CHOICE membership

IPCC reports, CO2 based energy production, the consequences of action or no action


Created this topic to move posts to that are referencing the IPCC and their reports, news related to the reports and opinions based on it all. Also to allow discussion about what changes are likely or less likely to be made to reduce the impacts of the changes that global warming will have that the report/s point to.


A link (hosted on Twitter) to part of the address to the French National Assembly by Greta Thunberg:

This young woman is showing what we are leaving as an inheritance to our Children, their Children and any others who may follow…Our stewardship of this planet is failing while we argue about the ways we “might” cope.

Effects of climate change on the consumer

Which is how denialists win. Any delay is a win. As consumers, those of us who live long enough will regret their victories.


Doubt is our product!


One should live such that the planet is of similar condition, if not better, that at the time of our birth. It not only applies to climate change, but everything and anything else.

Such is one of the basic principles of ‘sustainability’.


It might be appropriate that all members off parliament reflect what is written in Australian Treasury Papers. Christine Carmody who wrote the linked Treasury paper (Nov 2012) has pulled together a wide range of differing concepts for consideration. It has a distinct focus on economic development and decision making.

The paper actually referenced for sustainability,

The Brundtland Report (UNWCED 1987) established a conceptual basis for sustainable development and produced what has become the most widely recognised definition of it as:

‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

The Treasury paper offered as a conclusion,

While history suggests an increasing trend in wellbeing, we cannot take for granted that future generations will be better off. Sustainability— requiring that wellbeing is at least maintained for future generations — is therefore an important consideration for decisions that have long term impacts.

A range of theoretical approaches to sustainability have been developed, however, lack of information about the future makes choosing between them difficult, with implications for the choice of discount rates. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, a focus on maintaining aggregate stocks represents a no-regrets approach to sustainability. As concepts and techniques for measuring sustainability continue to be refined, a practical, best-efforts way to consider future generations appropriately requires monitoring changing levels of stocks, their substitutability and their thresholds, and protecting parts of stocks where future compensation for their loss is uncertain.

Perhaps we can read this assessment many different ways.

It all comes down to ‘discount rates’ and choices over theoretical approaches to considering sustainability when setting discount rates.

It appears we have moved on from the triple bottom line for economics which has been with us since 1994. Some might suggest that was only effective as a feel good marketing strategy for corporates?


It is admirable who ever first expressed it that way.

A little long for an Abbott styled call to arms though.

Perhaps a little naive as each of us has a different point of reference, based on how the planet was on our date of birth. Idealistically difficult to achieve given our current strategy to transform and hence consume resources. Leveraging these to do less damage in the future is still fundamental to our response to climate change. Economic development and growth still underwrite our economies.

a sustainable future might be having a goal where the environment of the planet improves, increasing diversity and value, without the need for intervention by human hands.

Consumers are faced with confused and competing views. It is no surprise they are not all backing the one team, or accept the need for action.


An article regarding a report by scientists that global warming is not a natural phenomenon.

Better not tell the Donald.


Another article regarding climate change, over consumption, over population and waste.


Moody’s Corporation has purchased controlling interest in a business that weighs the risks of Climate Change. The business is called Four Twenty Seven and it is likely that Moody’s will start to put pressure on Govts etc who are riskier ventures due to their lack of climate change resilience. This has been discussed before by Moody’s, Fitch Ratings and S&P Global in regards to the creditworthiness on some and this new purchase by Moody’s may be a signal they are getting very serious about how and why they give ratings that reflect climate change risk.

This access to better data will certainly be worrisome for those who then find themselves downgraded as a result of the risks they are exposed to.

New York Times has an article about the purchase and probable ramifications:

This downgrade in ratings that could occur would also impact everyday consumers as the cost of getting infrastructure loans by the issuing of bonds and similar would be harder as the lack of certainity would reduce yields as would the cost of the increased loans costs associated with a decreased credit score. This would also flow into increased personal insurance costs as the role of climate caused damage in policy increase considerations is increased.


Another article regarding research into climate change.


There hasn’t been any anthropological climate change like this in history…(from what we know) even since the big bang. There could be another glass house green planet like earth somewhere else in the universe which may have had anthropological influenced climate change, but we are yet to discover any planets which remotely support life like that on earth.


Which is the point. We have global warming that’s undeniably linked to us.


An interesting article regarding climate change deniers.

Better not tell Donald.


Global warming? What global warming?


A one off event is weather and not climate. See…


But the results are in line with what is expected in Global warming. While a one off is not able to be explicitly linked to Climate Change the trends are. Worse cyclones, longer droughts, less rain in some areas and more in others, increasing global temps (and thus worse heat waves) are all linked to Climate Change and the effect of global warming.


Yes, one would expect hotter days with global warming, but to suggest a one off day as evidence of global warming is fraught with danger. Seasonal and long term trends (climate) is a better measure of changing climates.

On the other foot, some point to the coldest day on record as evidence that global warming is a fallacy. It is often a criticism of climate scientists that one can not rely on a single event to demonstrate whether or not global warming exists.

One needs to take care linking one weather event to climate change or global warming. While they may be indirectly linked, it is the long term trends which need to be used.


I agree but as global temps rise the occurrence of hotter heat waves will be more common than previous events. The EU heatwave though is at levels that are somewhat outside the normal range in the bell curve of temps ever seen and may just be a scary portend of a much warmer future.


In places.

Late last week when lying in bed in the wee hours of the morning and listening to world news…there was a discussion from a (British?..well English speaking) meteorologist about the very high temperatures measured in Paris (in the low to medium 40s). The discussion also included that the temperature measured was in the city centre. Over the same period and over a number of days, the weather system was reasonably static causing things like asphalt, buildings, etc heat up and retain the heat.

Each day the heating effect was added by another hot day…making each day progressively hotter…in effect becoming a heat sink. In Paris city centre in particular, there is little opportunity for natural venting of the heat and it is trapped until such time that atmospheric temperatures reduce (through a significant weather change) or through wind (noting that due to curving streets and relatively consistent building heights, slight breezes can’t enter and push the hot air away…and only strong breezes or wind can have a cooling effect).

What was interesting was the Paris event last week that the areas surrounding the city centre where there are more shading, wider streets etc, the temperatures were around 4oC cooler…not a record but similar temperatures have been recorded historically.

The meteorologist indicated that while the city centre of Paris reached a extreme high, that the temperature was also greatly influenced by the city centre…evidence by slightly cooler temperatures outside the city centre. He made that the comment that the extreme was partly due to the prevailing weather and also the micro-climate effect of the city centre, trapping heat.

I know that the BOM is often criticised for the ‘shaping’ of weather data to remove anomalies or other effects…and the same could be argued could be applied to the extreme Paris temps.

I haven’t heard anything on the London temps, but one possibly also needs to look at other effects at the monitoring stations, like those which existed in Paris last week before jumping to conclusions.

This is possibly why global warming is talked about in relation to climate rather than weather, as weather can be influenced by local effects.

At the end of this summer, it will be interesting when the numbers are crunched, to whether 2019 in Europe was the hottest or one of the hottest on record.


The heatwave was across many countries in Europe and caused effects much more widely than Paris.