By Walter circa 12 Feb 2014

Historical and Future Energy Use & GHG Emission Projections and the IPCC AR5
Relating to Forum Discussion on Real Climate: If You See Something, Say Something by Prof. Michael E Mann http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/comment-page-12

Contents IPCC AR5 review page 1 ADDENDUMS SOURCES REFERENCE LINKS - page 11 ENERGY USE AND PROJECTIONS Online References - page 14 Psychology Social Sciences Economics Climate Policy Responses & Research - page 19 GenIV Nuclear Power Plants - page 27

Quoting extracts from the IPCC AR5 Sept 2013: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf

TS.5 Projections of Global and Regional Climate Change Projections of changes in the climate system are made [] These models simulate changes based on a set of scenarios of anthropogenic forcings. A new set of scenarios, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), was used for the new climate model simulations carried out under the framework of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 CMIP5) of the World Climate Research Programme. [] CMIP5, whose results form the core of the climate system projections. This section summarizes the assessment of these climate change projections. Projected changes are given relative to the 19862005 average unless indicated otherwise.

TS.5.2 Future Forcing and Scenarios [..] a series of new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) are used that largely replace the SRES scenarios. They produce a range of responses from ongoing warming, to approximately stabilized forcing, to a stringent mitigation scenario (RCP2.6) that stabilizes and then slowly reduces the radiative forcing after mid-21st century. In contrast to the AR4, the climate change from the RCP scenarios in the AR5 is framed as a combination of adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation actions starting now in the various RCP scenarios do not produce discernibly different climate change outcomes for the next 30 years or so, while long-term climate change after mid-century is appreciably different across the RCPs. []

Page 1 of 30

Future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), aerosol particles and other forcing agents such as land use change are dependent on socio-economic factors, and may be affected by global geopolitical agreements to control those emissions to achieve mitigation. AR4 made extensive use of the SRES scenarios that do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios were included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol. []

In this report, outcomes of climate simulations that use new scenarios (some of which include implied policy actions to achieve mitigation) referred to as (RCPs) are assessed. These RCPs represent a larger set of mitigation scenarios and were selected to have different targets in terms of radiative forcing at 2100. The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. The RCPs were developed using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that typically include economic, demographic, energy, and simple climate components. The emission scenarios they produce are then run through a simple model to produce time series of greenhouse gas concentrations that can be run in AOGCMs. []

Considering CO2, both concentrations-driven projections and emissions-driven projections are assessed from CMIP5. These allow quantification of the physical response uncertainties as well as climate-carbon cycle interactions. []

There is robust evidence that accompanying controls on methane (CH4) (Fracking Shale Gas CSG & natural) emissions would offset some of this sulphate-induced warming, although the cooling from methane mitigation will emerge more slowly than the warming from sulphate mitigation due to the different timescales over which atmospheric concentrations of these substances decrease in response to decreases in emissions. Including uncertainties in projecting the chemically reactive greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from RCP emissions gives a range in abundance pathways that is likely 30% larger than the range in RCP concentrations used to force the CMIP5 climate models. Including uncertainties in emission estimates from agricultural, forest, and land-use sources, in atmospheric lifetimes, and in chemical feedbacks, results in a much wider range of abundances for N2O, CH4, and HFCs and their radiative forcing. In the case of CH4 it likely extends the range up to 500 ppb above RCP8.5 and 270 ppb below RCP2.6 through to 2100, with smaller ranges in the near term. []

TS.5.3 Quantification of Climate System Response

Page 2 of 30

Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on observed climate change, climate models and feedback analysis, as well as paleoclimate evidence indicate that ECS is positive, likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C with high confidence, []

Further near-term warming from past emissions is unavoidable due to thermal inertia of the oceans. This warming will be increased by ongoing emissions of GHGs over the near term, and the climate observed in the near term will also be strongly influenced by the internally generated variability of the climate system. Previous IPCC Assessments only described climate-change projections wherein the externally forced component of future climate was included but no attempt was made to initialize the internally generated climate variability. Decadal climate predictions, on the other hand, are intended to predict both the externally forced component of future climate change, and the internally generated component. [...]

TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-Term Changes in Temperature In the absence of major volcanic eruptionswhich would cause significant but temporary cooling and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the GMST anomaly for the period 20162035, relative to the reference period of 19862005 will be in the range 0.3C to 0.7C (medium confidence). There is high confidence that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases and lower amounts of sulphate aerosol lead to greater warming. [..]

The projected warming of global mean temperatures implies high confidence that new levels of warming relative to pre-industrial climate will be crossed, particularly under higher greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Relative to a reference period of 18501900, under RCP4.5 or RCP6.0, it is more likely than not that the mean GMST for the period 20162035 will be more than 1C above the mean for 18501900, and very unlikely that it will be more than 1.5C above the 18501900 mean (medium confidence). Possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

TS.5.5 Long-Term Climate Change TS.5.5.1 Projected Long-Term Changes in Global Temperature Global mean temperatures (GMST) will continue to rise over the 21st century under all of the RCPs. From around the mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario. []

Page 3 of 30

It is virtually certain that, in most places, there will be more hot and fewer cold temperature extremes as global mean temperatures increase. These changes are expected for events defined as extremes on both daily and seasonal time scales. Increases in the frequency, duration and magnitude of hot extremes along with heat stress are expected, however occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. []

Under RCP8.5 it is likely that, in most land regions, a current 20-year high temperature event will occur more frequently by the end of the 21st century (at least doubling its frequency, but in many regions becoming an annual or two-year event) []

TFE.6: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks The description of climate change as a response to a forcing that is amplified by feedbacks goes back many decades. The concepts of radiative forcing and climate feedbacks continue to be refined, and limitations are now better understood; for instance, feedbacks may be much faster than the surface warming, feedbacks depend on the type of forcing agent (e.g., greenhouse gas vs. solar forcing), or may have intrinsic timescales (associated mainly with vegetation change and ice sheets) of several centuries to millennia. The analysis of physical feedbacks in models and from observations remains a powerful framework that provides constraints on transient future warming for different scenarios, on climate sensitivity and, combined with estimates of carbon cycle feedbacks (see TFE.5), determines the greenhouse gas emissions that are compatible with climate stabilization or targets. []

TS.5.6 Long-Term Projections of Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles Projections of the global carbon cycle to 2100 using the CMIP5 Earth System Models (ESMs) represent a wider range of complex interactions between the carbon cycle and the physical climate system. With very high confidence, ocean carbon uptake of anthropogenic CO2 will continue under all four Representative Concentration Pathways through to 2100, with higher uptake in higher concentration pathways. The future evolution of the land carbon uptake is much more uncertain. [] The loss of carbon from frozen soils constitutes a positive radiative feedback that is missing in current coupled ESM projections. []

6.1.2.1 CO2 and the Global Carbon Cycle Since the beginning of the Industrial Era, humans have been producing energy by burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), a process which is releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Rotty, 1983; Boden et al., 2011; see Section 6.3.2.1). The amount of fossil fuel CO2 emitted to the atmosphere can be estimated with an accuracy of about 510% for recent decades from statistics of fossil fuel use (Andres et al., 2012). Total cumulative emissions between 1750 and

Page 4 of 30

2011 amount to 365 30 PgC (see Section 6.3.2.1 and Table 6.1), including a contribution of 8 PgC (2.19%) from the production of cement. [...]

6.3.2.1 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Cement Production Global CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels used for this chapter are determined from national energy consumption statistics and converted to emissions by fuel type (Marland and Rotty, 1984). Estimated uncertainty for the annual global emissions are on the order of 8% (converted from 10% uncertainty for 95% confidence intervals in Andres et al. (2012) to the 90% confidence intervals used here). The uncertainty has been increasing in recent decades because a larger fraction of the global emissions originate from emerging economies where energy statistics and emission factors per fuel type are more uncertain (Gregg et al., 2008). CO2 emissions from cement production were 4% of the total emissions during 20002009, compared to 3% in the 1990s (Boden et al., 2011). Additional emissions from gas flaring represent <1% of the global emissions. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production were: 7.8 0.6 PgC yr1 on average during 20002009, 6.4 0.5 PgC yr1 during 19901999, and 5.5 0.4 PgC yr1 during 19801989 (Table 6.1; Figure 6.8). Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased by 3.2% yr1 on average during the decade 20002009 compared to 1.0% yr1 in the 1990s and 1.9% yr1 in the 1980s. Francey et al. (2013) recently suggested a cumulative underestimation of 8.8 PgC emissions during the period 19932004, which would reduce the contrast in emissions growth rates between the two decades. The global financial crisis in 20082009 induced only a short-lived drop in global emissions in 2009 ( 0.3%), with the return to high annual growth rates of 5.1% and 3.0% in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions of: 9.2 0.8 PgC in 2010 and 9.5 0.8 PgC in 2011 (Peters et al., 2013). [...]

For the ESMs simulations driven by CO2 concentrations, representation of the land and ocean carbon cycle allows quantification of the fossil fuel emissions compatible with the RCP scenarios. Between 2012 and 2100, ESM results imply cumulative compatible fossil fuel emissions of 270 [140 to 410] PgC for RCP2.6, 780 [595 to 1005] PgC for RCP4.5, 1060 [840 to 1250] PgC for RCP6.0, and 1685 [1415 to 1910] PgC for RCP8.5 (CMIP5 model spread) (Figure TS.19). For RCP2.6, the models project an average 50% (range 1496%) emission reduction by 2050 relative to 1990 levels. It is about as likely as not that sustained globally negative emissions will be required to achieve the reductions in atmospheric CO2 in RCP2.6. See also Box TS.7.

Page 5 of 30

Summary Notes: Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions Between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 30 PgC (261 years) 20002009 increased by 3.2% yr1 2011 amounts to 9.5 0.8 PgC Hold that rate to 9.5 x 88 years = 836 PgC to 2100 Between 2012 and 2100 amounts to 1685 225 PgC for RCP8.5 This scenario amounts to 19.1 PgC yr-1 over 88 years 1685 PgC is 462% above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011

Figure TS.19 - See Page TS-115

Page 6 of 30

Figure TS.19: Compatible fossil fuel emissions simulated by the CMIP5 models for the four RCP scenarios. Top: timeseries of annual emission (PgC yr1). Dashed lines represent the historical estimates and RCP emissions calculated by the integrated assessment models (IAM) used to define the RCP scenarios, solid lines and plumes show results from CMIP5 ESMs (model mean, with 1 standard deviation shaded). Bottom: cumulative emissions for the historical period (18602005) and 21st century (defined in CMIP5 as 20062100) for historical estimates and RCP scenarios. Left bars are cumulative emissions from the IAMs, right bars are the CMIP5 ESMs multi-model mean estimate, and dots denote individual ESM results.

Table AII.2.1c: Anthropogenic total CO2 emissions (PgC yr1) Year RCP2.6 RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5 2000d 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 2010d 9.70 9.48 9.32 9.98 2020d 9.97 10.20 9.37 12.28 2030d 8.00 11.06 9.57 14.53 2040d 5.30 11.46 10.80 17.33 2050d 3.50 11.15 12.52 20.61 2060d 2.10 9.60 14.46 23.83 2070d 0.81 7.27 16.29 26.17 2080d 0.16 4.65 17.07 27.60 2090d 0.23 4.22 14.94 28.44 2100d 0.42 4.13 13.82 28.77 NOTE: RCP 8.5 assumptions above for fossil fuel energy use may be significantly less than the current BAU Energy forecasts from 2013 to 2040

When forced with RCP8.5 CO2 emissions, as opposed to the RCP8.5 CO2 concentrations, CMIP5 ESMs with interactive carbon cycles simulate, on average, a 50 (140 to +210) ppm (CMIP5 model spread) larger atmospheric CO2 concentration and a 0.2 (0.4 to +0.9) C (CMIP5 model spread) larger global surface temperature increase by 2100. [..]

TFE.8: Climate Targets and Stabilization The concept of stabilization is strongly linked to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, which is to achieve [] stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Recent policy discussions focused on limits to a global temperature increase, rather than to greenhouse gas concentrations, as climate targets in the context of the UNFCCC objectives. The most widely discussed is that of 2C, i.e., to limit global temperature increase relative to preindustrial Page 7 of 30

times to below 2C, but targets other than 2C have been proposed (e.g., returning warming to well below 1.5C global warming relative to preindustrial, or returning below an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm). Climate targets generally mean avoiding a warming beyond a predefined threshold. Climate impacts however are geographically diverse and sector specific, and no objective threshold defines when dangerous interference is reached. Some changes may be delayed or irreversible, and some impacts could be beneficial. It is thus NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINE a single critical objective threshold without value judgments and without assumptions on how to aggregate current and future costs and benefits. This section does not advocate or defend any threshold or objective, nor does it judge the economic or political feasibility of such goals []

NOTE This shift in POLICY EMPHASIS from a TARGET GOAL based on GHG PPM CONCENTRATIONS to one of AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE (GMST) increases appears to have been imposed onto the IPCC process by the most powerful National Governments in the UNFCCC. This change is NOT something instigated by the Climate Scientists and IPCC Authors themselves during the writing of the AR5 IPCC reports, nor does this appear based upon the scientific work in any of the published climate science Papers since the AR4 in 2007.

Temperature targets imply an upper limit on the total radiative forcing (RF). Differences in RF between the four RCP scenarios are relatively small up to 2030, but become very large by the end of the 21st century and dominated by CO2 forcing. Consequently, in the near term, global-mean surface temperatures (GMST) are projected to continue to rise at a similar rate for the four RCP scenarios. Around the mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario. [] In the near term (2016-2035), global mean surface warming is more likely than not to exceed 1C and very unlikely to be more than 1.50C relative to preindustrial (assuming 0.61C warming has occurred prior to 19862005) (medium confidence).

NOTE: The last 5+ year emphasis by denier activists and recalcitrant anti-Science National Governments & Legislators has been on the idea of a HIATUS-PAUSE in TEMPERATURE INCREASES. The Thinking - Rhetoric - Sophistry - Fallacious Reasoning and thus their OBJECTIVE (I believe) goes like this: There has been None to Minimal short-term Average Temperature Increase ? = UNFCCC Goals Are Being Met = NOT A PROBLEM = No Action Required Page 8 of 30

= The 2013/14 IPCC science REPORTS have therefore been effectively HIJACKED to discuss Temperature OBJECTIVES (scenarios projections of average temperature increases subject to very high short term natural variability) and that is and I quote: NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINE, especially in the short term being now to ~2030 Repeat . OBJECTIVES THAT ARE NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFINE ?

Quoting again: Continuing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2100 as in the RCP8.5 extension induces a total radiative forcing above 12 W m2 by 2300, global warming reaching 7.8C [3.0 to 12.6C] for 2281 2300 relative to 19862005. Under the RCP4.5 extension, where radiative forcing is kept constant (around 4.5 W m-2) beyond 2100, global warming reaches 2.5C [1.5 to 3.5C]. []

NOTE: Therefore the IPCC Scientists seem to be attempting in the reports 'fine print' to bring the focus of the GOAL/Objectives back to actual yearly HUMAN GHG emissions output, and therefore upon atmospheric concentrations of CO2e PPM in the atmosphere that is a direct focus back onto real Fossil Fuel Energy Use expected into the future.

Quoting again: The total amount of anthropogenic CO2 released in the atmosphere since preindustrial (often termed cumulative carbon emission, although it only applies to CO2 emissions) is a good indicator of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and hence of the global warming response. The ratio of global mean surface temperature change to total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions is relatively constant over time and independent of the scenario. This near-linear relationship between total CO2 emissions and global temperature change makes it possible to define a new quantity, the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emission (TCRE), as the transient global mean surface temperature change for a given amount of cumulated anthropogenic CO2 emissions, usually 1000 PgC. TCRE is model dependent, as it is a function of the cumulative CO2 airborne fraction and the transient climate response, both quantities varying significantly across models. Taking into account the available information from multiple lines of evidence (observations, models and process understanding), the near linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and peak global mean temperature is well established in the literature and robust for cumulative total CO2 emissions up to about 2000 PgC. It is consistent with the relationship inferred from past cumulative CO2 emissions and observed warming, is supported by process understanding of the carbon cycle and global energy balance, and emerges as a robust result from the entire hierarchy of models.

Page 9 of 30

Expert judgment based on the available evidence suggests that TCRE is likely between 0.8C2.5C per 1000 PgC, for cumulative emissions less than about 2000 PgC until the time at which temperature peaks. (see Page TS-60)

FINAL Note: Giving a temp range of 0.8 to 2.5 seems to me to be EXTREMELY UNDEFINED and overly broad. So wide in fact that it becomes useless as a methodology to define anything regarding actual PgC Carbon increases that is known and defined by other physical methods. This WIDE RANGE as numerical figure merely opens the door wide open for all kinds of recalcitrant and special interest groups to use it as a WEDGE to be CHALLENGED as being meaningless, a guess and NOT a valid scientific Judgment based on hard evidence and scientific rigor anyone could rationally rely upon to make a fair Political Judgment regarding action. Leave the barn door open and the horse will bolt though it. Of course, the Uncertainties still have to be addressed and noted in the IPCC reports and climate papers. A Catch 22 maybe? Give an honest range and one is criticized for vagueness or trying to eat your eggs and have them too. Be too narrow in this and one can be challenged for drawing too much assumption in one's 'judgment' that's not 'scientifically supported by all the evidence. In this game of sophistry, the scientists cannot win by being scientific. Well they can win, as they can hold to the ground that they are "right" based upon the evidence. The point is are the people of the world then subsequently fully informed about the reality when surrounded by all the 'noise'? What is the Mission and Goals for all this Climate Science at the end of the day? Was it to get the science 100% perfect and be 'right' about the data at all times? Or was the motivation behind the Mission of Climate Science to do the 'work', get the hard facts, and then inform the people of the world so that they would UNDERSTAND the current and future reality we are all facing as a direct result of AGW? If so, are those two options the very same thing? Maybe they are really mutually exclusive alternatives? Maybe another way to ask that is: Which is of higher importance a purist methodology above all things, or the achievement of the set major Task and Goals? Frankly I am unsure. What I think I do know is that BAU is simply not an option anymore. The minor details and nuances and uncertainties of the science no longer matter to me. FINI

This article by Walter PermaLink Last updated 2013-02-16 http://www.scribd.com/doc/206878243/Historical-and-Future-Projections-for-Energy-Use-andGHG-Emissions-the-IPCC-AR5

Page 10 of 30

ADDENDUMS SOURCES REFERENCE LINKS

Walter says: Important IPCC AR5 data source A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion R. J. Andres Abstract. This synthesis discusses the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion and cement production. While much is known about these emissions, there is still much that is unknown about the details surrounding these emissions. This synthesis explores our knowledge of these emissions in terms of why there is concern about them; how they are calculated; the major global efforts on inventorying them; their global, regional, and national totals at different spatial and temporal scales; how they are distributed on global grids (i.e., maps); how they are transported in models; and the uncertainties associated with these different aspects of the emissions. Correspondence to: R. J. Andres Received: 28 November 2011 Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 31 January 2012 Revised: 17 April 2012 Accepted: 24 April 2012 Published: 25 May 2012 http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/bg-9-1845-2012.pdf ------

Walter says: 12 Feb 2014 at 10:49 PM Kevins ref to IRENA wasnt too bad. Here is an example report if interested. http://irena.org/remap/REmap%20Summary%20of%20findings_final_links.pdf Still very problematic when reconciling what they suggest and what others suggest. Too many porcupines as usual. But there are some representations in this report others dont do, and the website as a whole seems to be more action support orientated than others. As yet I am unable to locate exactly where the IPCC AR5 shows its primary sources for the assumptions of future Carbon CO2e emissions that relate to their RCPs. I am also unable to find exactly where they record their figures of the specific amounts of projected CO2e emissions upon which they base their RCPs Models on for the future. Probably it is right in front of my face yet I fail to see it. Anyway, it is very clear based on several observations in recent weeks about Carbon Emissions Reports that spending any more time on them to seek out a credible valid estimation of future BAU carbon emissions and credible renewable projections is a futile exercise.

Page 11 of 30

Others far more qualified than me with the actual source data at their finger tips and the resources to present a readable report for the average person or policy maker could do this themselves already if they chose to. ------

Walter says: 12 Feb 2014 at 11:21 PM Please note in the IRENA REmap 2030 report that: Biomass currently makes up 75% of the total renewable energy consumption, with traditional biomass use accounting for more than 50% of all renewables. Not all traditional biomass used today is sustainable, however. Beware of any quotes by anyone and any report that renewables are X, Y Z % already, or can double or triple that. It totally depends on what their base line is, and what they are actually listing as being renewable energy sources. Most reports do not include biomass in their renewable component, and they almost all treat the various energy sources differently, over different timescales, and use different figures for current and historical use. Just about all the statements and graphs in these kinds of report are based on quite unsubstantiated numbers and assumptions and constraints of every kind imaginable. Frankly I cannot see that any of the ~10 renewable energy projections and all the existing current energy use figures I have see are in any way credible and trustworthy enough for any purpose. Buyer Beware! Dont believe me either. Make up your own mind. Just sayin what I think is correct today. ------

Walter says: 13 Feb 2014 at 2:53 AM Daring to go down the Rabbit Hole 97% of Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming is leading to dangerous Climate Change and that human activity is the predominant cause. 99% of Iraqis voted for Suddam Hussein shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq 98% of Egyptians recently voted for their new Constitution after sidelining the Muslim Brotherhood and taking the last President to trial. 98% of your cognitive reasoning is Unconscious!

Page 12 of 30

A lecture by 47 year veteran of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff of Berkeley CA. Founder of the field of Cognitive Science. For the last 37 years an incredible amount has been learned about the human brain and mind. But almost nobody knows about it. Watch the video to gain some insights into the relevance to climate change, politics, and policy making. Learn about cognitive policy and material policy. What does the public need to understand in order to see that a policy is the right thing to do automatically? And learn why everything you learned at college about Enlightenment Reason is wrong. http://youtu.be/jCXxc_M9EmE?t=4m37s (2008) ------

Walter says: 6 Feb 2014 at 12:42 AM #26 DIOGENES first comments on this thread to help the memory http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-saysomething/comment-page-1/#comment-451708 In that he mentioned many climate science orientated facts quoting Published Papers, in line with the serious questions posed by Michael Mann in his NYTs article: Actually, all you need is to offer up the truth; that is scary enough. The truth has been published extensively in the literature, and is quite straight-forward. If, however, we GROW emissions by ~1% per annum, as the most likely scenario from EIA predicts, and the CO2 emissions in 2040 are over 40% greater than those of 2010, then we would probably be in serious, in fact extremely serious, trouble. How do we reconcile the emissions we need by 2040 (~0) with those projected from BAU? We have advocates assuring us that rapid introduction of renewables, or rapid introduction of nuclear, or rapid introduction of carbon capture, are all we need to avoid catastrophe; See the comments in Unforced Variations; very little support for the hard reality even among climate advocates! ------

Walter says: The world is rife with myths and false comparisons. These have been fed to people in the West daily for decades. I recommend this 19 min talk http://climatestate.com/2013/12/23/200-years-of-global-change1900-2100-climate-science-history-projections-of-ipcc-ar5-2013/ Page 13 of 30

NOTE @ 7:20 min which addresses Global Population and the heaviest users of all Energy sources. This talk, using hard facts, should help people recognize better the many myths and false beliefs in play today. People need to make sure they are comparing apples with apples and equitably. Do not compare nations compare People, Wealth, Economies, and Populations instead. China 1.3 billion = India 1.2 billion = OECD 1.25 Billion It is the OECD population that is and has been over-using well over 50% of the entire worlds production of everything for a century plus and still are today. Not China. Not India. Not the Poor Unwashed. Hans Rosling IPCC AR5 Lecture - 200 years of climate change main conclusion Sept 2013 http://youtu.be/grZSxoLPqXI?t=18m6s (only 38 seconds) ------

Amplifying Feedbacks: Climate Model to Test Projections of Zero Sea Ice By Summer 2016, Stark Predictions by Wadhams, Duarte http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/amplifying-feedbacks-us-navy-climate-modelshows-zero-sea-ice-by-summer-2016-confirms-stark-predictions-by-wadhams-duarte/

ENERGY USE AND PROJECTIONS Online References:

A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion by R. J. Andres et al http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/bg-9-1845-2012.pdf

National contributions to observed global warming by H Damon Matthews et al http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/17/uk-has-made-largest-contribution-to-global-warming-says-study/ and http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/ direct link http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/9/1/014010/article;jsessionid=5D6DC8114321D1B5197596CBF4D60488.c2

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) The International Energy Outlook 2013 (IEO2013) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/ Page 14 of 30

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2013 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/ieo_tables.cfm AEO 2014 EARLY RELEASE OVERVIEW December, 2013 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm ------

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy Wind is growing at around 15-40% annually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Growth_trends And solar also at 10% annually: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/13/global-solar-pv-installations-will-double-hit-grid-parity-by2020/

Climate Change Indicators in the United States Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases 2012 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html

Concentrating Solar Power Projects http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/ Concentrating Solar Power Projects by Status http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/by_status.cfm ------

IRENA is not a UN agency; its a free-standing international agency created in 2009 by its own cooperative Statute; I believe over 125 nations are members, with more in the accession process. Reports and papers http://www.irena.org/Publications/ReportsPaper.aspx?mnu=cat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141 Page 15 of 30

Founding Conference - 27 January 2009 http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=13&CatID=30&SubcatID=67

IRENA Activities - IRENA provides practical advice and support to both developed and developing countries wishing to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy and meet the anticipated steep increase in global energy needs by combining the use of renewable energy with energy efficiency. The Agency facilitates access to all relevant information, including reliable data on the potential of renewable energy, best practices, effective financial mechanisms and state-of-the-art technological expertise. http://www.irena.org/Menu/index.aspx?PriMenuID=35&mnu=Pri

REmap 2030 is a roadmap to double the share of renewable energy by 2030. It is the first global study to provide renewable energy options based on a bottom-up analysis of official national sources. The roadmap encompasses 26 countries representing three-quarters of current energy demand. In determining the potential to scale up renewables, the study not only focuses on technologies, but also on the availability of financing, political will, skills, and the role of planning. http://irena.org/remap/ REmap 2030 - A Renewable Energy Roadmap: Summary of Findings http://irena.org/remap/REmap%20Summary%20of%20findings_final_links.pdf Global Atlas for Solar and Wind http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/GA_Booklet_Web.pdf ------

REN21, the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century: The REN21 Renewables Global Futures Report (GFR) is a pioneering publication that provides access to the range of credible possibilities on the future of renewable energy. The report is based on interviews with over 170 leading experts around the world and the projections of 50 recently published scenarios. The report can serve as a tool for dialogue and discussion on future options, and compliments well the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report. Released in January 2013, the report was authored by Dr. Eric Martinot and was the product of a unique collaboration between REN21 and the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP) during 2011-2012. January 2013 Renewables Global Futures Report http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalFuturesReport.aspx Page 16 of 30

The part I liked best was Eric Martinots Epilogue on pages 63/64 http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/activities/gfr/REN21_GFR_2013.pdf REN21s companion publication Renewables 2013 Global Status Report provides a similarly detailed look at the current state of renewable energy (through 2012). REN21's Renewables Global Status Report (GSR) http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalStatusReport.aspx http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_lowres.pdf (I have questions over the validity of the claims made in these Reports because I doubt the veracity of Data upon which they are based.) ------

International Energy Agency Working together to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy (?) CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights 2013 http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,43840,en.html WORLD Energy Outlook 2013 (Summary) http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2013SUM.pdf Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map by IEA on Jun 11, 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/internationalenergyagency/redrawingtheeenrgyclimatemappresentation IEA online data services & statistics http://www.iea.org/statistics/ Key World Energy Statistics 2013 http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,31287,en.html RENEWABLE ENERGY Medium-Term Market Report 2013 http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/mtrenew2013sum.pdf Energy Efficiency Market Report 2013 (Summary) http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/EEMR2013SUM.pdf Free Publications http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/ Page 17 of 30

Worldwide engagement for sustainable energy strategies http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/IEA_WorldwideEngagementforSustai nableEnergyStrategies.pdf The IEA, within the framework of the World Energy Outlook, has been measuring fossil-fuel subsidies in a systematic and regular fashion for more than a decade. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/ ------

Ending support for fossil fuel subsidies: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (WEF) Global Agenda Council on Climate Change 2012-2014 A growing consensus is emerging among the scientific and business communities that weather and climate extremes are on the increase, and that climate change precipitated a number of recent natural disasters. These include the European heat wave of 2003, drought in East Africa in 2011, and in summer 2012 the worst drought in the United States since 1956. Losses resulting from climate-related disasters remain unacceptably high in economic, social and human terms making it imperative to build resilience, particularly in vulnerable areas http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2013/WEF_GAC_ClimateChange_MidtermReport.pdf WEF Davos January 2014 http://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2014 http://forumblog.org/2014/01/call-zero-emissions-climate-bailout-ooption/ http://www.weforum.org/issues/climate-change-and-green-growth

WEF Top 10 risks for the decade ahead - The Global Risks 2014 report calls attention to risks that could ripple through entire systems. It aims to improve collaboration among business, governments and civil society by raising awareness of these risks and the way they interact with each other. http://forumblog.org/2014/01/top-10-risks-decade-ahead/ http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2014/ ------

Page 18 of 30

Jevons Paradox, Energy Efficiency, Price and Economics [Backgrounder Info] In 1865, a twenty-nine-year-old Englishman named William Stanley Jevons published a book, The Coal Question, in which he argued that the bonanza couldnt last. Britains affluence, he wrote, depended on its endowment of coal, which the country was rapidly depleting. He added that such an outcome could not be delayed through increased economy in the use of coal-what we refer to today as energy efficiency. Jevon concluded, in italics, It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons

Psychology Social Sciences Economics Climate Policy Responses & Research

Responding to Climate Change Responding to Climate Change (RTCC) is a news and analysis website focused on providing the latest updates and insight into global low carbon developments. Our sister website Climate Change TV (CCTV) offers an online channel hosting interviews and footage from international climate change and development summits. We are accredited as official observers to the UN Framework Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), and run a TV studio for the UN at its climate, biodiversity and desertification talks. http://www.rtcc.org/policy/

OECD proposes plan for zero emissions at Davos - January 2014 Fossil fuel subsidies and pricing carbon fundamental to cutting global greenhouse gas emissions says Angel Gurria. Addressing delegates at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Gurria told leaders to get to grips with what he says it the huge risk posed by rising levels of carbon emissions. Most businesses do not take governments seriously when it comes to climate, primarily because many governments have inconsistent and incoherent policies and then often keep changing them, sometimes retroactively, he said. This makes businesses reluctant to invest in greener technologies. http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/24/oecd-proposes-plan-for-zero-emissions-at-davos/

Page 19 of 30

Angel Gurra: A call for zero emissions - Jan 24th 2014 Our leaders must get to grips with the huge risk that carbon dioxide emissions pose to the economy and the environment. As we know, carbon dioxide is a long-lived gas. It hangs around. Of every tonne of CO2 emitted this year, some will still be around thousands of years from now. Even small ongoing emissions will continue to add to the atmospheric concentration. This is already having a serious environmental impact. Angel Gurra is Secretary-General of the OECD. He is participating in the World Economic Forums Annual Meeting 2014 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. This article is co-published on OECD Insights. http://forumblog.org/2014/01/call-zero-emissions-climate-bailout-ooption/

Economic policies to foster green growth says OECD The Jobs Potential of a Shift towards a low-carbon Economy http://www.oecd.org/eco/greeneco/thejobspotentialofashifttowardsalow-carboneconomy.htm ------

Debunking climate myths: two contrasting case studies (About Communicating Science for positive change in the accepted beliefs) Posted on 6 February 2014 by John Cook http://skepticalscience.com/Debunking-climate-myths-two-contrasting-case-studies.html Paper: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature by John Cook et al http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/8/2/024024/article;jsessionid=5D6DC8114321D1B5197596CBF4D60488.c2 Ethereal responses by climate scientists on the new CCNF website Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature by John Cook et al: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. http://climatechangenationalforum.org/quantifying-the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-globalwarming-in-the-scientific-literature-by-dr-john-cook-et-al-97-1-agree-that-humans-are-causingglobal-warming/ ------

Climate Change Politics and the Economy: Rhetoric v. Reality Most people don't want to think about Science. When the science teacher showed up they left.

Page 20 of 30

Join UC Berkeley Professor Dan Kammen, an internationally recognized energy policy expert and Mr.Tom Steyer, business leader and investor, for a lively and timely conversation to understand where we are now, the solutions at hand, the barriers we face, and what must happen to overcome the partisan divide to speed the transition to a sustainable planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uua_OEW2QY Oct 5 2013 At the end of his talk Tom Seyer explains why his http://nextgenclimate.org/ project is only focusing upon the KeystoneXL pipeline, as opposed to advocacy about a Carbon Tax or other issues. This connects very closely with John Cooks advocacy. As shown in the pages linked to above Cook explains why ScepticalScience decided to focus on two major denier myths for the whole of 2013. These are very specific Missions with clear Goals. From there they have both developed very cogent Action Plans and called on others to support them anyway possible. To see the section where Tom Seyer speaks about his thinking and choices about the Keystone pipeline use the following link: http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=55m19s to 1h00m27s If nobody changes their Vote, the Polar Bears dont exist politically. If you wont change your vote then that issue (any issue) does not exist. And thats how American politics works From the Q&A session: Carbon Tax, the Economy, Full Cost Accounting, the Politics, & Renewable Energy: http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=1h6m27s to 1h14m The job of a Politician or Advocate is to take a complicated Policy idea, that no one understands, and translate it into words that people can relate to and care about." Americans spend 5 minutes a month on Politics. It better be short and sweet. It better be straight forward and it better hit them right in the gut. Shadow Science, KeystoneXL, Government assumptions, Bill MacGibbon, restoring integrity to Science & Policy, Political criteria and overlays (framing): http://youtu.be/3Uua_OEW2QY?t=1h14m10s to 1h20m ------

UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to peoples Values instead of their support for specific government programs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM Nov 2005

UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff is a New York Times bestselling author of The Political Mind: Why You Cant Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Mind.

Page 21 of 30

For the last 37 years an incredible amount has been learned about the human brain and mind. But almost nobody knows about it. Watch the video to gain some insights into the relevance to climate change, politics, and policy making. Learn about cognitive policy and material policy. What does the public need to understand in order to see that a policy is the right thing to do automatically? And learn why everything you learned at college about Enlightenment Reason is wrong. Lakoffs lecture starts here: http://youtu.be/jCXxc_M9EmE?t=4m37s Oct. 2008 Near the end of his talk Lakoff speaks about placing a $ value on the air (and the environment in general). That everyone on this Earth owns the air. Therefore anyone and any company activity that freely chooses to dirty it and reap profits from this activity should pay a price to the owners of the air for that use/abuse. In the context of applying an exponential rising Carbon Tax levied at the Mine gate (Peter Barnes see below), Lakoff suggests a rational response is that all Fossil Fuel Resource corporations should pay this amount equally into the personal bank accounts of all Citizens. None should go to the Government. This is completely different than all other ETS and Carbon tax systems currently operating. Each citizen decides for themselves on what they spend the money on. Meanwhile the real price of Carbon pollution and therefore electricity and fuel prices rise over time. Renewable energy sources do not. The Financial aspects then look after themselves in a free market where all input costs, including dirtying the air and causing climate change are included fairly and equitably. In his lecture Lakoff speaks about Material and Cognitive Policy and how they differ. The above is an example of Cognitive Policy. It has the effect of changing peoples behavior by changing how they think about things over time, and permanently for the good of all. Use the next link to pick up where Lakoff begins to speak about this important example that explains what his science has taught him. http://youtu.be/jCXxc_M9EmE?t=43m57s

Capitalism 3.0 - A GUIDE TO RECLAIMING THE COMMONS by Peter Barnes Im a businessman. I believe society should reward successful initiative with profit. At the same time, I know that profit-seeking activities have unhealthy side effects. They cause pollution, waste, inequality, anxiety, and no small amount of confusion about the purpose of life. Im also a liberal, in the sense that Im not averse to a role for government in society. Yet history has convinced me that representative government cant adequately protect the interests of ordinary citizens. Even less can it protect the interests of future generations, ecosystems, and nonhuman species. The reason is that mostthough not allof the time, government puts the interests of private corporations first. This is a systemic problem of capitalist democracy, not just a matter of electing new leaders. http://capitalism3.com/files/Capitalism_3.0_Peter_Barnes.pdf Recapturing the commons is going to be one of the centurys biggest battles. Peter Barnes makes the case for the commons in a straightforward and unsentimental way. An indispensable book on a critical topic. Bill McKibben, author, The End of Nature Page 22 of 30

http://capitalism3.com/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Barnes_(entrepreneur) Working Assets Co-founder Peter Barnes discusses the title and major themes of his book, "Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons." http://youtu.be/IdRHKp--elw Complete program at: http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=420 ------

Assessing Dangerous Climate Change: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature by James Hansen et al http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pone-8-12-hansen.pdf

The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, a world-renowned climate scientist and author of The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change, discusses the scientific case for Urgent Action to limit climate change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo May 2013

Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values by Adam Corner et al The way we perceive ourselves and others can influence how we respond to contested issues, including climate change. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.269/pdf

However, these perceptions are subject to cognitive biases or distortions as we attempt to make sense of the world around us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Our mis-perceptions about what others think about climate change extend to mis-perceptions about what others do. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE201304

The better than average effect describes our predisposition to think of ourselves as exceptional, especially among our peers. http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/2/209.short Page 23 of 30

The better than average effect reflects our tendency to think of ourselves as more virtuous and moral, more compassionate and understanding, and ironically even less Biased than other people too! In a famous example, when people were asked to assess their own driving ability relative to peers, more than three-quarters of people considered themselves to be safer than the average driver. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056

A growing group of activists, ecologists, authors and scientists are saying only a serious economic crash could save us from climate doom. http://www.ecoshock.org/ Kevin Anderson is saying basically exactly the same thing I concluded 4 or 5 years ago. I happen to believe that we are about to hit economic collapse. and THAT will do the trick. We dont need economic growth, and its a total myth that such growth brings prosperity. All growth does is line the pockets of the 1%. Have a listen to this: CRASH ON DEMAND Do we need to break the system to save the climate? Permaculture cofounder David Holmgren says YES, in this rare radio interview. http://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_140205_Show.mp3

For those coming late to this thread and interested in the topics raised the following may be helpful: Gavin A Schmidt, NASA/GISS Stephen Schneider Lecture AGU December 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJC1phPS6IA Michael Mann radio interview by KCRW 21 January 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYygBAQ2RV Professor Kevin Anderson on scientists who get political December 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjrAZhymE5Q Hans Rosling IPCC AR5 Lecture 200 years of global change September 2013 http://youtu.be/grZSxoLPqXI Dr James Hansen Discusses Solutions To Climate Change July 2013 http://youtu.be/6Ibp_gMk3i8 Dr James Hansen Discusses Species Extinction July 2013 http://youtu.be/v5B-JsTLEF0

------

Page 24 of 30

18 months ago Sept 2012 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | COMMENTARY A new paradigm for climate change by Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows How climate change science is conducted, communicated and translated into policy must be radically transformed if dangerous climate change is to be averted. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1646.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE201209

Prof. Kevin Anderson & Dr. Alice Bows-Larkin post-COP19 November 2013 Anderson says that to avoid an increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the world would require a revolutionary change to the political and economic hegemony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEQ7cOUjwgM Radical Emissions Planning: Kevin Anderson interview and his Lecture at Radical Emissions Reduction Conference in the UK December 2013 http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-06/radical-emissions-planning-kevin-anderson-interview Prof. Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Center, 'Rhetoric to Reality' at the EcoCities conference Manchester UK on 14 May 2012. Carbon Budget, Emissions reduction, and IPCC CO2 and Temperature Goals http://youtu.be/KumLH9kOpOI ------

Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt October 2013 Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet? Climate scientists have seen the data and they are coming to some incendiary conclusions. Klein says: So what Anderson and Bows are really saying is that there is still time to avoid catastrophic warming, but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed. Which may be the best argument we have ever had for changing those rules. But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. Its why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations scientists. http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt The Bridge: Connecting Science and Policy http://blogs.agu.org/thebridge/

Page 25 of 30

The great tragedy of the Human Condition is that humans can not figure out who they are and why they do what they do. In short, humans are completely immersed in their own nonsense. [..] But humans are apparently intrinsically incapable of taking the large leap toward self-knowledge which would make possible the very slim HOPE for a happy outcome. http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/12/is-the-earth-fcked.html 08/08/2012 Climate Change Idiots Freelance journalist Beth Gardiner wrote an editorial called Were All Climate Change Idiots which appeared in the New York Times Sunday Review on July 21, 2012. There are valuable insights in it, though they are not the ones Beth had in mind when she wrote it. http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/08/climate-change-idiots.html Theres No Hope At All Zero, Zip, Nada Forget about it! As I work on another long essay on I thought Id pass along this little economic update from the Wall Street Journal (February 6, 2014). http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/02/theres-no-hope-at-all-zero-zip-nadaforgettaboutit.html 12/30/2013 Elizabeth Kolbert On The Sixth Extinction In the New Yorker podcast below Kolbert talks about her forthcoming book. Its worth listening to, and I recommend that you listen all the way to the end. http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2013/12/elizabeth-kolbert-on-the-sixth-extinction.html 02/04/2014 The Argument From Ignorance I see that Elizabeth Kolberts book The Sixth Extinction has been published. As I've argued many times before, choosing a future and working towards it is always the most effective strategy. To put it another way, activism always beats prophecy. http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/02/the-argument-from-ignorance.html ------

Elizabeth Kolbert: "Humans Will Eventually Become Extinct" In the meantime, says the acclaimed New Yorker writer, we're causing the greatest mass extinction since dinosaur days. Interview By Benjy Hansen-Bundy | Feb. 4, 2014 Even very smart people can try to shoehorn new information that just doesn't fit into an existing paradigm. For a long time the story that we've been telling ourselves is that humans are just another animal. We evolved from other animals and our place in the universe isn't particularly special. What I'm trying to convey in the book is that we are unusual. We turn out to be the one species altering the planet like this, and that puts people back in the position of being responsible for what happens. There's a big resistance to the idea that we could be such a big deal. The Earth is big. There are huge Page 26 of 30

natural forces that have worked over geological time. But it turns out, when you look carefully at the geological time, you can't find anything like us. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/interview-elizabeth-kolbert-new-yorker-sixthextinction?google_editors_picks=true ------

One Plus One: David Suzuki (Retired 79 years) - 31 Jan 2014 Environmentalist David Suzuki talks to Jane Hutcheon about the things that motivate his life on this planet. Environmental and Climate issues and last words begins ~15 minutes http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-31/one-plus-one-david-suzuki/5230012 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/oneplusone/video/201402/ONEs_CollinsIV_1402_512k.mp4

GenIV Nuclear Power Plants Many of these new GenIV reactors are being designed to produce electricity and hydrogen, as a bridge to the often-criticized, perhaps impossible "hydrogen economy". HTR-PM test reactors have proven safe in that the reactor core cannot meltdown nor explode as has happened in all other major nuclear accidents. GenIV are completely different kinds of nuclear reactors, fuel and cooling.

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a co-operative international endeavour organised to carry out the research and development (R&D) needed to establish the feasibility and performance capabilities of the next generation nuclear energy systems. The Generation IV International Forum has thirteen Members which are signatories of its founding document, the GIF Charter. https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public

ADVANCED REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/advanced-reactor-technologies

Nuclear power plants - now safer and cheaper July 2009 - Robyn Williams RN Science Show ABC Radio Barry Brook traces the history of nuclear power. Today, about 440 nuclear power reactors are in use, known as Generation 2 reactors. These were designed between 1960 and 1980. Recently, Page 27 of 30

Generation 3 reactors have adopted a standard design, allowing for faster approval. 45 are being built. 350 are planned. Chernobyl was a cheap design. There was no containment building. Barry Brook describes Chernobyl as an accident waiting to happen. Newer reactors are orders of magnitude safer than the older models. Generation 4 is the new excitement. Efficiency is much higher meaning uranium supplies will last so much longer. They can burn a range of isotopes of uranium and other elements producing short-lived waste. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/nuclear-power-plants---now-saferand-cheaper/3125388

Videos China's Nuclear Future - ABC Catalyst February 2007 http://abceducation.net.au/videolibrary/view/chinas-nuclear-future-116 NUCLEAR CHINA (22/02/2007) Catalyst ABC http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1854362.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/broadband/catalyst/asx/chinaNuclear_hi.asx China makes breakthrough in 4th generation nuclear technology - CCTV 100722 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOu4sKYPH34 NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER - October 2012 Catalyst ABC http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3608402.htm Climate Change: Next Generation Nuclear Power - Catalyst ABC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JijgbC8uNRo http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/?p=2866 ThEC13 - Thorium Energy R&D in China Nov 7, 2013 HongJie XU from SINAP, China talks at Thorium Energy Conference 2013 (ThEC13). CERN Globe of Science and Innovation, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9KCJ-yNAyg Bing Video search on Pebble Bed Reactors http://66.152.109.32/videos/search?q=Pebble+Bed+Reactor&Form=R5FD1 LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI Do pebble bed reactors produce "more" fuel waste? 2006 Page 28 of 30

http://atomicinsights.com/do-pebble-bed-reactors-produce-more-fuel-waste/ Radiation: The Facts (promotional educational brochure) http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf ------

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage: http://ola.iaea.org/ola/treaties/documents/liability_regime.pdf

IAEA Meetings China HTR-PM Development Updates By INET/ Tsinghua University, Beijing - HTR-PM: High Temperature ReactorPebble-bed Modul http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2011/2011-10-03-10-06-TM-NPTD/1Monday/3_CHINA_SUN_TM3-6Oct2011.pdf http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2012/2012-10-22-10-26-WSNPTD/Day-1/5.Dong.pdf http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-03-05-03-07-TWGNPTD/Day_1/3.Sun.pdf http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-06-10-06-12-TMNPTD/18_accident_analysis.pdf http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-06-10-06-12-TMNPTD/2_china_htrpm_progress.pdf

Evaluating Safety Design Criteria for High Temperature GasCooled Reactors

Construction site for the HTR-PM at Shidaowan in Shandong province, China (Photo: INET/Tsinghua University)

Page 29 of 30

2013-11-29Safety design criteria are of prime importance to the licensing and operation of any nuclear reactor. A planned IAEA Coordinated Research Project (CRP) will focus on the safety design criteria specific to High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGRs). Fourteen experts from seven Member States recently met at the IAEA to exchange state-ofthe-art information on the HTGR safety issues and prepared the CRP. The IAEA Safety Standards reflect an international consensus on the safety of the predominantly used light water reactor technology, said Frederik Reitsma from the IAEA Nuclear Power Technology Development Section. HTGR technology is in many ways significantly different. The safety of modular HTGRs is based on the inherent safety characteristics of the fuel and core design. Safety evaluations show that no active systems are needed to fulfil the

fundamental safety principles and that decay heat removal is achieved by all natural phenomena. This leads to a core design where meltdown is not possible.
Increased safety concerns worldwide keep the interest in HTGRs high. For example, China is currently constructing the HTR-PM (High Temperature ReactorPebble-bed Module), a commercial demonstration plant in the east of the country The technology is available today and the operating experience amounts to about 50 reactor years, said Mr Reitsma. But due to their safety characteristics, HTGRs are regarded as Generation-IV reactor types. The CRP will evaluate past work on HTGR safety standards in countries that have operated HTGRs successfully, including Germany, the UK and the USA. Japan and China, which currently operate test reactors, will also participate. The work scope includes analysing the safety characteristics of different design approaches and should result in a list of qualitative, functional requirements, quantitative capabilities and quantitative reliabilities concerning HTGR safety.

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/News/2013/2013-11-29-nptd.html

--------------------------

Page 30 of 30