Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

David Hone
Climate Change Adviser, Shell Group

David Hone

David Hone is the climate change adviser for the Shell Group and vice chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. He also works closely with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ALL POSTS

It shouldn't make a difference!

What does the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate election mean for the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate this year?

The shift in the balance of power in the Senate may well have a negative impact on the cap-and-trade aspect of the energy / climate bill, but it really shouldn't. Political opponents the world over seem to be debating the science of climate change, when almost without exception, the very scientific institutions that they finance are telling them that there is a problem that needs addressing. The National Academy of Sciences have made the case in the USA.

The job the Senate has in front of it is to find a route forward in solving this problem. What is on the table today is a market based approach, which has significant business support (see the full page ad in the Wall Street Journal - Thursday 21st January - supported by 86 major businesses, NGOs and associations) and will deliver the desired outcome at lowest overall cost to the United States economy. Along the way it will also help improve the energy efficiency of the economy, which is probably no bad thing given that the US is a net energy importer. The additional investment required should create jobs as well. A system that is already in practice in the USA and has delivered on its goals at a fraction of the expected cost should command cross-party support. Yet it seemingly does not.

This problem will not just go away, which means that if the US doesn't act now with a cap-and-trade approach, it will still have to act later, but with more stringent measures. The opportunity for a "slow start, get used to the change" approach will be gone and business will be faced with the need for rapid, expensive and hence unwanted action.

By David Hone  |  January 21, 2010; 12:45 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: What happened to global cooling? | Next: Legislation will likely be delayed


Please report offensive comments below.

Well, we can see that Senator_Salesman is adept at running a Wikipedia search on Scientists Who Oppose Global Warming. Had he taken the time to read further and investigate his citations, and been truthful about his findings, he would have discovered, amonng other conflicts of interest, that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon co-authored a paper that was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, a paper which was widely criticized in the scientific community for inaccurate findings. Deniers of global warming like Senator_Salesman should reveal hidden details about their sources.

Posted by: mgasgw | January 29, 2010 6:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

True science has always been open to all opinions and it is always changing based on new evidence. It turns out that much of this "consensus" in global warming was actually funded by those who would profit financially and politically. Any dissent was squashed.We had record snowfall and cold everywhere this year. In the 1960's there was a 20 ft. snowfall in the Sierras in Ca. this year it is happening again. All weather is cyclical. It seems as though ocean currants have much more to do with weather than man's puny input. Most American know this.

Posted by: katie6 | January 24, 2010 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

See what a Fraud Global Warming is!! These are some of the E-mails of Scientist who are advising the United Nations, The EPA, and Your U.S. Congress! Discover for yourself America.

Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003
In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Mann wrote:

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[37]

Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004
An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—ours does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009
An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"[

Phil Jones:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature TRICK of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to HIDE THE DECLINE."[

Hmmmmm.... I Wonder what HIDE THE DECLINE means? You don't have to be a Climate Scientist to understand this. We are supposed to invest Trillions of Dollars based on the manipulation of Data by Corrupt Scientist like these guys? Thank God for Senator Inhofe! Global Warming Scam is officially debunked. I rest my case.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 23, 2010 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It seems that Mr. David Hone has a conflict of interest just like our old Pal Mr. Al Gore. Of course Mr. Hone is going to say a cap and trade system is the best way to combat the Hoax which is global warming. He is vice chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. Just like Al Gore is Vice President of the Chicago Climate Exchange and will make billions of dollars if Cap and Trade passes the Senate this year (Which it won’t).

The problem is that your “science” is based on lies and scare tactics, and the American people have finally woken up to this fact.

Mr. Hone states, “This problem will not just go away, which means that if the US doesn't act now with a cap-and-trade approach, it will still have to act later, but with more stringent measures.”

Does that sound like a scare tactic to you?

Mr. Hone also states, “the very scientific institutions that they finance are telling them that there is a problem that needs addressing. The National Academy of Sciences have made the case in the USA.”

What Mr. Hone doesn’t want you to know is that they are many, MANY, scientist who disagree with the theory of AGW. Notice the following scientists who disagree with Mr. Hone and the institutes at which they are associated with……

- William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University [1] [2]

- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University [1]

- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences [1]

- Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia [1] [2]

- Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences [1]

- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California [1]

- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa [1]

- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [1]

Next we will move on to the “Warmers” favorite topic: CLIMATEGATE

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 23, 2010 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company