This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
All,
I’m not too familiar with the Redcar steel works either but I’d be surprised if the reason for its closure was much, if anything, to do with carbon credits. Although it is right to suggest that the problem of CO2 emissions can’t be solved by shifting them from one country to another.
Max,
So the Tea Party isn’t a right wing grouping? It they aren’t then who would you say were? You think there is collusion between industry and Government? Well, yes there is, and it is called the Military Industrial Complex. Its not just in the US either – all countries have one- and the amount of money involved is just slightly bigger than anything to do with AGW mitigation!
Are you including that in your drive for minimum government too?
Alex Cull
Regarding your 2347 to Brute. You state that a “grass roots” movement such as the US tea party (admittedly tuned to specific European rather than American needs) “could be something we need to observe and learn from”.
I agree with you, Alex, and believe that the time is ripe for similar movements to the “tea party” in the USA to sprout up in Europe. And I firmly believe that it is going to happen soon.
In Switzerland we hear from our neighbors in Germany, France, Italy and Austria that they feel that their governments no longer represent them.
Tiny Switzerland has a direct democracy (admittedly, it’s far from perfect), which lets its citizens vote on key issues, while our immediate neighbors do not enjoy this.
Our government here has tried to convince the citizens that joining the EU would be a good thing, but this proposal has always been soundly rejected by the popular referendum.
There is a certain aversion here to being controlled by a far-away, non-elected “Big Brother” super-government, which bears no direct accountability to the citizens. This may have historic roots here but, at any rate, it is felt strongly by a majority of Swiss, even though our government itself plus many industrialists here would like to see Switzerland join the EU for one reason or another.
[Maybe this same “aversion” is in the DNA of many Americans – those who are forming the “tea party” movement today.]
Almost as a joke (?) a Swiss parliamentarian (from the newest Canton of Jura, of all places!) suggested that, instead of contemplating joining the EU, Switzerland should allow neighboring provinces, départements and Bundesländer to decide, based on popular plebiscites, whether or not they wanted to join Switzerland. The Swiss parliament discussed this and concluded that there was nothing basically unconstitutional in this proposal.
Polls in several of these neighboring regions (in Italy, France, Germany and Austria) showed that a fairly strong majority of the populations in these regions would welcome joining Switzerland. This included Baden-Württemberg, Franche-Comté, Vorarlberg, Lombardia, Piemonte, Aosta and Savoie. Only the Alsace (which has been bounced back and forth between Germany and France several times over the centuries) was more hesitant to such a change, albeit with a roughly 50-50 vote.
The primary reason cited for this poll result was that these people felt that they had nothing to say about their how their countries were being governed, and that these decisions were being made far away in Paris, Berlin, Vienna or Rome without their input.
It’s obviously not going to happen, Alex, but there is a lesson to be learned here (which, unfortunately, will probably not be understood by the governing elite in these countries, and even less by the EU leadership, one step even further removed from the people).
That lesson is that it is the citizens who should decide how their countries should be governed, not the governing officials themselves. And it is the citizens who should decide what is best for them, not their governments.
I know that Monckton has “preached” against letting non-elected bureaucrats and politicians in a “central government” take over the power, whether in the EU or in a “world government”. He likens this to international “communism”.
Monckton may sound like a “crackpot” to some, but to me (and to a large segment of the population, apparently) his basic message makes good sense.
And, as the “tea party” movement in the USA is showing, I believe that this will be the direction of the future, rather than “internationalism”, which is being promoted by the political “elite” today.
This will eventually spell the death of EU-wide (or even globally enforced) direct or indirect taxation on CO2 in order to “save the planet” from ourselves, with non-elected bureaucrats and politicians in charge of deciding who should pay how much and how the trillions of dollars paid in should be shuffled around.
I may be wrong, but I predict another Copenhagen disaster at Cancun (even if it may be “sold” to the world as a great success despite the fact that no binding global decisions were reached).
But let’s see what happens.
Max
PeterM
You wrote (2351):
You’re behind the times, Peter. As Lomborg has pointed out, the “military-industrial complex” of the 1950s to 1980s has been replaced by an equally insidious “climate-industrial complex” today.
Almost the same folks involved (big government, big industry), with the same guy (John Q. Public) picking up the tab.
This time the “imminent threat” is not a thermonuclear attack by the Soviets, it is a brand new imaginary hobgoblin called “AGW”.
Yawn!
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”.
Max
The Tea Party might still have some way to go to win over the French
“For the last three years I have been based in the US. And the only protests I have covered, the only ones vocal enough to have been worth reporting on, have been angry mobs demanding the government stop spending and get out of their lives. Now, just one week into my new role as Europe correspondent, I am faced with angry mobs demanding the exact opposite – an end to government cut backs and a promise that the state will continue to provide for them.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9118869.stm
Max,
When “defence” companies like Lockheed Martin, BAe systems, Northrop, Raytheon, General Dynamics switch the focus of their activities to low CO2 energy generation then you might have a point.
These companies know where the money is and it isn’t in climate action!
Brute,
You asked me if I was in favour of starting wars to stimulate the economy. You should probably ask George Bush that question. He does at least seem to agree with me that Keynsian economics can be effective but of course his brand might be considered to Military Keynesianism.
‘The best way to revitalize the economy is war’ George Bush
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/05/argentinas-president-bush-claimed-the-revitalize-economy-war/
PeterM
To the replacement of the “military-industrial complex” with the new “climate-industrial complex” you opined:
Peter, you need to get up-to-date.
Here are some of the big corporations that stand to gain “big bucks” from the AGW scare:
GE (wind turbines) plus its subsidiary, Greenhouse Gas Services (GH gas credits), in addition to Shell, BP, Conoco Phillips, Ford, Chrysler, NRG Energy, Exelon, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, DuPont, etc.
Wake up, Peter! It’s a new world and the “big bucks” are in cashing in on the AGW scare (while it lasts).
Max
Max (#2352), very interesting re the polls in Switzerland’s neighbouring regions, I hadn’t heard of that, but as you say there is a lesson there. I think many areas of the UK would love to have a home-grown version of Swiss direct democracy, although it would probably mean that we wouldn’t be a United Kingdom for much longer! And we are not as organised as the Swiss, so it would be messier and somewhat chaotic.
Re Cancun, I think it likely that you are correct. With just a few weeks to go, it looks like it will be something of a non-event; very little news coverage and nothing of the hype that accompanied Copenhagen. And yes, I’m sure some sort of “progress” will be announced at the end of it.
TonyB, Peter M, the Redcar story has a recent twist to it, as according to these articles in the Guardian, it is looking likely that the steel plant will be sold to SSI, Thailand’s biggest steel producer. From one of the articles: “Corus will need approval to transfer operating licences and the carbon permits allocated to the TCP plant to the new owner.”
Earlier in the year, there was some speculation that Corus would keep the Redcar plant mothballed specifically so that they could trade the carbon credits (and thus make it less attractive to potential buyers, who would need to acquire more credits if they wanted to produce steel at Redcar, something Corus denied (see this article from January.)
I noticed this on the Tory Aardvark blog: “Aardvark has it on very good authority that Tata have been more than a little sensitive about this story and are rumoured to have threatened legal action against at least one National Daily and several bloggers, which probably means that people are getting too close to the truth.”
That’s interesting, because John Redwood blogged about Redcar (a copy is preserved here) in February. He didn’t mention carbon credits, but several commentators soon brought up the subject, and for some reason (it has to be said, maybe unconnected with Tata and legal threats, who knows?) the original blog and comments were then deleted.
Now, I’m not too familiar with the finer details of carbon trading, so my understanding might be faulty, but here goes.. The Redcar plant is attractive to SSI, in part presumably because there is now a surplus of carbon credits, i.e., the new owners will be able to start producing steel there without having to pay for more credits. However, will it not be the case that they will “spend” or otherwise use up their credits, after some years (?) of steel production, in which case they will have an incentive to shut the plant down again? Hopefully someone less ignorant than me will explain how this works…
Will read any replies in the morning, as it’s now past midnight here..
Alex Cull
You mention that a “direct democracy” approach in the UK might lead to a breakdown of the UK.
Is that really so?
It appears to be the case in Belgium, an artificial multilingual, multicultural construct with no real national history or identity.
Switzerland is even more diverse linguistically and culturally, but it grew naturally and there is a strong historical national identity here.
Isn’t there a lot of “national” history that has united Scots, Englishmen, Welshman (and even, to a lesser extent, northern Irelanders)? After all, (unlike the Swiss) they all speak the same language.
I don’t know much about this, but aren’t the various local nationalist groups really minority movements that simply object to too much central power (a problem that could be solved with more decentralized direct democracy at a local level rather than a complete breakdown of the union)?
Max
Max,
This chart shows the US Federal Budget for 2009:
According to my arithmetic 23% of $3.518 trillion is $809 billion
By comparison the total US Federal Budget for all science is $6.8 billion. According to this Nature article, $370 million has been requested for climate science research for 2001
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2010/100225/full/nj7284-1108a.html
So if the CIC really does exist they have a budget of just 0.046% of the MIC.
I think it will be a while yet before Lockheed get too interested in PV cell technology!
George who?
PeterM
Lining up at the AGW-trough:
Lockheed – not yet (maybe).
GE – definitely, yes.
Face it, AGW is “big business” worldwide.
Wiki tells us that the U.S. defense budget is $660 billion. This represents 43% of the world defense spending of $1.5 trillion per year.
Cutting global CO2 emissions in half by 2050 is estimated to cost $46 trillion.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/08/study-cutting-global-co2-emissions-in-half-by-2050-will-cost-4/
So the total amount of money to be spent (or to be earned) is in the same order-of-magnitude, “according to my arithmetic”.
We are talking a multi-trillion dollar big business here, Peter.
That’s what’s driving all the “hysteria”.
Greed and power.
Max
You were previously saying that the the Military Industrial Complex “has been replaced” but now you’re saying that you really mean over the next 50 years?
PeterM
When will the global expenditure curves for “defense” and “cutting CO2” cross (if we rush headlong into “mitigation madness” as the article I cited projected)?
In 2020?
In 2030?
Who knows?
Who cares?
Max
PS I personally conclude that the AGW hysteria will subside as everyone (including the politicians) “get the word” that it is not based on sound science and, as a result, we will not rush headlong into “mitigation madness”.
Max, re your #2359, I was probably exaggerating a little, as there are indeed very strong cultural and economic ties between the nations of the UK, enough to make an actual breakup very unlikely, in the near future at least. But direct democracy does make for some quite unusual and quirky results, e.g., the minaret ban in Switzerland last year (or lawyers-for-animals if that move had had more support) so I suppose it’s difficult to rule these things out entirely. One contentious issue, potentially, is the revenue from North Sea oil and gas fields – many of those pushing for Scottish independence, for example, see most of this revenue as being Scotland’s, by right.
Max
Thought you would be interested in this as being useful if you can ever again engage Peter in meaningful discussion on the science. I can’t verify if the reader is who he says he is (others say he is indeed an iPCC expert reviewer)
You know my thoughts on the sheer uselessness of much of the information that is used to support IPCC science, whether it is global temperatures, SST’s, sea levels or arctic ice.
” The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure
It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational aveage can be derived.
Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two
The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.
Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.
No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.
It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting sny future climate behsviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.
There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric csrbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.
After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud.”
tonyb
Alex Cull
Yes. The “minaret ban” was seen (outside Switzerland) as an expression of “religious intolerance” or even worse. The French “burka ban” is seen pretty much in the same light (although it was not determined by public vote, and the French say it is actually a move to stop discrimination against Muslim women).
But the “minaret ban” was actually something quite different in the eyes of most Swiss.
Mosques (where Muslims can worship) are tolerated all over Switzerland, so there is no problem of “religious intolerance”.
But the erection of a “minaret” is seen as a mark of Islamic conquest. The Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, is quoted as having said, “minarets are our bayonets”. In addition, most people do not mind the church bells ringing twice daily, but simply do not want to be disturbed by the five daily calls to prayer.
And finally, those who are complaining the loudest are leaders of Muslim countries, where Christian churches are not even allowed, let along church towers.
Switzerland did not colonialize Muslim countries (as did Great Britain), so did not inherit a large Islamic population. If people of the Islamic faith want to come to live in Switzerland, this is fine. They will be free to establish mosques here and worship in them. But the Swiss people do not feel that these people need to build minarets here, and they have decided this democratically by a rather large majority. So I would not consider this vote “a quite unusual and quirky result”, just the democratic decision of the Swiss people.
BTW, I cannot speak for the UK, but I am fairly sure that if Germany or France had a direct democracy, where such issues could be decided by the public, the vote would come out pretty much the same.
Max
I suppose the editors at Scientific American are right wing religious fanatics as Pete asserts………
Breakthrough at Scientific American
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/breakthrough-at-scientific-american/#more-26895
Brute,
Its good of course if you read the Scientific American. Fair enough, listen to what people have to say but I suspect that you’re only quoting this because you think its what you want to hear. But is it? In the past Judith Curry has also said, and still says that she stands by all this:
“Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You certainly don’t make any pretence of understanding the science, and you certainly are of the opinion that its all a politically inspired scam. So I’m just wondering why you are bothered about what the Scientific American have to say anyway? As far as you are concerned, what has science got to do with it all?
Peter #2369
I correspond frequently with Dr Curry. I would point out the article you linked to is three years old and she has since started to become much more questioning. It would do you good to do the same and might help Max to move the debate back on to the science.
Dr Curry actually READS the material she is presented with-science has moved on since AR4. Why don’t you visit her new blog?
Tonyb
TonyB
You are truly wasting your breath (or written words) when you ask PeterM:
PeterM does not want to discuss the “science” (as my futile attempts to get him to do on this thread have demonstrated).
He does not even want to learn about the science, if there is the danger that his preconceived notions will be challenged or even falsified. New post-AR4 discoveries and observations are of no interest to him, unless they add credence to his personal belief on “dangerous AGW”.
So, instead, he posts silly sentences like this recent one to Brute:
Duh!
Max
OK (for parents)
JunkkMale’s “quiz” for the students alluded to both a serious problem from anthropogenic global warming and from the threat of fossil fuels “running out” soon.
How do these two “threats” really fit together?
(Well, in actual fact, they do not.)
Fossil fuel reserves of our planet are not unlimited, it’s true.
On the other hand, there is not an imminent “peak oil” crunch in site, either.
The optimistically estimated total remaining fossil fuel reserves of our planet are:
1. Coal (Wiki):
910 billion tons (proven reserves) – [USEIA estimate is slightly lower]
910 billion tons (optimistically estimated new finds, worldwide)
1820 billion tons total
6.4 billion tons/year = today’s consumption
284 years’ reserves at today’s consumption
If consumption increases to 10 billion tons/year (as some forecasts estimate), this equals:
182 years’ reserves at estimated future consumption
2. Oil:
1,317 billion bbl (proven reserves, O+GJ, 2007)
2,800 billion bbl (worldwide oil shale, Wiki)
500 billion bbl (other new finds: Arctic, Greenland, Offshore, new tar sands, etc.)
4,617 billion bbl total; this equals 600 billion tons
75 million bbl/day = today’s consumption
168 years’ reserves at today’s consumption
Consumption is expected to level off at around 100 million bbl/day and then gradually decline, so this equals roughly
126 years’ reserves at estimated future consumption
3. Natural Gas
176 trillion cubic meters (proven reserves, O+GJ, 2007)
180 trillion cubic meters (optimistically estimated new finds, Wiki) – includes “new finds’ incl. recoverable shale deposits but does not include recovery from hydrates)
356 trillion cubic meters total
3.2 trillion cubic meters/year = today’s consumption (Wiki)
111 years’ reserves at today’s consumption
Estimates for future consumption vary widely. If methane use as a motor fuel grows, this could cause a major increase. However, it is probable that the use for power generation would decrease in that case. Demand could level off at around 5 trillion cubic meters/year, in which case there are:
71 years’ reserves at projected future consumption
Methane hydrates (clathrates) on the ocean floor represent a major potential source of natural gas, if technology can be developed to exploit these reserves viably. This source could more than quadruple the above estimated total world natural gas reserves.
So we’re not about to “run out” of fossil fuels anytime real soon. There will undoubtedly be a shift away from petroleum products as a motor fuel (too valuable as a petrochemical feedstock) and the use of natural gas to produce power may also decline.
Of course new technology is vital (along with conservation and elimination of waste). And the world will undoubtedly become more energy-efficient, as we have over the past. GDP growth has outpaced growth in energy consumption historically (which, itself, has outpaced population growth) and will continue to do so, even as the poorest countries of the world develop their own energy infrastructures and eliminate the millions of deaths caused by unclean drinking water or indoor burning.
We cannot even imagine the new technologies that will be available to sustain the energy demand of whatever population our planet has in 100 years. Fast-breeder fission reactors using thorium with essentially no spent fuel problem, nuclear fusion, or something totally new we haven’t even dreamt of today?
That is why pessimistic conclusions (as taught to pupils in schools today) that we must drastically reduce our affluence or perish are false, as all “doomsday scenarios” to date have been.
I’ll cover “part 2” in a separate post.
Max
Part 2
OK. So we are not about to “run out” of fossil fuels anytime soon. And, before we do, there will undoubtedly be some new technologies plus existing non-fossil fuel energy sources (including nuclear and renewables), to keep the lights from going out.
But what about the “carbon footprint” if we really were to use up all our fossil fuels?
How much CO2 is there in all that fossil fuel and how would it impact the atmospheric CO2 content?
Coal is 91% carbon, so each ton burned will produce 0.91 * 44 / 12 = 3.34 tons CO2. The global coal reserves are 1,820 billion tons (Gt), so this equals 6,073 Gt CO2.
Oil is 85% carbon and only around 75% of the oil is burned, with the rest going into petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizers, etc. so the global oil reserves of CCC Gt will produce 600 * 0.85 * 0.75 * 44/ 12 = 1,403 Gt CO2.
A cubic meter of natural gas produces 2.0 kg of CO2, but only 80% of the natural gas is burned, with the rest being used for producing fertilizers and chemicals, so the global gas reserves of 356 trillion cubic meters will produce 356 * .8 * 2.0 = 570 Gt CO2
Let’s assume that all of this combustion will take place over the next 150 years, and that our total worldwide fossil fuel reserves have all been used up by then.
So we will have emitted a total of 6,073 + 1,403 + 570 = 8,046 Gt CO2
How will this impact our atmosphere?
Let’s assume IPCC is right and CO2 has a “residence time” in the atmosphere of over 100 years. Let’s stretch this to 150 years.
From the past we know that roughly 50% of the human CO2 emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, and the rest are absorbed by the biosphere (ocean, plants, converted to carbonates, etc.). Let’s assume that the amount “remaining” in the atmosphere in the future increases to 60% of the total (to account for a theoretically slightly warmer ocean, which absorbs less than the increase expected from plants, phytoplankton, etc.).
So we have a total added CO2 load to the atmosphere of 8,046 * .6 = 4,827 Gt CO2
The atmosphere has a total mass of 5,140,000 Gt
So this is an increase of 4,827 * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 939 ppm (mass)
This equals 939 * 29 / 44 = 619 ppmv added CO2
We are now at roughly 390 ppmv CO2.
So when all the generously estimated fossil fuels on our planet have been totally consumed our atmosphere will contain 390 + 619 = 1,009 ppmv CO2.
That’s it, folks. That’s all there is. It’s all there ever will be.
Now pessimists “feel” that the reserves are actually much lower, so that our absolute fossil fuel carbon footprint will be lower. Maybe they are right (but I wouldn’t bet on it).
We’ll look at the temperature impact of all this in Part 3.
Max
Part 3
Back again.
We are at 390 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere today.
When all fossil fuels on this planet have been consumed (some time 150 years or more from today), we will be at 1000 ppmv, as calculated earlier.
IPCC (Myhre et al.) tells us that a doubling of CO2 will result in a GH warming of 0.9°C without any assumed “feedbacks” (all other things being equal).
Recent observations on clouds (Spencer et al.) and water vapor (Minschwaner + Dessler) plus overall net energy balance of our planet from satellite observations (Lindzen + Choi) tell us that the total impact of “feedbacks” is likely to be neutral to negative. Let’s assume it is neutral and that the 2xCO2 dT is 0.9C, as estimated by IPCC without any feedbacks.
We then have:
C1 = today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration = 390 ppmv
C2 = concentration when all our planet’s fossil fuels have been consumed = 1,000 ppmv
C2/C1 = 2.56
ln(C2/C1) = 0.942
2xCO2 = 2.00
ln(2) = 0.693
dT 2xCO2 = 0.9°C
dT until all our planet’s fossil fuels have been consumed, 150 years from now:
dT = 0.9 * 0.942 / 0.693 = 1.2°C
So burning all the fossil fuels on our planet would only result in a 1.2°C temperature increase (150 years or so from today), assuming all other natural factors are equal.
Folks, no matter how you slice it, this is really nothing to lose any sleep over.
So our teachers can stop frightening our pupils with such nonsence.
Max
TOKYO, Oct. 20 (UPI) — Bear attacks in Japan, and sightings of the animals, have increased this year as climate change drives them from their habitats seeking food, researchers say.
At least four people were killed and 80 wounded in bear attacks between April and September,
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/10/20/Bear-attacks-on-the-rise-in-Japan/UPI-42091287610130/
I’ve received a chain-Email with a bunch of photos of young Danish men being very cruel to dolphins, and the two below give the general scene. I was aware that the Japanese do something very similar, but I found this to be more shocking. What has this got to do with climate change you ask? Well, I had a thought: Maybe the Black Asian Bears telecommunicate with their mammalian cousins of the sea, and are seeking revenge on the Japanese humans. Nothing to do with climate change after all! Sounds reasonable?
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1110/5115554033_37b8fedd8e_b.jpg
Do they have Polar Bears in the Faeroe Islands?
Of course the undeclared reason why the Japanese are so keen to “harvest” whales and dolphins is that they think it will improve fish stocks. I can actually see some merit in that logic, but you would think they should be able to do it less cruelly than they do! It has long surprised me that this matter of great cruelty is apparently of low international concern, just the killing is. Sorry, I digress.
Tony B, Are you familiar with any relevant climate change issues in Japan?