Bad science And Good Intentions Prevent Effective Climate Action

An Open Letter

Today, the Senate Environment Committee will meet in what is probably the last episode in the lame duck session.

Chairman Smith just abandoned his clean energy bill.

Climate activists are clueless and will hold some kind of event.

The NJ media won't ask Chairman Smith why he killed his own bill and the climate activists, who planned to rally in support of the now dead bill have egg all over their faces and won't  admit a huge defeat (even though the bill was seriously flawed).

NJ based climate scientists are hiding under their desks and self censor.

DEP leaders and scientists are well paid cowards or corrupt political hacks.

The COP just ended in failure.

So, today, we bring you a dose of scientific reality:

---------- Original Message ----------

From: Bill WOLFE <>

To: senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, "kduhon@njleg.org" <kduhon@njleg.org>, Ken Dolsky <kdolsky@optonline.net>, "jonhurdle@gmail.com" <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, "tom@njconservation.org" <tom@njconservation.org>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, "dpringle1988@gmail.com" <dpringle1988@gmail.com>, "agoldsmith@cleanwater.org" <agoldsmith@cleanwater.org>, "Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club" <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, "fkummer@inquirer.com" <fkummer@inquirer.com>, "wparry@ap.org" <wparry@ap.org>, "tmoran@starledger.com" <tmoran@starledger.com>, Matthew Smith <msmith@fwwatch.org>, MJ King <trhugger@yahoo.com>, Mark Lohbauer <mlohbauer@jgscgroup.com>, Margo Pellegrino <outriggerone@me.com>, "kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu" <kaplan@envsci.rutgers.edu>, "Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov" <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>, "Tittel, Jeff" <jeff.tittel@verizon.net>, Maya K van Rossum <maya@forthegenerations.org>, "tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org" <tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org>, "asmScharfenberger@njleg.org" <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>, Silvia Solaun <ssolaun@gmail.com>, "Shanley, Georgina" <shanleyg2001@yahoo.com>, SUSAN RUSSELL <selizabethrussell@verizon.net>, "FENICHEL, Steven" <stevenfenichel@yahoo.com>, "sitka@comcast.net" <sitka@comcast.net>

Date: 12/17/2023 7:54 PM EST

Subject: Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

Dear Chairman Smith and Commissioner LaTourette:

After reading the below scientific paper, I felt compelled to distribute it widely to NJ policymakers.

We are now bearing the fruit of President Obama's Paris COP sellout, which gave us the voluntary framework of individual national commitments untethered to any climate science or enforceable linkage to the 1.5 degree goal:

“The Paris Agreement is built entirely around voluntary country pledges—as different as the countries they are coming from—which are still far from adding up to achieving the objectives the agreement defines. In its basic architecture, the Paris Agreement is a complete victory for the United States which has obstructed effective climate action for more than two decades but now claims leadership credentials for its role in getting all countries to sign off on this global accord.” (Source)

That compromised trajectory brings us to today's impunity, where the COP was held in an oil producing country, led by an oil industry CEO, stacked with hundreds of oil industry lobbyists, and which failed to reach consensus on the need to phase out fossil fuels (which would be purely a rhetorical exercise and aspirational goal anyway, as there are no binding requirements and no enforcement mechanisms, thanks to Obama).

So, with that context in mind, please read this devastating paper (abstract below):

Bad science and good intentions prevent effective climate action

https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6244/

Abstract

Although the 2015 Paris Agreement climate targets seem certain to be missed, only a few experts are questioning the adequacy of the current approach to limiting climate change and suggesting that additional approaches are needed to avoid unacceptable catastrophes. This article posits that selective science communication and unrealistically optimistic assumptions are obscuring the reality that greenhouse gas emissions reduction and carbon dioxide removal will not curtail climate change in the 21st Century. It also explains how overly pessimistic and speculative criticisms are behind opposition to considering potential climate cooling interventions as a complementary approach for mitigating dangerous warming.

There is little evidence supporting assertions that: current greenhouse gas emissions reduction and removal methods can and will be ramped up in time to prevent dangerous climate change; overshoot of Paris Agreement targets will be temporary; net zero emissions will produce a safe, stable climate; the impacts of overshoot can be managed and reversed; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models and assessments capture the full scope of prospective disastrous impacts; and the risks of climate interventions are greater than the risks of inaction.

These largely unsupported presumptions distort risk assessments and discount the urgent need to develop a viable mitigation strategy. Due to political pressures, many critical scientific concerns are ignored or preemptively dismissed in international negotiations. As a result, the present and growing crisis and the level of effort and time that will be required to control and rebalance the climate are severely underestimated.

In conclusion, the paper outlines the key elements of a realistic policy approach that would augment current efforts to constrain dangerous warming by supplementing current mitigation approaches with climate cooling interventions."

Please proceed in light of this science. However, I do not endorse the paper's findings and recommendations concerning climate cooling (geo-engineering) interventions.

Bill Wolfe