Steven Hayward on Greenland

Steven Hayward on Greenland

Steven Hayward on Greenland:

Citing the Economist, Hayward notes that yes, Greenland is losing more than 200 cubic kilometers of ice (0.007% of its total volume) a year, three times past estimates.

Wait—hold on a minute: Greenland is losing only 0.007 percent of its ice per year right now? That’s what we’re supposed to be panicking about? At this rate, it will take 7,000 years for Greenland to lose half of its ice mass. Even if the rate more than doubles, it will still take around 3,000 years. Trump better lower his bid for Greenland.

H-T Myron Ebell

Where the Media Go Wrong on Climate Change

Where the Media Go Wrong on Climate Change

Roy Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He recently discussed misinformation in the media.

On Amazon fires:

The rainforest itself does not burn in response to global warming, and in fact warming in the tropics has been so slow that it is unlikely that any tropical resident would perceive it in their lifetime. This is not a climate change issue; it’s a farming and land use issue.

On Greenland melting . . .

Is Recycling Useful or Just Garbage?

Is Recycling Useful or Just Garbage?

From Michael Munger’s paper for AIER.

Should we recycle aluminum cans? Probably, because the price of recycling aluminum compares very favorably to using virgin materials, the mining and smelting of which are expensive in terms of energy and harmful to the environment.

Should we recycle toilet paper? We could, at some price. But it’s likely not worth it, because it can be composted, it would be awfully hard to clean and sort, and in any case paper products are actually a renewable resource, rather like wheat. You rarely hear someone saying, “Save the wheat! Give up bread!”

 

New Rules on Endangered Species: Did the NYT Get it Wrong?

New Rules on Endangered Species: Did the NYT Get it Wrong?

New York Times: Trump Administration Weakens Protections for Endangered Species.”

The new rules would make it easier to remove a species from the endangered list and weaken protections for threatened species, the classification one step below endangered. And, for the first time, regulators would be allowed to conduct economic assessments — for instance, estimating lost revenue from a prohibition on logging in a critical habitat — when deciding whether a species warrants protection.

No, according to PERC; “The New Endangered Species Act Rules Explained.”

This rule-change does not allow economic impacts to affect whether a species is listed as endangered or threatened. Indeed, the rule explicitly “acknowledge[s] that the statute and its legislative history are clear that listing determinations must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” according to five statutory factors. Thus, the rule gives the agency no authority to decline to list a species based on the economic impacts of such decision. If the agency attempted to do so, it would violate the statute and the rule.