy of nuclear power. He quotes Shellenberger from the book: “Only nuclear, not solar and wind, can provide abundant, reliable, and inexpensive heat” and “Only nuclear energy can power our high-energy human civilization while reducing humankind’s environmental footprint.” He does not make any counter arguments.
While he severely criticizes the book, he does seem a bit uncharacteristically respectful of Shellenberger as opposed to his usual invective against people he disagrees with such as Donna Laframboise. He wields a lot of nitpicking and hairsplitting over distinctions between concepts like natural disasters and increases in extreme weather. Being something of a water expert, he catches Shellenberger in a technical flub of saying gas plants use 25 to 50 times less water than coal plants. He also points out wind and solar not requiring water as an important omission. Of course, the lions share of any backup for this limited share of the electricity mix will require water. He claims the book is riddled with a variety of such simple errors and that their “number and scope” is “problematic”. I doubt it. Shellenberger was an anthropology major, which is not considered a major STEM field, but he has a very good overview and lots of experience in energy and environmental issues. His arguments for higher energy density and availability are very strong and are his main arguments. If Gleick had anything to counter them, he wouldn’t leave them “beyond the scope of this review”.
He has a remarkable paragraph that sums up his views of Malthusianism vs Cornucopianism:
There is uncertainty about the best path forward. Those who believe the evidence shows our current path crosses dangerous planetary limits and may lead to severe environmental and social disruption can’t prove an apocalyptic future will happen – they’re arguing we must do what we can to avoid it. But neither can Cornucopians prove that narrow technological solutions and unconstrained economic growth will avoid those catastrophic futures. The imbalance of these viewpoints is key however: if Malthusians are wrong, all they would have done is made the world a better place. If Cornucopians are wrong, apocalyptic outcomes are indeed a real possibility.
If Malthusians are wrong, all they would have done is made the world a better place? Really? Does perpetuating energy poverty make the world a better place? If Cornucopians Can’t prevent apocalyptic outcomes, does that mean Malthusians can? I think Malthusians might be likely to cause apocalyptic outcomes. Shellenberger’s Policy prescriptions are based on decades of work and study in the fields of energy and environment. Gleick’s appear to be based on the popular but superficial Joel Pett cartoon.
Gleick quotes H. L. Mencken, “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” I’d like to suggest another Mencken quote that Gleick might consider for self examination:
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
The Federal Ministry of Transport is looking at the temperature of the North German seas. Is that really the right Ministry for this? And why has the Green Party’s Steffi Lemke put forth this question? Before we take a closer look, let’s first clarify the facts. To do this, we go to klimawandel-in-deutschland.de and read:
The temperature jump of the late 1980s is also strongly pronounced in the sea surface temperatures of the North Sea and Baltic Sea, with levels rising by 1°C (Fig. 4).
Figure 4: Sea surface temperature in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (whole area). Chart: European Environment Agency.
The cause behind the strong warming of the late 1980s is not yet fully understood. But an important role is probably played by the oceanic cycle: North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which back at that time reached maximum positive values and which afterwards were never reached again (Fig. 5).
Figure 5: North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the past 140 years. NAO Winter Index. Chart: Wikipedia. By Delorme [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons.
Steffi Lemke ignored the effect of the NAO on German sea temperatures, i.e. she concealed the medium-term natural climate dynamics. The sharp rise in temperature is largely due to the rise in the NAO, so Lemke is consciously or unintentionally misleading the public here.
One could dismiss this as a political move. But why are the scientists, who should know better, remaining silent? They are remaining silent for a good reason: because anyone who gets into a fight with the Greens this day and age has to fear the most serious personal and career consequences. There is an FFF mob being stirred up and bullying. It’s better to shut up and let Steffi do it.
Cooling since 2005 unmentioned
Also the Ministry of Transport(!) is to be reproached here. Why was the NAO reference not included? Why was it not mentioned that it has become colder again in recent years (Fig. 4).
There are too many amateurs in the public climate debate. Ms. Lemke fuels fear of climate change, the Ministry fails to provide the context and Die Welt uncritically reports the sorrowful result. And Scientists are remaining silent for fear of reprisals. Something is going wrong in the climate state of Germany.
A very odd story, people in Utah and Virginia have reported receiving unsolicited packets of seeds from China, mislabelled as Jewellery. Utah and Virginia Agriculture departments are investigating.
Mysterious seeds sent from China to Utah
By: Adam HerbetsPosted at 9:13 PM, Jul 22, 2020 and last updated 3:41 AM, Jul 24, 2020
TOOELE, Utah — Over the past few weeks, people in Utah have been reporting mysterious packages they’ve been receiving in the mail from China.
Lori Culley, who lives in Tooele, said she was excited to find two small packages in her mailbox on Tuesday. Although most of the writing on the outside was in Chinese, the label indicated there would be earrings inside.
“I opened them up and they were seeds,” Culley said. “Obviously they’re not jewelry!”
Culley couldn’t understand why she would be receiving mislabeled seeds from China in the mail, but at first she didn’t think much of it.
She posted about the strange incident on Facebook, where some of her friends reminded her plants and seeds are strictly regulated in Utah.
FOX 13 has confirmed the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food will likely team up with Customs and Border Protection agents to investigate.
The following is a tweet of seeds collected by Virginia Department of Agriculture (h/t Fox News).
Even Snopes accepts that people have been receiving unsolicited packets of seeds from China, though they question people jumping to conclusions, ascribing harmful motives to whoever is sending the seeds.
Virginia Department of Agriculture advises people not to plant the seeds.
PRESS RELEASES
July 24, 2020 Public Asked To Report Receipt of any Unsolicited Packages of Seeds Contact: Michael Wallace, 804.786.1904
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) has been notified that several Virginia residents have received unsolicited packages containing seeds that appear to have originated from China. The types of seeds in the packages are unknown at this time and may be invasive plant species. The packages were sent by mail and may have Chinese writing on them.
Please do not plant these seeds. VDACS encourages anyone who has received unsolicited seeds in the mail that appears to have Chinese origin to contact the Office of Plant Industry Services (OPIS) at 804.786.3515 or through the ReportAPest@vdacs.virginia.gov email.
Invasive species wreak havoc on the environment, displace or destroy native plants and insects and severely damage crops. Taking steps to prevent their introduction is the most effective method of reducing both the risk of invasive species infestations and the cost to control and mitigate those infestations.
Obviously at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions its easy to suspect the worst. But the seeds could have nothing to do with the Chinese Government. The simple truth is everyone seems to be guessing, nobody seems to have any idea why someone decided to send packets of seeds to random people in the USA.
I think the key takeaway is don’t plant them. Don’t even try to burn them, if they are toxic the smoke from burning even a small number of seeds could harm you. Call your local department of Agriculture to dispose of them safely.
If any botanists out there have any idea what the seeds are, please post in comments.
Iowa Climate Science Education 
