A little off topic, but interesting, is a quote from Bjorn Lomborg's piece in today's WSJ:

"Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

When you add up the benefits of that spending -- from the slightly lower temperatures -- the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits -- and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account.

A continued narrow focus on mitigation alone will clearly not solve the climate problem. One problem right now: Although politicians base their decisions on the assumption that low-carbon energy technology is being rapidly developed, that is not the case. These technologies just do not exist. Wind and solar power are available -- at a high expense -- but suffer from intermittency. Researchers need to develop better ways to store electricity when those renewable sources are offline.

If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits.
(Figures based on research by Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, and Christopher Green, McGill University.)"

What you state as a study, isn't a study. It is a policy opinion in Science's Policy Forum. I realize that this may be splitting hairs, but time and time again stated on this commentary is the importance of peer review. This isn't reviewed by peers and shouldn't be taken or stated as such. This is an invited editorial that mixes policy with science along with a good amount of extrapolation.

A cynical, or one that has played the game before (yours truly), scientist might suggest that this is group in the same field and country whom may be looking to enhance potential funding opportunities by putting something it the literature that can be cited in the future to validate their need for more money. That way this group can publish independently, review each others papers, and use their own momentum to carry on their work in a field. This happens frequently.

Cdzang: It may be more accurate to refer to it as an article or invited commentary, rather than a study, although I never said it underwent peer review. I'll let the authors respond to your questioning of their motives.

Quoting Mr. Freedman's column -
" Otherwise, the scientists state, numerous species could become extinct due to human activities such as the burning of coal for electricity."

If people truly believe that, then wouldn't it make more sense to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear powered plants, rather than attempting to move species?

I honestly do not understand why people who believe that man is causing catastrophic global warming are not advocates of nuclear power. I would think they would be marching in the streets demanding the rapid replacement of coal fired power plants with nuclear powered plants.

Mr. Q.

Quoting RM quoting Bjorn Lomborg-
"If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits."

HEAR! HEAR!

I agree completely!!

I am 100% in favor of spending money on research and development of clean technology. However, if we do spend our tax dollars on this technology, I want the technology to belong to the citizens of the United States of America. I do NOT want to see any crony capitalism. I do NOT want to see our tax dollars produce a technology that somehow winds up as a patent in some company's portfolio. But if a private company invests their own dollars (and only their own dollars) and creates the technology, then my hat is off to them.

Once the technology is available, then the free market should run its course. I do NOT want to see any crony capitalism in the form of legislation that benefits any one company. Let the people and the free market decide.

But we do have existing technology (nuclear energy) that could be put in to use immediately. We already get 19.7% of our electricity from nuclear. Why not bump that up to at least 50%?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

Mr. Q.

Mr. Q said:
"Once the technology is available, then the free market should run its course. I do NOT want to see any crony capitalism in the form of legislation that benefits any one company."

So, then you'd be in favor of eliminating the subsidies, tax breaks, etc, that oil and gas companies currently receive? Putting EVERYBODY on a level playing field?

Because currently, in the energy field, this "free market" that you speak of, doesn't exist.

Oh and for what its worth, I believe there is some benefit to mitigation, but I do believe that risk vs. reward should weigh heavily in what we do, and why. Unintended consequences to ecosystems because of "migration" might far outweigh the rewards....

Darwin is rolling in his grave right now.

Well I, for one, am 100% against this program. I work hard to provide a clean, safe environment for the animals in my neighborhood, and I'll be damned if they are gonna start bussing in pigeons to mix in with ours. Those birds have perfectly good fountains where they're at - they don't need to be coming around to mine.

And another thing -if God wanted all cats to associate with one another, he would have made them all cougars.

Open your eyes, people! It starts small and seems harmless ... right up to the day your daughter brings home a tree frog.

Mr/Ms Whitehair - one of the best posts I've ever read on this blog. I had almost given up reading Mr Freedman's column all the way to the comments because of the weekly diatribe from Mr Q and his friends.

Loved it! It restored my faith in those who read this!

Mr Q - There are problems with nuclear power and as usual you have chosen to forget about the full picture.

Nuclear power is efficient - and to keep it efficient it has to be located near the population it's going to serve. Would you like one built in your backyard? Or would you prefer that we store the waste in your yard for the next trillion billion years (oh no was that hyperbole - I know you have trouble discerning that!).

But before you answer and go off about me - think about the real costs of nuclear power. Security for one - let's get the plants secure, keep them secure, secure their waste, secure the transport of said waste etc for an eternity. Let's do exercises for the next hundred years to keep trying to predict and then mitigate ways in which terrorists or other criminals would want to disrupt these places. This is not efficient power, it is full of hidden costs and problems.

Lets spend our money on investigating, supporting and providing some infant industry protection to truly clean energy innovations. We do it to the most horrible form of ethanol for votes, can't we do it for things that will actually make a difference?

Because I for one don't want Mr/Ms Whitehair's pigeons at my house! However should your daughter be after a tree frog there's a couple of very happy, LOUD ones outside my window that will be free to a good home!

Emma, I clearly stated, and I quote, "I am 100% in favor of spending money on research and development of clean technology."

I then went on to state, "But we do have existing technology (nuclear energy) that could be put in to use immediately."

That seems like a reasonable position to me. I do not understand how anyone could find that unreasonable.

We need to be realistic. Technologies such as windmills and solar only work when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Regrettably, the wind isn't always blowing and we do have this thing known as night. Those technologies will never be anything more than supplemental. We need an energy source that works in the middle of the night when the wind isn't blowing. Nuclear power should be considered.

Did you know that France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear power? They recycle their spent nuclear fuel and then reuse it. Using France's nuclear fuel recycling and reprocessing technology, the nuclear waste generated by one person's entire lifetime use of electricity (approximately 78 years worth of electricity for one person) will fit in a 12 ounce soda can.

May I recommend a book for you? An environmentalist started writing a book about the hazards of nuclear power. She was very much opposed to nuclear energy. While doing the research for her book, she came to realize how little she knew about nuclear energy and how much of what she thought she knew was wrong. She is now an environmentalist who is very pro nuclear power. Her book is available here -
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307266567

Your local library might have a copy if you would rather not spend the money on it. If your library does not have a copy and you do not want to spend your own money on it, I would be more than happy to send you a copy.

Mr. Q.