What do you think?
Rate this book
[The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming] [Author: Pielke Jr. Jr., Roger] [December, 2011]
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents. In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Paperback
First published September 28, 2010
23 people are currently reading
259 people want to read
About the author
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
9 books21 followersRoger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.
Son of author Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Son of author Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 18, 2012
It's easy to write a review of a book you loved or loathed. It's difficult to write a review of a book that achieves a balanced outlook on the political turmoil of climate change thus disabling the emotional response. But in the interest of creating at least one review for this book on Goodreads, I submit the following review of the ideas I thought were interesting. I hope that you will read this corrective book and face the same "meh," when going to review it.
1. The single most insightful moment in the book for me follows. “Consider following thought experiment. Let's start with the real world, in which the human consumption of fossil fuels leads to emissions of greenhouse gases, which lead to changes in the climate, which in turn result in undesirable effects on people and the environment. Let's call this Greenhouse World. Now imagine an alternative world. In this alternative world everything is exactly as it is in Greenhouse World, but with one important difference. In this world, instead of the human use of fossil fuels leading to changes in climate, the source of change is instead a small strengthening of the intensity of the Sun. Let's call this world Bright Sun World. The changes in climate and effects on people and the environment are identical in both Bright Sun World and Greenhouse World; the two worlds differ only in the source of the changes in climate” (p144). This thought experiment made me aware of my biases regarding mitigation vs. adaptation and the wider social change I saw environmental values critique. Consumerism-as-an-empty-existence-type-stuff. Pielke jr. treats climate change quite strictly in this book as a policy issue; he is fair in his presentation of those who might pack social values into their environmentalism, as well as those who might speak loudly about the economic costs of mitigation. To both groups, he probably helps them become more aware of the unstated assumptions that go into their particular prescriptions for the future.
2. Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas, which is important to remember. It's the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect though, so it's a reasonable place to focus. However, some policy approaches simplistically reduce climate change to a matter of CO2 emissions. The discussion of CO2 concentrations was not unlike one about the disputes over GDP as an economic yard stick or Consumer Price Index as a measure of inflation you may have read elsewhere.
3. The US lacks the political will for environmental change is false. Polls show the amount of concern is the same in 2010 as in 1970.
4. Pielke jr. believes an “Iron law of Policy” exists. He doesn't explain from where this law comes, or why it's inviolable, but it is a pillar of how he and others construct their policy outlook and so it is important to note. The Iron Law says that people will tolerate very few economic setbacks in the quest for sustainability. Any policies which seek environmental sustainability will need to offer proportional short-term benefits to their short-term costs. This seems reasonable, but I was unable to see how recognition of an iron law was not also a demonstration of a lack of will (see idea #3).
5. We do not have all the technology we need to address climate change. Even if there were no iron climate laws and everyone cooperated, we would still be unable to hit targets set by Kyoto Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Technological innovation will be necessary, and still perhaps not enough to reach certain CO2 concentration targets.
6. As the developing world increases their standards of living energy needs will increase. There are 1.5 billion people without regular access to energy. Meeting those kinds of basic needs necessitates more energy production, not less.
7. Most environmentalists focus on mitigation techniques. Adaptation is seen as “plan B“ by some. Pielke jr. looks at possible geoengineering efforts in chapter 5 and finds that they generally don't qualify as a technological fix we should pursue. However, carbon capture does show promise, and a balanced innovation policy should include it.
8. In chapter 6 – How Climate Policy Went Off Course he discusses the inadequacy of how “climate change” is defined by the IPCC and the UN and how those different definitions shape our outlook. A great chapter for lovers of semantics or the sort of influence mission-statement-type-thinking has on organizations and the work they do. Of particular interest was the thought experiment (see idea #1).
9. A common theme in climate change activism is that global warming increases the frequency of tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and other extreme events (see the cover of An Inconvenient Truth). Pielke jr. happens to have done some research into the matter, and in fact, it is his work that's frequently misrepresented in order to make those claims. He pretty soundly demolishes the works which have misrepresented his research and the myths they've spread. Chapter 7 is interesting both for the student of climate change who has seen such misrepresentations and for anyone interested in the dialogue that goes on in the academy.
10. A lot of the themes present throughout the book are focused down on in chapter 8 – The politicization of Climate Science. Pielke jr suggests it may have gotten this way from politicians who require a level of certainty to act which science cannot provide, and from scientists—90+ percent of who identify as democrats—who see their role as activists. The East Anglia “Climategate” emails are discussed, and I admire Pielke jr.'s restrained treatment. It would be so easy to bash those scientists for trying to subvert the peer review system, but their motives are very dispassionately discussed. In my opinion those scientists suck, but Pielke jr. demonstrates that demonization of the opposition is something neither they nor he should be engaged in.
11. After spending the book discussing misconceptions about science and the ways our policies are flawed, Pielke jr. unveils his master plan in chapter 9. This proposal left me with the most questions. Pielke jr. says that since there is no “magic bullet” for abating climate change, we need to abandon our search for one and look for many through an agnostic innovation policy. We need to fund energy innovation with a small carbon tax--not enough to change behavior—just enough to fund innovation, and ramp up the tax as the economy decarbonizes. Keeping costs low is important because our goal shouldn't be to prevent climate change, it should be to expand energy access to the 1.5 billion without it.
To expand energy such a great amount, innovation is necessary. Climate change becomes an oblique goal rather than a direct one, which is better. He doesn't explain why it's better, but does make a comparison to how human longevity is constantly improved without it being the object of any global mission. I feel this is an apples to oranges analogy. There are incentives to fight health issues individually, while few to let each country go and fight climate change to a level it feels appropriate. Climate change is everything or nothing, at least moreso than human health, isn't it?
As for how expanding energy access to more people, cheaply, somehow decarbonizes our global economies, he does not say. The argument seems to follow the South Park underwear gnome plan. Step 1: Expand energy access. Step 2:.... Step 3: We'll have improvements to energy production and efficiency. The efficiency part is crucial if the global economy is to be decarbonized, which ostensibly is the way we fight climate change (otherwise we need to reduce GDP or human population). Pielke jr. does not make a convincing case that this oblique approach guarantees decarbonization occurs rapidly enough to abate climate change. And indeed doing so is impossible, since the road map only features two landmarks, carbon tax along the innovation highway to problem solved.
1. The single most insightful moment in the book for me follows. “Consider following thought experiment. Let's start with the real world, in which the human consumption of fossil fuels leads to emissions of greenhouse gases, which lead to changes in the climate, which in turn result in undesirable effects on people and the environment. Let's call this Greenhouse World. Now imagine an alternative world. In this alternative world everything is exactly as it is in Greenhouse World, but with one important difference. In this world, instead of the human use of fossil fuels leading to changes in climate, the source of change is instead a small strengthening of the intensity of the Sun. Let's call this world Bright Sun World. The changes in climate and effects on people and the environment are identical in both Bright Sun World and Greenhouse World; the two worlds differ only in the source of the changes in climate” (p144). This thought experiment made me aware of my biases regarding mitigation vs. adaptation and the wider social change I saw environmental values critique. Consumerism-as-an-empty-existence-type-stuff. Pielke jr. treats climate change quite strictly in this book as a policy issue; he is fair in his presentation of those who might pack social values into their environmentalism, as well as those who might speak loudly about the economic costs of mitigation. To both groups, he probably helps them become more aware of the unstated assumptions that go into their particular prescriptions for the future.
2. Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas, which is important to remember. It's the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect though, so it's a reasonable place to focus. However, some policy approaches simplistically reduce climate change to a matter of CO2 emissions. The discussion of CO2 concentrations was not unlike one about the disputes over GDP as an economic yard stick or Consumer Price Index as a measure of inflation you may have read elsewhere.
3. The US lacks the political will for environmental change is false. Polls show the amount of concern is the same in 2010 as in 1970.
4. Pielke jr. believes an “Iron law of Policy” exists. He doesn't explain from where this law comes, or why it's inviolable, but it is a pillar of how he and others construct their policy outlook and so it is important to note. The Iron Law says that people will tolerate very few economic setbacks in the quest for sustainability. Any policies which seek environmental sustainability will need to offer proportional short-term benefits to their short-term costs. This seems reasonable, but I was unable to see how recognition of an iron law was not also a demonstration of a lack of will (see idea #3).
5. We do not have all the technology we need to address climate change. Even if there were no iron climate laws and everyone cooperated, we would still be unable to hit targets set by Kyoto Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Technological innovation will be necessary, and still perhaps not enough to reach certain CO2 concentration targets.
6. As the developing world increases their standards of living energy needs will increase. There are 1.5 billion people without regular access to energy. Meeting those kinds of basic needs necessitates more energy production, not less.
7. Most environmentalists focus on mitigation techniques. Adaptation is seen as “plan B“ by some. Pielke jr. looks at possible geoengineering efforts in chapter 5 and finds that they generally don't qualify as a technological fix we should pursue. However, carbon capture does show promise, and a balanced innovation policy should include it.
8. In chapter 6 – How Climate Policy Went Off Course he discusses the inadequacy of how “climate change” is defined by the IPCC and the UN and how those different definitions shape our outlook. A great chapter for lovers of semantics or the sort of influence mission-statement-type-thinking has on organizations and the work they do. Of particular interest was the thought experiment (see idea #1).
9. A common theme in climate change activism is that global warming increases the frequency of tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and other extreme events (see the cover of An Inconvenient Truth). Pielke jr. happens to have done some research into the matter, and in fact, it is his work that's frequently misrepresented in order to make those claims. He pretty soundly demolishes the works which have misrepresented his research and the myths they've spread. Chapter 7 is interesting both for the student of climate change who has seen such misrepresentations and for anyone interested in the dialogue that goes on in the academy.
10. A lot of the themes present throughout the book are focused down on in chapter 8 – The politicization of Climate Science. Pielke jr suggests it may have gotten this way from politicians who require a level of certainty to act which science cannot provide, and from scientists—90+ percent of who identify as democrats—who see their role as activists. The East Anglia “Climategate” emails are discussed, and I admire Pielke jr.'s restrained treatment. It would be so easy to bash those scientists for trying to subvert the peer review system, but their motives are very dispassionately discussed. In my opinion those scientists suck, but Pielke jr. demonstrates that demonization of the opposition is something neither they nor he should be engaged in.
11. After spending the book discussing misconceptions about science and the ways our policies are flawed, Pielke jr. unveils his master plan in chapter 9. This proposal left me with the most questions. Pielke jr. says that since there is no “magic bullet” for abating climate change, we need to abandon our search for one and look for many through an agnostic innovation policy. We need to fund energy innovation with a small carbon tax--not enough to change behavior—just enough to fund innovation, and ramp up the tax as the economy decarbonizes. Keeping costs low is important because our goal shouldn't be to prevent climate change, it should be to expand energy access to the 1.5 billion without it.
To expand energy such a great amount, innovation is necessary. Climate change becomes an oblique goal rather than a direct one, which is better. He doesn't explain why it's better, but does make a comparison to how human longevity is constantly improved without it being the object of any global mission. I feel this is an apples to oranges analogy. There are incentives to fight health issues individually, while few to let each country go and fight climate change to a level it feels appropriate. Climate change is everything or nothing, at least moreso than human health, isn't it?
As for how expanding energy access to more people, cheaply, somehow decarbonizes our global economies, he does not say. The argument seems to follow the South Park underwear gnome plan. Step 1: Expand energy access. Step 2:.... Step 3: We'll have improvements to energy production and efficiency. The efficiency part is crucial if the global economy is to be decarbonized, which ostensibly is the way we fight climate change (otherwise we need to reduce GDP or human population). Pielke jr. does not make a convincing case that this oblique approach guarantees decarbonization occurs rapidly enough to abate climate change. And indeed doing so is impossible, since the road map only features two landmarks, carbon tax along the innovation highway to problem solved.
March 3, 2023
A great read about the messy intersection between science and policy.
Published in 2010, I think everything held up, although there was quite a bit of focus around recent events (2008 financial crisis, "Climategate" emails which I'd totally forgotten about).
Edit: My one complaint about the book is the subtitle, which is eyebrow-raising in an I-don't-know-if-this-guy-is-a-climate-change-denier-type way. It is not that type of book. But it is focused on the messy intersection of science and policy.
I don't have time for a detailed book report but I did make time for quotes!
p14: Myles Allan, a climate researcher at Oxford University, puts it well: "the problem is not that 350 ppm is too high or too low a threshold, but that it misses the point. The actions required over the next couple of decades to avoid dangerous climate change are the same regardless of what long-term concentration we decide to aim for." Consequently, the debate over targets is a little like arguing if we should seek to advance the average human life span to 87.5 years or 93.5 years.
p27: [O]n ozone depletion policy makers used science as an indicator of a possible problem and then very much followed a no-regrets strategy, taking on what was relatively easier first and leaving the more politically difficult challenges for later. In this way they reduced the scope of the problem, making debates about science less relevant and also reducing the intensity of the political obstacles to action.
p31: Nassim Taleb - the precautionary principle.
p32: Climate science does not tell us what to do or even that we have to act. It has very helpfully let us know there are decisions we might consider making.
p46: The iron law of climate policy: that when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.
p59: [T]he public has limits as to how much it is willing to pay. What this means is that climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success.
p62: Climate change is a bit like a policy inkblot on which people map onto the issue their hopes and values associated with their vision for what a better world would look like. In such a circumstance it should not be a surprise that scientific information cannot lead to political consensus.
p70: The Kaya Identity... carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere can be reduced only be influencing the following four levers.
1. We could reduce population.
2. We could reduce per capita GDP.
3. We could become more efficient.
4. We could switch to less carbon-intensive sources of energy.
... All policies being discussed as climate policies must influence these levers if they are to have an effect.
p123: Criteria for a successful technological fix.
1. The technology must embody a cause-effect relationship (vaccine should prevent disease, dam should reliably store water, etc.).
2. The effects of the technological fix must be assessable (e.g. near impossible to know if weather modification is successful).
3. Research and development must focus on improvement (expect breakthroughs to be very rare).
p143: IPCC and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change use two different definitions of "climate change": IPCC is "any change in climate over time", UNFCCC is "changes directly or indirectly attributed to human activity." Any wonder there is confusion?
p144: Thought experiment of Greenhouse World vs. Bright Sun World. One is warming due to humans using fossil fuels, one is warming due to the sun getting brighter over time. The effects on climate are the same. What should humans do on each planet? With different definitions of "climate change", IPCC and UNFCCC would act differently on Bright Sun World.
p165: Reducing the losses associated with disasters that will happen in coming decades is almost entirely a matter of effective adaptation policies [not mitigation policies]. Using disasters to advocate for mitigation policies is misguided at best and misleading at worst. [still strongly supports decarbonization - but for the right reasons]
p187: [T]he science supporting claims of a human influence on the climate system is robust, and if anything, the diversity of human influences on the climate has been underestimated by the IPCC, thanks for its fixation of carbon dioxide [over other causes].
p189: Given that many communities around the world, especially in poor countries, lack a basic resilience in the face of climate extremes, there is much work to be done to improve adaptive capacities. Such policies make sense independent of human-caused climate change, but they will also make these communities more robust in the face of human-caused climate change. Adaptation involves the fuller realization of objectives for human dignity, including security, well-being, and prosperity.
p206: Science is particularly ill-suited to resolving political disputes... Advocates for this or that action will always be able to selectively pick and choose among findings to support whatever course of action they prefer.
p209: An irony here is that [fighting political battles under the guise of climate science] were always doomed to fail, as waging a political battle through science confers a significant advantage to those who are presented as being outside the scientific mainstream. David and Goliath are held to different standards, no matter which is supposed to be the good guy.
p212: Fixing climate science will require a more sophisticated approach to the relationship of experts and decision makers than the simple idea that scientists call for an action and policy makers respond.
p215: Even in the superficially simple example of a doctor, a parent, and a child [in deciding the correct course of action given knowledge, experience, and observations], it's clear that the issues are complicated. [climate about 100000x more complicated]
p218: Cap-and-trade regime for extending life expectancies compared to cap-and-trade for carbon dioxide emissions. In much the same way that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a consequence of our actions, average human life spans are a consequence of our actions, and consequences are extremely difficult to modulate directly via policy.
p227: The uncomfortable reality is that the more technologies deemed politically unacceptable, the greater the challenge of accelerating decarbonization, the longer we'll depend upon fossil fuels, and the longer more than a billion people will lack access to basic energy.
p230: If there is a single variable that will serve as a measure of progress toward emissions reduction or carbon intensity goals, it will be the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-neutral (or even negative) sources. In recent years that value has been well under 10 percent of total global consumption. To achieve stabilization at low levels, that proportion will eventually have to exceed 90 percent.
p231: An important and perhaps uncomfortable aspect of the approach recommended here is that it leaves much uncertain: we do not know, exactly, how we are going to achieve the long-term goals of providing energy access, security, and low cost that, if achieved, will also drive accelerated decarbonization of the global economy. This uncertainty is inescapable, but not crippling... Rather, we proceed incrementally on many parallel paths while learning from, and adjusting to, experience.
p237: A focus on decarbonization... rather than danger would elevate the importance of technological innovation in carbon policy and de-emphasize the role of science, particularly long-term climate predictions. This would help to depoliticize climate science, as it would no longer serve as the fulcrum on which action is to be judged, and enable a healthier relationship of science and policy across the spectrum of issues related to a human influence on climate.
Published in 2010, I think everything held up, although there was quite a bit of focus around recent events (2008 financial crisis, "Climategate" emails which I'd totally forgotten about).
Edit: My one complaint about the book is the subtitle, which is eyebrow-raising in an I-don't-know-if-this-guy-is-a-climate-change-denier-type way. It is not that type of book. But it is focused on the messy intersection of science and policy.
I don't have time for a detailed book report but I did make time for quotes!
p14: Myles Allan, a climate researcher at Oxford University, puts it well: "the problem is not that 350 ppm is too high or too low a threshold, but that it misses the point. The actions required over the next couple of decades to avoid dangerous climate change are the same regardless of what long-term concentration we decide to aim for." Consequently, the debate over targets is a little like arguing if we should seek to advance the average human life span to 87.5 years or 93.5 years.
p27: [O]n ozone depletion policy makers used science as an indicator of a possible problem and then very much followed a no-regrets strategy, taking on what was relatively easier first and leaving the more politically difficult challenges for later. In this way they reduced the scope of the problem, making debates about science less relevant and also reducing the intensity of the political obstacles to action.
p31: Nassim Taleb - the precautionary principle.
p32: Climate science does not tell us what to do or even that we have to act. It has very helpfully let us know there are decisions we might consider making.
p46: The iron law of climate policy: that when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.
p59: [T]he public has limits as to how much it is willing to pay. What this means is that climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success.
p62: Climate change is a bit like a policy inkblot on which people map onto the issue their hopes and values associated with their vision for what a better world would look like. In such a circumstance it should not be a surprise that scientific information cannot lead to political consensus.
p70: The Kaya Identity... carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere can be reduced only be influencing the following four levers.
1. We could reduce population.
2. We could reduce per capita GDP.
3. We could become more efficient.
4. We could switch to less carbon-intensive sources of energy.
... All policies being discussed as climate policies must influence these levers if they are to have an effect.
p123: Criteria for a successful technological fix.
1. The technology must embody a cause-effect relationship (vaccine should prevent disease, dam should reliably store water, etc.).
2. The effects of the technological fix must be assessable (e.g. near impossible to know if weather modification is successful).
3. Research and development must focus on improvement (expect breakthroughs to be very rare).
p143: IPCC and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change use two different definitions of "climate change": IPCC is "any change in climate over time", UNFCCC is "changes directly or indirectly attributed to human activity." Any wonder there is confusion?
p144: Thought experiment of Greenhouse World vs. Bright Sun World. One is warming due to humans using fossil fuels, one is warming due to the sun getting brighter over time. The effects on climate are the same. What should humans do on each planet? With different definitions of "climate change", IPCC and UNFCCC would act differently on Bright Sun World.
p165: Reducing the losses associated with disasters that will happen in coming decades is almost entirely a matter of effective adaptation policies [not mitigation policies]. Using disasters to advocate for mitigation policies is misguided at best and misleading at worst. [still strongly supports decarbonization - but for the right reasons]
p187: [T]he science supporting claims of a human influence on the climate system is robust, and if anything, the diversity of human influences on the climate has been underestimated by the IPCC, thanks for its fixation of carbon dioxide [over other causes].
p189: Given that many communities around the world, especially in poor countries, lack a basic resilience in the face of climate extremes, there is much work to be done to improve adaptive capacities. Such policies make sense independent of human-caused climate change, but they will also make these communities more robust in the face of human-caused climate change. Adaptation involves the fuller realization of objectives for human dignity, including security, well-being, and prosperity.
p206: Science is particularly ill-suited to resolving political disputes... Advocates for this or that action will always be able to selectively pick and choose among findings to support whatever course of action they prefer.
p209: An irony here is that [fighting political battles under the guise of climate science] were always doomed to fail, as waging a political battle through science confers a significant advantage to those who are presented as being outside the scientific mainstream. David and Goliath are held to different standards, no matter which is supposed to be the good guy.
p212: Fixing climate science will require a more sophisticated approach to the relationship of experts and decision makers than the simple idea that scientists call for an action and policy makers respond.
p215: Even in the superficially simple example of a doctor, a parent, and a child [in deciding the correct course of action given knowledge, experience, and observations], it's clear that the issues are complicated. [climate about 100000x more complicated]
p218: Cap-and-trade regime for extending life expectancies compared to cap-and-trade for carbon dioxide emissions. In much the same way that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a consequence of our actions, average human life spans are a consequence of our actions, and consequences are extremely difficult to modulate directly via policy.
p227: The uncomfortable reality is that the more technologies deemed politically unacceptable, the greater the challenge of accelerating decarbonization, the longer we'll depend upon fossil fuels, and the longer more than a billion people will lack access to basic energy.
p230: If there is a single variable that will serve as a measure of progress toward emissions reduction or carbon intensity goals, it will be the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-neutral (or even negative) sources. In recent years that value has been well under 10 percent of total global consumption. To achieve stabilization at low levels, that proportion will eventually have to exceed 90 percent.
p231: An important and perhaps uncomfortable aspect of the approach recommended here is that it leaves much uncertain: we do not know, exactly, how we are going to achieve the long-term goals of providing energy access, security, and low cost that, if achieved, will also drive accelerated decarbonization of the global economy. This uncertainty is inescapable, but not crippling... Rather, we proceed incrementally on many parallel paths while learning from, and adjusting to, experience.
p237: A focus on decarbonization... rather than danger would elevate the importance of technological innovation in carbon policy and de-emphasize the role of science, particularly long-term climate predictions. This would help to depoliticize climate science, as it would no longer serve as the fulcrum on which action is to be judged, and enable a healthier relationship of science and policy across the spectrum of issues related to a human influence on climate.
October 3, 2018
Roger Pielke is a first rate scientist who is on all the right panels on Climate Change issues and yet is profoundly skeptical of both current trends in our response on climate change. He starts with an Iron Law of Climate issues where he postulates that in a tradeoff between climate policy and economic growth - economic growth will win. Even is that were not true - there are substantial reasons why the current trend of cap and trade is wrong headed. Use of energy around the world is uneven - a billion and a half people in the world lack adequate energy supply or availability, generalized policies like the Kyoto protocol ignore those differences.
One of the most interesting chapters in the book for me was the one on disasters. Insurance data shows that the cost of disasters around the world is increasing. Pielke suggests that the common explanation of climate change is simply wrong. More probable is a series of more human factors. He shows a picture of the coastline in Florida when Miami Beach was first constructed - with only a few buildings compared to today - the greater number of buildings obviously increases the insurance risks primarily because of the buildings not changes in weather.
In the last couple of chapters he argues that the relationship of scientists to politicians is a complex one which has not served either side in recent years. Scientists deal in nuance and politicians, to the extent they can deal in certainties. As Bjorn Lomborg pointed out over a decade ago, just because one disagrees with the proposed implementations of policy does not mean the person is a denier of a very real problem.
In the end he advocates a $5 per ton tax at extraction of carbon based sources which would be dedicated to funding innovation projects - our future must rely on improving efficiency and decarbonizing the economy. There are lots of opportunities for research and innovation in both areas.
Pielke argues that the problems described in the book are real - he is appropriately not sure of when a tipping point will be achieved but he is clear that we must respond more effectively. But he also cautions on a couple of canards of conventional wisdom - first, we do not use too much energy and if we are to help a good portion of the world develop we will need even more energy. Second he argues that fossil fuels are not too cheap.
The book is refreshing in part because of his use of data and in part because he recognizes that the roles between science and politics are at best imperfect. If you are tired of the Kabuki of Climate Debates this might be a very good place to begin to think rationally about the challenges we face.
One of the most interesting chapters in the book for me was the one on disasters. Insurance data shows that the cost of disasters around the world is increasing. Pielke suggests that the common explanation of climate change is simply wrong. More probable is a series of more human factors. He shows a picture of the coastline in Florida when Miami Beach was first constructed - with only a few buildings compared to today - the greater number of buildings obviously increases the insurance risks primarily because of the buildings not changes in weather.
In the last couple of chapters he argues that the relationship of scientists to politicians is a complex one which has not served either side in recent years. Scientists deal in nuance and politicians, to the extent they can deal in certainties. As Bjorn Lomborg pointed out over a decade ago, just because one disagrees with the proposed implementations of policy does not mean the person is a denier of a very real problem.
In the end he advocates a $5 per ton tax at extraction of carbon based sources which would be dedicated to funding innovation projects - our future must rely on improving efficiency and decarbonizing the economy. There are lots of opportunities for research and innovation in both areas.
Pielke argues that the problems described in the book are real - he is appropriately not sure of when a tipping point will be achieved but he is clear that we must respond more effectively. But he also cautions on a couple of canards of conventional wisdom - first, we do not use too much energy and if we are to help a good portion of the world develop we will need even more energy. Second he argues that fossil fuels are not too cheap.
The book is refreshing in part because of his use of data and in part because he recognizes that the roles between science and politics are at best imperfect. If you are tired of the Kabuki of Climate Debates this might be a very good place to begin to think rationally about the challenges we face.
April 24, 2012
The Climate Fix is the single best book I've read on climate change. Pielke accepts that humans contribute to climate change but believes that efforts to make people pay much more for energy or reduce energy use will fail. The 20 years of failure of global climate change talks shows that Pielke is correct.
Pielke is also an expert on science policy and looks at how scientists can be 'honest brokers' or issue advocates. He points out that climate change scientists are issue advocates.
His proscription is for increased spending on energy R&D that should have a good payoff in future is wise.
The book is a good length, it goes into detail but doesn't go too long and Pielke writes clearly and well. This book is worth reading regardless of your opinions about climate change.
Pielke is also an expert on science policy and looks at how scientists can be 'honest brokers' or issue advocates. He points out that climate change scientists are issue advocates.
His proscription is for increased spending on energy R&D that should have a good payoff in future is wise.
The book is a good length, it goes into detail but doesn't go too long and Pielke writes clearly and well. This book is worth reading regardless of your opinions about climate change.
September 18, 2022
This was an excellent book written by a very reputable climate scientist. It was easy to understand and provided great illustrations of the enormity of challenge.
The best chapter was titled, Decarbonization of the Global Economy, where the use of energy in the US was boiled down to numbers. Where 1 Quad is shorthand for 1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu). Where a Btu refers to the amount of energy required to elevate the temp of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. The US uses 100 Qauds of energy annually. One Quad in turn is the equivalent of about 11 gigawatts (GW) of electricity. Where 11 GW is the amount of electricity provided by about 15 typical power plants, each generating about 750 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The author then extrapolates Quads into global current day and future electricity usage. For example, in order to produce electricity demands in 2030, an estimated 3,700 new power plants would have to be added globally. Wow. That’s big.
In the next chapter, Decarbonization Policies Around the World, the author provided examples of policies and their impact on electricity usage. Citing France as the most carbon-efficient economy due to its reliance on nuclear. He also discusses the magnitude of the challenge in replacing fossil fuels with green energy using numbers. They are enormous and worth reading aver again.
He discusses technology fixes and alternative solutions, how climate policy went off course, myths relating to disasters, death and destruction from climate change, the politicization of climate science and his own policy suggestions for tackling the challenge. His policy suggestions were very interesting and deserve closer attention by the global community.
Finally, he discussed adaptation and the importance of this aspect of the climate debate. He acknowledges that the climate change advocacy community is making a mistake by only focusing on mitigation and not adaptation as well.
The best chapter was titled, Decarbonization of the Global Economy, where the use of energy in the US was boiled down to numbers. Where 1 Quad is shorthand for 1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu). Where a Btu refers to the amount of energy required to elevate the temp of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. The US uses 100 Qauds of energy annually. One Quad in turn is the equivalent of about 11 gigawatts (GW) of electricity. Where 11 GW is the amount of electricity provided by about 15 typical power plants, each generating about 750 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The author then extrapolates Quads into global current day and future electricity usage. For example, in order to produce electricity demands in 2030, an estimated 3,700 new power plants would have to be added globally. Wow. That’s big.
In the next chapter, Decarbonization Policies Around the World, the author provided examples of policies and their impact on electricity usage. Citing France as the most carbon-efficient economy due to its reliance on nuclear. He also discusses the magnitude of the challenge in replacing fossil fuels with green energy using numbers. They are enormous and worth reading aver again.
He discusses technology fixes and alternative solutions, how climate policy went off course, myths relating to disasters, death and destruction from climate change, the politicization of climate science and his own policy suggestions for tackling the challenge. His policy suggestions were very interesting and deserve closer attention by the global community.
Finally, he discussed adaptation and the importance of this aspect of the climate debate. He acknowledges that the climate change advocacy community is making a mistake by only focusing on mitigation and not adaptation as well.
March 26, 2015
"The goal of politics is not to get everyone to think alike, but rather, to get people who think differently to act alike." --Walter Lippmann
Short-term costs must be commensurate with short-term benefits.
Telling countries to cut back doesn't sell. Expanding access to diverse sources of cheap, renewable energy is attractive. Doesn't put development at odds with environment.
Climate policies should focus on diversification and cost of energy, not "climate". Focus on efficiency and low-carbon energy sources.
Carbon scrubbers won't stop strip mining and oil spills.
We can only hope to stabilize CO2 levels by developing a massive expansion of carbon-free energy supply.
Low carbon tax to raise revenue for investments in innovation.
Short-term costs must be commensurate with short-term benefits.
Telling countries to cut back doesn't sell. Expanding access to diverse sources of cheap, renewable energy is attractive. Doesn't put development at odds with environment.
Climate policies should focus on diversification and cost of energy, not "climate". Focus on efficiency and low-carbon energy sources.
Carbon scrubbers won't stop strip mining and oil spills.
We can only hope to stabilize CO2 levels by developing a massive expansion of carbon-free energy supply.
Low carbon tax to raise revenue for investments in innovation.
October 14, 2023
Ignorance is bliss! It’s indeed. I was in bliss till I read this book. The book Climate Fix is about Climate Change policies and why they have failed to deliver what was required from them. The author Roger Pielke, Jr. enumerates various reasons as to why they failed and what should be fixed in order to keep them working. He stresses that we should learn from ozone depletion and acid rain success. He says that the policy makers should proceed in climate change policies incrementally to reduce the scope of the problem rather than taking the bull by the horns. Thus, “making politics easier while addressing the problem bit by bit”.
The author did some calculations etc. to show that we do not have all the technology that we need to fix climate change and therefore, technological innovations must be a central strategy for the decarbonization of the economy. He makes use of the equation of Kaya identity to make his point and emphasizes that we can play around with the carbon intensity and energy intensity to curb the carbon emissions and for that technological advances are required.
He cites in different chapters of the book the NDCs pledged by various countries such as the UK, Japan, USA, Australia, China, India, and Europe to reduce their carbon emissions. Some of them were too ambitious and aggressive given the then scenario when the book was written as was the case with Japan. He delves into different aspect of politics and appeasing the electoral constituents by the politicians, who he thinks (and is correct to some extent) are faced with a dilemma of making harsh policies that may cause discomfort to the public at large or going easy on the issue of climate change. He gives an example of putting high prices on carbon (through tac or cap and trade), which may result in cause economic pain for the energy consumers.
Roger Pielke, Jr. says that the policies should be made with incremental goals in sight and the failures should be terminated while scaling the policy up as successes are evaluated. He rightfully states that climate system is enormously complex, and oversimplification may result in unwanted results, for example in case of geoengineering that he does not endorse. The author gave some insights on the definitions adopted by the IPCC and UNFCCC for Climate Change and their limitations along with the Climategate of 2009. Then there are certain topics such as the economic losses caused by hurricanes, cyclones etc. that he rakes up in the book.
In the last chapter he suggests certain fixes to climate change problem such as improving the energy efficiency of the economy, which he says has improved largely, but is still required in the areas such as steel making, automobile mileage. Meeting massive demand for energy through cheap sources which entails technological innovations for that he endorses carbon tax to raise the revenue for innovation in alternatives to the fossil fuels and has praised the Indian government in doing so. He further emphasized that the policies made should be regularly monitored and adjusted based on the performance.
The book overall is a nice read and has provided a different perspective to look the at Climate Change conundrum. However, I do not concur with everything that the author has said in the book, nevertheless it’s a stimulating read. I give it three stars!
The author did some calculations etc. to show that we do not have all the technology that we need to fix climate change and therefore, technological innovations must be a central strategy for the decarbonization of the economy. He makes use of the equation of Kaya identity to make his point and emphasizes that we can play around with the carbon intensity and energy intensity to curb the carbon emissions and for that technological advances are required.
He cites in different chapters of the book the NDCs pledged by various countries such as the UK, Japan, USA, Australia, China, India, and Europe to reduce their carbon emissions. Some of them were too ambitious and aggressive given the then scenario when the book was written as was the case with Japan. He delves into different aspect of politics and appeasing the electoral constituents by the politicians, who he thinks (and is correct to some extent) are faced with a dilemma of making harsh policies that may cause discomfort to the public at large or going easy on the issue of climate change. He gives an example of putting high prices on carbon (through tac or cap and trade), which may result in cause economic pain for the energy consumers.
Roger Pielke, Jr. says that the policies should be made with incremental goals in sight and the failures should be terminated while scaling the policy up as successes are evaluated. He rightfully states that climate system is enormously complex, and oversimplification may result in unwanted results, for example in case of geoengineering that he does not endorse. The author gave some insights on the definitions adopted by the IPCC and UNFCCC for Climate Change and their limitations along with the Climategate of 2009. Then there are certain topics such as the economic losses caused by hurricanes, cyclones etc. that he rakes up in the book.
In the last chapter he suggests certain fixes to climate change problem such as improving the energy efficiency of the economy, which he says has improved largely, but is still required in the areas such as steel making, automobile mileage. Meeting massive demand for energy through cheap sources which entails technological innovations for that he endorses carbon tax to raise the revenue for innovation in alternatives to the fossil fuels and has praised the Indian government in doing so. He further emphasized that the policies made should be regularly monitored and adjusted based on the performance.
The book overall is a nice read and has provided a different perspective to look the at Climate Change conundrum. However, I do not concur with everything that the author has said in the book, nevertheless it’s a stimulating read. I give it three stars!
February 8, 2021
The Climate Fix is perhaps the only book strictly about climate policy that I’ve read. Although I enjoyed it, I figured I’d hedge this review by mentioning that I have little else to compare it to and that my general focus and interest in climate change has less to do with policy than with influencing public perception (which then, ostensibly, leads to legislative change). Regardless, Pielke did an excellent job at tackling some of the political challenges in implementing climate policy and ultimately formulated some possible future actions. Despite the book being published in 2010 (which can classify it as outdated by some metrics), Pielke focuses on broader approaches to addressing these problems and I found his observations to be as relevant as ever. He emphasizes how the iron law of climate policy—that when “environmental and economic objectives are placed into opposition with one another in public or political forums, it is the economic goals that win out”—must be considered in shaping any effective legislation. Pielke expertly deconstructs popular arguments for methods of decarbonizing the economy, describes why they won’t work, and then uses these reasons to build stronger recommendations. His logic and mastery of these topics is evident, refreshing, and made me completely reconsider some of my thoughts on climate policy.
“However, one perhaps counterintuitive consequence of increasing research, at least in the short term, is that bringing in more perspectives, more methods, and more scientists can easily lead to more uncertainties. This situation would seem to call out loudly for robust, no-regrets-type decision making in the face of irreducible uncertainties and ignorance; in fact… demands for certainty in climate science have contributed not to finding a solution but to the problematic politicization of climate science.”
“However, one perhaps counterintuitive consequence of increasing research, at least in the short term, is that bringing in more perspectives, more methods, and more scientists can easily lead to more uncertainties. This situation would seem to call out loudly for robust, no-regrets-type decision making in the face of irreducible uncertainties and ignorance; in fact… demands for certainty in climate science have contributed not to finding a solution but to the problematic politicization of climate science.”
December 21, 2022
I may have come late to ‘The Climate Fix’ that was published in 2010, but have found it profoundly relevant to the current discourse on climate change. Over the last year I have become increasingly worried about the level of alarm from climate activists and sense of fear that the younger generation are living under. Both of which are not fully supported by climate science.
I am also concerned about the lack of access to affordable energy (of whatever form) for the worlds poorest, and wonder if current policies are capable of both decarbonising economies, allow developing economies to thrive, and keeping the lights on.
Roger Pielke Jr. provides an insightful analysis of how we have come to where we are, why climate science has become so politicised, and provides a way forward away from fruitless arguments about climate targets, to focus on need for funding for the massive increase in decarbonised energy supply and increased efficiency in energy demand, that is required.
If like me you have become disillusioned by, and see current climate activist antics as becoming counterproductive, you may well enjoy this read.
I am also concerned about the lack of access to affordable energy (of whatever form) for the worlds poorest, and wonder if current policies are capable of both decarbonising economies, allow developing economies to thrive, and keeping the lights on.
Roger Pielke Jr. provides an insightful analysis of how we have come to where we are, why climate science has become so politicised, and provides a way forward away from fruitless arguments about climate targets, to focus on need for funding for the massive increase in decarbonised energy supply and increased efficiency in energy demand, that is required.
If like me you have become disillusioned by, and see current climate activist antics as becoming counterproductive, you may well enjoy this read.
May 12, 2020
Not a climate denier.
Good overview of the politicization of climate science. Introduction policy options that would help supply power for those in energy poverty as well as lower C02.
Good overview of the politicization of climate science. Introduction policy options that would help supply power for those in energy poverty as well as lower C02.
September 23, 2022
Interesting but some perspectives were outdated and the author seemed to sit on a very high horse.
July 17, 2014
Så sandelig en interessant bog om klimadebatten. Roger Pielke Jr. gjorde allerede opmærksom på sig selv, da han for nogle år siden udgav bogen 'The Honest Broker', der beskæftiger sig med den rolle videnskaben og videnskabsmænd har og bør have i samfundsdebatten. Med sin nye bog går han skridtet videre, og prøver at forstå, hvad klimadebatten i virkeligheden går ud på, og hvor det er gået galt.
I let forståeligt engelsk og med overskud forklarer Pielke Jr. hvordan man kan få kommunikationen mellem videnskaben og politikken på rette køl igen. Han mener ligesom næsten alle andre, at udledningen af drivhusgasser som CO2 er godt i gang med at øge klodens temperatur og dermed vil skabe store omvæltninger for vores civilisation, hvis ikke der gøres noget for at afcarbonisere økonomien.
Bogen sande værdi består dog i at afdække det tåbelige teater, som er blevet iscenesat via IPCC, politikere, forskere, interessegrupper og offentligheden. I stedet for at diskutere løsninger, tilskriver man hinanden dunkle motiver. Ifølge Pielke Jr. er hele det show en over-politiseret, teknologisk ignorant og økonomisk urealistisk, ja, absurd farce, som er dømt til at mislykkes.
Central i hans kritik er artikel to i FNs Klimakonvention: ”at drivhusgasserne i atmosfæren skal stabiliseres til et niveau, der forebygger farlige ændringer i klimasystemet”, der stiller forskerne foran umulige krav, nemlig at definere, hvad der er farligt? For hvem? Hvornår noget er farligt, dvs. på hvilket niveau? Hvad der kan anses som stabilt? Og inden for hvilken tidsramme?
Pielke Jr. kalder det ’klimapolitikkens jernlov’ at ingen mennesker og ingen stater i verden nogensinde vil opgive deres ønske om økonomisk vækst bare for at få et mere stabilt klima. Derfor er hele IPCC-processen en blindgyde, mener han. I stedet må starte med en ordentlig skat på ca. ti dollar per ton CO2, som skal bruges til at appellere til de positive sider i mennesket: at udvikle nye ideer og støtte op om ny teknologi, som kan afcarbonisere økonomien, vel at mærke uden at skulle give køb på vækst. Som forebillede peger Pielke på Montreal-protokollen, der fik reduceret ozon, og især på CIGAR – gruppen der står bag den grønne revolution i midten af det forrige århundrede.
Det er en interessant bog, og god at blive klog på. Måske endda god til at begynde at se ting i et nyt perspektiv.
I let forståeligt engelsk og med overskud forklarer Pielke Jr. hvordan man kan få kommunikationen mellem videnskaben og politikken på rette køl igen. Han mener ligesom næsten alle andre, at udledningen af drivhusgasser som CO2 er godt i gang med at øge klodens temperatur og dermed vil skabe store omvæltninger for vores civilisation, hvis ikke der gøres noget for at afcarbonisere økonomien.
Bogen sande værdi består dog i at afdække det tåbelige teater, som er blevet iscenesat via IPCC, politikere, forskere, interessegrupper og offentligheden. I stedet for at diskutere løsninger, tilskriver man hinanden dunkle motiver. Ifølge Pielke Jr. er hele det show en over-politiseret, teknologisk ignorant og økonomisk urealistisk, ja, absurd farce, som er dømt til at mislykkes.
Central i hans kritik er artikel to i FNs Klimakonvention: ”at drivhusgasserne i atmosfæren skal stabiliseres til et niveau, der forebygger farlige ændringer i klimasystemet”, der stiller forskerne foran umulige krav, nemlig at definere, hvad der er farligt? For hvem? Hvornår noget er farligt, dvs. på hvilket niveau? Hvad der kan anses som stabilt? Og inden for hvilken tidsramme?
Pielke Jr. kalder det ’klimapolitikkens jernlov’ at ingen mennesker og ingen stater i verden nogensinde vil opgive deres ønske om økonomisk vækst bare for at få et mere stabilt klima. Derfor er hele IPCC-processen en blindgyde, mener han. I stedet må starte med en ordentlig skat på ca. ti dollar per ton CO2, som skal bruges til at appellere til de positive sider i mennesket: at udvikle nye ideer og støtte op om ny teknologi, som kan afcarbonisere økonomien, vel at mærke uden at skulle give køb på vækst. Som forebillede peger Pielke på Montreal-protokollen, der fik reduceret ozon, og især på CIGAR – gruppen der står bag den grønne revolution i midten af det forrige århundrede.
Det er en interessant bog, og god at blive klog på. Måske endda god til at begynde at se ting i et nyt perspektiv.
January 22, 2012
The Climate Fix is a fantastic moderate look at climate science and the politics of global warming. It does a good job of calling out the problems with today's approach to climate policy and sheds some light on common misconceptions on the real issues of global warming. I would highly recommend anyone who wants to increase their understanding of global warming without getting caught in the morass of political biases that enshroud the issue.
October 13, 2011
Roger Pielke (although a believer in decarbinization of environment) points out flaws in commonly held beliefs about "global warming". The best chapters were those on "Disasters, Death, and Destruction" and "The Politicization of Climate Science". It provides a better read then most "doom and gloom" climate change studys that abound these days.
Read
July 8, 2011The Climate Fix by Roger Pielke Jr. Nonfiction/environment/political. 238 pages
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews