ADB sounds alarm on climate change

[Vergent]

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=803426&publicationSubCategoryId=63

[Jonger]

Fossil fuels are running out anyhow, the smart plan would be to act now.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Fossil fuels are running out anyhow, the smart plan would be to act now.

The arctic still has to be tapped.

[Jonger]

The arctic still has to be tapped.

The ANWAR really doesn't have much oil.

Let me ask you something:

Do you ever think positive?

[Vergent]

The ANWAR really doesn't have much oil.

Let me ask you something:

Do you ever think positive?

Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm

Let me ask you something.

Do you ever check your own "facts"?

[A-L-E-K]

not to mention there is a lot more to future artic reserves than just the ANWR

[WeatherRusty]

Fossil fuels are running out anyhow, the smart plan would be to act now.

In the context of global warming, climate change and overall environmental degradation, the point is that there are more than enough remaining reserves available to bring about serious, undesirable consequences. The world's economies can continue burning stuff at an increasing rate for many more decades into the future. Long enough to blow past a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by plenty.

For example, here are some rough estimates taken from Wikipedia:

Levels of primary energy sources are the reserves in the ground. Flows are production. The most important part of primary energy sources are the carbon based fossil energy sources. Coal, oil, and natural gas provided 79.6% of primary energy production during 2002 (in million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe)) (34.9+23.5+21.2).

Levels (proved reserves) during 2005–2007

• Coal: 997,748 million short tonnes (905 billion metric tonnes),^[14] 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km³) of oil equivalent
  
• Oil: 1,119 billion barrels (177.9 km³) to 1,317 billion barrels (209.4 km³)^[15]
  
• Natural gas: 6,183–6,381 trillion cubic feet (175–181 trillion cubic metres),^[15] 1,161 billion barrels (184.6×10⁹ m³) of oil equivalent
  

Flows (daily production) during 2006

• Coal: 18,476,127 short tonnes (16,761,260 metric tonnes),^[16] 52,000,000 barrels (8,300,000 m³) of oil equivalent per day
  
• Oil: 84,000,000 barrels per day (13,400,000 m³/d)^[17]
  
• Natural gas: 104,435 billion cubic feet (2,963 billion cubic metres),^[18] 19,000,000 barrels (3,000,000 m³) of oil equivalent per day
  

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above

• Coal: 148 years
  
• Oil: 43 years
  
• Natural gas: 61 years
  

Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)^{[citation needed]}

• Coal: 417 years
  
• Oil: 43 years
  
• Natural gas: 167 years
  

[FPizz]

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm

Let me ask you something.

Do you ever check your own "facts"?

30 to 50 years isn't really that long to him maybe. His statement isn't really off at all.

[Tropopause_Fold]

In the context of global warming, climate change and overall environmental degradation, the point is that there are more than enough remaining reserves available to bring about serious, undesirable consequences. The world's economies can continue burning stuff at an increasing rate for many more decades into the future. Long enough to blow past a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by plenty.

For example, here are some rough estimates taken from Wikipedia:

Levels of primary energy sources are the reserves in the ground. Flows are production. The most important part of primary energy sources are the carbon based fossil energy sources. Coal, oil, and natural gas provided 79.6% of primary energy production during 2002 (in million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe)) (34.9+23.5+21.2).

Levels (proved reserves) during 2005–2007

• Coal: 997,748 million short tonnes (905 billion metric tonnes),^[14] 4,416 billion barrels (702.1 km³) of oil equivalent
  
• Oil: 1,119 billion barrels (177.9 km³) to 1,317 billion barrels (209.4 km³)^[15]
  
• Natural gas: 6,183–6,381 trillion cubic feet (175–181 trillion cubic metres),^[15] 1,161 billion barrels (184.6×10⁹ m³) of oil equivalent
  

Flows (daily production) during 2006

• Coal: 18,476,127 short tonnes (16,761,260 metric tonnes),^[16] 52,000,000 barrels (8,300,000 m³) of oil equivalent per day
  
• Oil: 84,000,000 barrels per day (13,400,000 m³/d)^[17]
  
• Natural gas: 104,435 billion cubic feet (2,963 billion cubic metres),^[18] 19,000,000 barrels (3,000,000 m³) of oil equivalent per day
  

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above

• Coal: 148 years
  
• Oil: 43 years
  
• Natural gas: 61 years
  

Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)^{[citation needed]}

• Coal: 417 years
  
• Oil: 43 years
  
• Natural gas: 167 years
  

i very much wish those resources would be tapped

[ben4vols]

Time is running out on the fast-growing Asian region to step up and help prevent catastrophic climate change, foreign experts said yesterday.

In a study presented during the seminar, the ADB Institute (ADBI) urged governments to create a carbon market, phase out pervasive fossil fuel subsidies and establish an Asian free-trade zone for high-impact, low-carbon technologies and services to promote green growth in Asia.

What a load of crap. I hope the Asian people are smart enough to see through the ruse.

[WeatherRusty]

i very much wish those resources would be tapped

Don't worry, your wish will be granted.

Damned the science. Don't worry, be happy!

[WeatherRusty]

What a load of crap. I hope the Asian people are smart enough to see through the ruse.

Another conspiracy. Fear the 1 world order. Abolish the UN. Get rid of the EPA.

Hang all liberals, environmentalist and climate scientists for attempted crimes against humanity. Or at least ignore them....right?

[ben4vols]

Another conspiracy. Fear the 1 world order. Abolish the UN. Get rid of the EPA.

Hang all liberals, environmentalist and climate scientists for attempted crimes against humanity. Or at least ignore them....right?

LOL. Right into the conspiracy charge? Typical.

Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"? Follows the script perfectly. Now they are going to cloak their evils behind the veil of climate change. Carbon credits? Green economy? Yeah right. It's a load of crap.

“Contrary to what ADB is projecting, it is not in any way helping the poor. For instance, their projects geared towards ‘helping’ the poor through reforms in water and power supply system, health and education only worsened the situation of the Filipino people with debts that do not even serve the peoples’ welfare,” Tinio said in a statement.

He added the Philippines owes a total of P44.31 billion to be paid in 20 years to the ADB.

[dabize]

Another conspiracy. Fear the 1 world order. Abolish the UN. Get rid of the EPA.

Hang all liberals, environmentalist and climate scientists for attempted crimes against humanity. Or at least ignore them....right?

This accurately lampoons the psychological "projection" needed to hold the denialist views that we see here.

To me, these guys look more and more like the "bounty hunters" who are getting suspended in the NFL - as the effects of repeated head trauma (CTE) are finally becoming plain to all and showing how disgusting a thing that is. Right now, they are scumbags. In a year they will be de facto criminals, as the link between hard hits, dementia and an early death becomes increasingly established.

Similarly, as we learn more about AGW, these trollish denialist statements that you are deriding will increasingly resemble actual criminal acts such as collusion with Al Quaeda, suborning perjury etc.

I must be getting conservative in my old age - I am starting to believe that there is such a thing as criminal stupidity.

[ben4vols]

Similarly, as we learn more about AGW, these trollish denialist statements that you are deriding will increasingly resemble actual criminal acts such as collusion with Al Quaeda, suborning perjury etc.

As we learn more about AGW there will be more like James Lovelock who jump from the fraud.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Don't worry, your wish will be granted.

Damned the science. Don't worry, be happy!

i hope you are right.

i'm not so confident but would certainly welcome it. would be nice to see fuel/gas/heating prices fall to more tolerable levels for an extended period of time.

[WeatherRusty]

LOL. Right into the conspiracy charge? Typical.

Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"? Follows the script perfectly. Now they are going to cloak their evils behind the veil of climate change. Carbon credits? Green economy? Yeah right. It's a load of crap.

You introduced the word 'ruse'.

ruse definition: an action intended to mislead, deceive, or trick; stratagem

Also, this discussion is meant to apply solely to the issue of climate change and it's implications for people, not the tangential issue of economics. In actual practice, any mitigation strategy must address both issues. You should not ignore one issue in favor of the other. They must both be entertained together.

[WeatherRusty]

i hope you are right.

i'm not so confident but would certainly welcome it. would be nice to see fuel/gas/heating prices fall to more tolerable levels for an extended period of time.

Are you kidding me? The price for fossil fuels will not fall, they will be maintained at a level equaling the consumer's ability to pay while maximizing the producer's/provider's profit. Get real.

Everyone is so interested in 3rd world economies being able to lift billions of people out of poverty, yet the energy they use pressures the price point for us upward. Like it or not, fossil fuels are part of the global economy. Exxon/Moble cares less about the U.S. economy than it does returning profits to it's stockholders. As it should be, but we must get real about this. The only 'cheap' energy will come from renewables like solar, hydrothermal, wind etc. We don't have to 'share' those unlimited resources with anyone.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Are you kidding me? The price for fossil fuels will not fall, they will be maintained at a level equaling the consumer's ability to pay while maximizing the producer's/provider's profit. Get real.

Everyone is so interested in 3rd world economies being able to lift billions of people out of poverty, yet the energy they use pressures the price point for us upward. Like it or not, fossil fuels are part of the global economy. Exxon/Moble cares less about the U.S. economy than it does returning profits to it's stockholders. As it should be, but we must get real about this. The only 'cheap' energy will come from renewables like solar, hydrothermal, wind etc. We don't have to 'share' those unlimited resources with anyone.

i don't need it to fall much...$2-3 / gal for gas for ex. would be fine.

but...it is what it is.

[ben4vols]

Also, this discussion is meant to apply solely to the issue of climate change and it's implications for people, not the tangential issue of economics. In actual practice, any mitigation strategy must address both issues. You should not ignore one issue in favor of the other. They must both be entertained together.

I agree, you shouldn't ignore one issue in favor of another. Why do you think ADB is using the now hip phrase "catastrophic climate change"? You think ADB really give a rat's you know what about climate change? Come on don't be naive. ADB says, "The poor are particularly vulnerable to these (climate) changes". Ahhh it's for the poor and the poor are being affected by climate change, I'm impressed they got 2 birds with one stone. Who is going to benefit by changing their economy over to a green economy and change their energy system over to green energy? Who is going to pay the bill for the loans that will have to be taken out by the local government to payback ADB in the future? What happens when these local governments can't pay back their loans to ADB? If it follows the usual script, ADB will get control of the local governments natural resources as collateral as well as pay back the loans at a nice little interest rate. I'm sure the poor will thrive in the new "green economy".

[WeatherRusty]

I agree, you shouldn't ignore one issue in favor of another. Why do you think ADB is using the now hip phrase "catastrophic climate change"? You think ADB really give a rat's you know what about climate change? Come on don't be naive. ADB says, "The poor are particularly vulnerable to these (climate) changes". Ahhh it's for the poor and the poor are being affected by climate change, I'm impressed they got 2 birds with one stone. Who is going to benefit by changing their economy over to a green economy and change their energy system over to green energy? Who is going to pay the bill for the loans that will have to be taken out by the local government to payback ADB in the future? What happens when these local governments can't pay back their loans to ADB? If it follows the usual script, ADB will get control of the local governments natural resources as collateral as well as pay back the loans at a nice little interest rate. I'm sure the poor will thrive in the new "green economy".

Hey, I hear you. The difficulty in accommodating the economic and social hurdles are enormous. I don't attribute this to some conspiracy or underhanded 'ruse' however. Any change from the status quo is difficult, never mind a paradigm shift the likes of overhauling century old infrastructure with as of yet underdeveloped incipient technologies. Or expecting developing economies to wait for the same.

This is why I feel we are decades away from a meaningful transition away from fossil fuels, and the effects of global warming and climate change will be experienced to whatever degree of consequence is forthcoming. We will have to learn to adapt to climate change, the poorest among us the least able, all the while working to limit the longer term consequences.

I'm not saying we can not do what is required, I'm saying we will not summon the will to do so. I have lost hope.

[WeatherRusty]

i don't need it to fall much...$2-3 / gal for gas for ex. would be fine.

but...it is what it is.

Year on year, the prices will fluctuate up and down just as always. However over time ( in decades ) those prices will continue on upward, squeezing every last penny they can out of us. That's what they are in business for. Companies are not altruistic by nature, their profit motive needs to be balanced by competition or government regulation.

[WeatherRusty]

As we learn more about AGW there will be more like James Lovelock who jump from the fraud.

Here is what Lovelock used to subscribe to:

“Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” he said back in 2006. Now, 6 years later, he told MSNBC that he had been “extrapolating too far,” in recent years.

Read more at

http://www.inquisitr.com/224934/global-warming-scientist-james-lovelock-admits-to-being-an-alarmist/#xiF45Gs6c3GzuM51.99

The actual science never has approached that extreme view. Lovelock should recant and become a realist.

[ben4vols]

Hey, I hear you. The difficulty in accommodating the economic and social hurdles are enormous. I don't attribute this to some conspiracy or underhanded 'ruse' however. Any change from the status quo is difficult, never mind a paradigm shift the likes of overhauling century old infrastructure with as of yet underdeveloped incipient technologies. Or expecting developing economies to wait for the same.

You may not want to attribute it to being a ruse but it is a ruse none the less and it has been going on for quite a while. Now, however, interests like ADB can hide their agenda behind "catastrophic climate change". To use ADB's using of "catastrophic climate change" to prop up the AGW theory is sick and twisted. Those poor people are going to get royally screwed and the Al Gore types who benefit off the "green economy/green energy" type of stuff will be the ones who benefit.

Want to see an example of how ADB operates?

CEBU, PHILIPPINES, 26 Jan 12 -- The recent revelations made by the Metropolitan Cebu Water District Employees Union (MEU) on the plan by MCWD to obtain a $400-million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) paint an uncanny resemblance to underpinnings of the “first large-scale water supply privatization in Asia” -- the privatization of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS).

When MWSS was privatized in 1997, it was reported to be mired in debt standing at $800 million. MWSS was indebted to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) among others. Its debt and loans constituted one of the biggest debt-servicing components in the country’s national budget, thereby reinforcing the perception of MWSS as a burden to the state.

Premised on efficient service, affordable water rates, significantly reduced non-water revenues (NRW) and relief from the debt burden, MWSS was privatized. But more than a decade after its privatization, an overview of the outcomes lead to the conclusion that the results of the said scheme has in fact run counter to the common good and, in turn, defeats the people’s right to water.

Water rates skyrocketed to an average of 778% (as of 2008) for both the East and West zones, there was less investment and expansion of MWSS assets and generally higher NRW in contrast to pre-privatization levels. On top of these, corporate income taxes for both concessionaires -– Maynilad and Manila Water -- have been borne by water consumers.

[ben4vols]

The actual science never has approached that extreme view. Lovelock should recant and become a realist.

The main drivers of the AGW bus hold some/all of those extreme views. Most of the scientists involved may not but that is not who the public usually hears from.

Lovelock has become a realist....I'd say he is pretty accurate in his statements below,

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

[WeatherRusty]

You may not want to attribute it to being a ruse but it is a ruse none the less and it has been going on for quite a while. Now, however, interests like ADB can hide their agenda behind "catastrophic climate change". To use ADB's using of "catastrophic climate change" to prop up the AGW theory is sick and twisted. Those poor people are going to get royally screwed and the Al Gore types who benefit off the "green economy/green energy" type of stuff will be the ones who benefit.

Want to see an example of how ADB operates?

You are speaking to how basic information may be misused by outside interests. I speak here only to the validity of the scientific message. The scientific basis for AGW is no ruse. How information is exploited by some is another story with which you may have a valid point.

[WeatherRusty]

The main drivers of the AGW bus hold some/all of those extreme views. Most of the scientists involved may not but that is not who the public usually hears from.

Lovelock has become a realist....I'd say he is pretty accurate in his statements below,

Lovelock states that he thought we should be half way to a frying world now? The science estimates about 0.2C increase per decade, which we are not far from as averaged over several decades. It's a shame that even some high profile personalities believe things not supported by the science.

Approximately 3C increase over circa 1850 is thought likely by several decades following a complete doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent in radiative forcing, which we have not even reached one half of to this point in time. When the science is misrepresented innocently or otherwise, we all lose.

[ben4vols]

You are speaking to how basic information may be misused by outside interests. I speak here only to the validity of the scientific message. The scientific basis for AGW is no ruse. How information is exploited by some is another story with which you may have a valid point.

While the scientific basis may not be a ruse, it will continue to be used as such until more of the conservative and moderate scientist in the AGW movement stand up and voice concern over the more vocal "extremist" portion of the movement.