How green is my golf course? - by Richard... Saturday, February 20, 2010

How green is my golf course? - by Richard... Saturday, February 20, 2010

"Happiness in life is based on expectations," writes Rajendra K Pachauri on his own blog. And if your expectations include ownership of a nine-hole golf course, then Dr Pachauri must be a very happy man indeed.

The ownership is reported today by the Indian newspaper the Mail Today which tells us that R K Pachauri's "not-for-profit" TERI - imbued with a mission to "work towards global sustainable development, creating innovative solutions for a better tomorrow" – is the proud owner of a water-guzzling nine hole golf course in Gual Pahari on the outskirts of Gurgaon a satellite town to the southwest of New Delhi.

This much is not new. It was described in glowing terms by the Business Standard in February 2007, when we were told of a "beautiful golf course" that precedes the entrance of a "completely different world from the precincts of Gurgaon".

It is part of the "amazingly landscaped 36-hectare TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) campus at Gual Pahari." And nestled inside this campus is an unassuming building called The Retreat, a training and recreation centre for TERI staff and executives.

Furthermore, TERI has made no secret of the facility, noting in its Annual report 2006/7 that the golf course had been created "with the intention of promoting golf amongst TERI personnel residing in Delhi and Gurgaon." It was then that the six-hole golf course was being upgraded into a nine-hole green. A 200-yard driving range was "an added attraction" and there was a nine-hole putting course adjacent to the Retreat building.

But, it appears, TERI is harbouring a guilty "secret". The five-acre golf course is part of the 69 acres of institutional land it acquired from Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1985, for the exclusive use of TERI staff. Commercial exploitation is prohibited.

Yet the paper has found that the golf course has been opened up to selected members of the public who are being charged Rs 25,000 (£350) for membership.

According to Gurgaon's district town planner Vijender Singh Rana, commercial activity through sports on institutional land is illegal. "HUDA gave this land to TERI for institutional or public and semi-public purpose."

Rana said. "Though they have asked for change of land use (CLU) regularly from HUDA, permission cannot be given for any sporting activity. If TERI is selling golf course memberships, it is wrong." Rana said the conditions for use of institutional land were clear. "If TERI uses it for its own purpose, there is no problem. But it cannot use it commercially and sell golf memberships," he said.

Needless to say, a TERI spokesperson denied it was making commercial use of the course, something rather contradicted by this piece written in May 2008, to say nothing of this site which refers to green fees. Then there is another, seemingly bizarre, contradiction which has the state government imposing a tax on golf players, a piece in which the TERI golf course is mentioned.

However, this is confirmed by a Mail Today reporter who anonymously contacted course officials and was offered memberships for £350. Furthermore, Mohinder Singh, an official at the course, told the paper that there was a one year waiting time. "Your form will come for review after a year," he said.

Equally contentious is the water usage to keep the golf course green. As chair of the IPCC, Pachauri is voluble in demanding of governments around the world that they cut down on carbon emissions and save water, among other things, to sustain the environment. He is equally voluble about potential water shortages in his home country, arising from melting glaciers and all that.


TERI claims that water conservation measures on the campus include "an efficient central rainwater harvesting system in accordance with water conservation guidelines such as drip water irrigation, early morning and late evening half circle sprinkling to minimise water evaporation and loss."

But with the golf course and environs requiring up to 300,000 gallons a day during the summer to keep the lush greenery in condition (pictured above), questions are being asked about the sustainability of the facility, which would have difficulty in meeting the volume required solely from harvested water.

This is especially an issue in Delhi, where water shortage is a major a problem, and more so in Gurgaon. As recently as March 2008, local difficulties were causing scarcity of drinking water in the city.

As recently as earlier this month, serious concern has been expressed about the huge gap between supply and demand and the rapidly falling water table, depleted by an estimated 35,000 bore wells, only 9,780 of which are registered.

With many local residents increasingly struggling to cope with a failing water supply, many eyebrows are being raised at the luxurious greenery which Dr Pachauri's merry men enjoy as they stroll round the greens in between saving the planet and relieving the misery of the poor.

This is not what most people had in mind when they describe Dr Pachauri as "green".

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Self-deception writ large - by Richard...

A recent interview with Michael Mann – of "hockeystick" fame - has him in a defensive mood, complaining about the "twisted" media coverage which he has had to endure.

As to redressing what Mann feels is the balance, he refers to "this website" Real Climate, "that I'm involved in along with roughly a dozen other scientists." The purpose of the website, Mann claims, "is to try to communicate to the interested public what the science actually has to say." 

What is both so terribly sad is that Mann undoubtedly believes what he is saying, and expresses his views in all sincerity. One problem, though. is that the site, recognisably, is about advocacy rather than explanation. It does not tell the public "what the science actually has to say" – it is there to defend the orthodoxy.

Another, more serious problem – which stems from the first – is that the narrative is irretrievably biased, very often subtly, in such a way that the message is wholly distorted, tilted towards the favoured line, in a way that is wholly anti-scientific. 

Yet, all along, it represents itself as the unvarnished truth, as presented by honest (implied) "climate scientists", thus claiming a superior status over less well-endowed commentary, which is characterised as "the anti-climate science effort."

Excellent examples of this can be found in the recent post, labelled, with unconscious irony, "IPCC errors: facts and spin", the piece itself a classic example of "spin".

How that "spin" manifests itself can be seen in the treatment of several of the issues raised, not least in the attempt to diminish the importance of "Africagate", which is a classic of its kind.

The main techniques deployed are the "straw man", misrepresenting the nature of the complaint, then to deal with the distorted version rather than the actual case presented, and positive "framing" – building up the report before addressing the criticism. This is then complemented by belittling the criticism.

Thus, we have Real Climate present the issue with the statement: "The IPCC Synthesis Report states: 'By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%."

Now, the essence of the complaint, expressed in Jonathan Leake's article - articulated via professor Chris Field – is that there is "nothing in the report to support the claim." Furthermore, the statement has been widely quoted by Pachauri and others, including Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

However, neither of these issues is addressed here. Instead, we are immediately told that the claim is "properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2." Not said, of course, it that the Synthesis Report was published with great fanfare separately from the WG2 report, and is the one which represents the considered view of the IPCC, the report most widely read and quoted by the media.

Only that smaller number who then referred to chapter 9.4 of WG2 would find what Real Climatenow highlights. The chapter section says: "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." Of this, we are told: "The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly." 

So far, therefore, we have two "positive" statements: the Synthesis Report is "properly referenced" and the Agoumi reference is "correct and reported correctly". Actually, neither of these points is at issue – they are irrelevant to the argument. But they have created an impression of rectitude, attempting to condition the reader.

Then comes the "straw man". The main criticism, we are told, is that that Agoumi (2003) "is not a peer-reviewed study ... but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network". But that is not the main criticism. The main criticism is that there is nothing in the report to support the claim.

However, with the "straw man" up and running, the counter argument is then lodged. Firstly, the "prestige" of the report is built up as we are told that it is "funded by the US Agency for International Development." This, again, is totally irrelevant to the argument but, to the untutored, it confers a certain amount of authority.

An omission is also notable. Although the International Institute for Sustainable Development claims to be a think-tank, it is by its own declaration, an advocacy group. But Real Climatereaders are not allowed to know this.

Instead, the author is quite happy to take Leake's evaluation of Agoumi's worth at face value. When it suits, Leake is a reliable source. Thus, the report is written by Morroccan (sic) "climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi". Whatever Agoumi is, he is not a "climate expert" and, particularly, he has no track record in climate impacts. But the description serves, so it is used.

As for the report itself, this is given the most positive spin possible. It is, "a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."

By contrast, Leake's point is that Agoumi refers to "other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either."

Given a more critical and searching demeanour, Real Climate could have noted that, rather than refer to Agoumi, the authors of the WG2 report could have referenced the Initial National Communications – the primary rather than secondary sources.

This is a simple, obvious point that any real scientist would make. You do not, as a rule, reference secondary sources when primary sources are available. If you did that in a PhD thesis, an alert supervisor or examiner would strike it out and you would be made to go back and cite the originals.

The IPPC report, of course, is not a PhD thesis - it is supposed to the "gold standard". Yet what would be unacceptable of a collage graduate is deemed by the "climate scientists" of Real Climateto be perfectly acceptable for the IPCC.

This, however, is also the nub of the argument. Had this issue been explored, it would have been seen that the references cited by Agoumi did not support the contention he had made – thereby standing up Leake's complaint, that there is "nothing in the report to support the claim."

Instead, Real Climate does not even deal with the real complaint, instead averring that the Agoumi report "is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference". Even if that was true, it does not address the substantive issues.

What we then get is a lengthy dissertation about the contents of chapter 9.4 – none of which is at all relevant to the issue. But it allows the comment that it "sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time – hardly the stuff for shrill 'Africagate!' cries."

The technique here is wearily transparent. Having trotted round the block with your "straw man", you belittle your critics.

Then, and only then, do you add as an afterthought: "If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost."

By such means, the substantive and very real issue is reduced in scope and importance to a mere footnote, a minor misdemeanour rather than a major and glaring felony.

This is not honest science. It is dishonest wordplay, and all the more contemptible for its pretence at being something else. If the authors believe – like Mann – they are telling the truth, they are deceiving themselves. It is self-deception writ large.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Saving money? - by Richard...

The Daily Telegraph is running as its lead today, "Fortnightly bin collections are to be extended across the country to save money."

In a muddled story, we are told that councils hope that the move will encourage residents to recycle more, "reducing the amount of waste dumped in landfill sites, where it is taxed by the ton." We are also told that councils have been ordered by the government to find £550 million in savings from waste disposal budgets to cope with the pressures of the recession.

As always though when this paper reports on waste issues, there are two words missing from the story: "European Union". And it is the absence of any explanation of the EU influence that robs the story of any meaning.

The key words in what were are told – which give the clue to what is going on – are "wastedisposal budgets". Here, it is helpful to know that, of the 27.3 million tons of municipal waste collected in a year (2008/09), about half (50.3 percent) goes to landfill. 

This year, however, under EU rules, that figure must drop to 11.2 million tons, requiring about 2.4 million tons more to be recycled. Failure to comply invokes a fine of £200 a ton – around £500 million paid into EU coffers. Without it being specified, therefore, it would seem that the £550 million "savings" are in fines not paid to the EU. 

Needless to say, though, things are not quite that simple – they never are. This forthcoming financial year, the landfill tax goes up from £40 to £48 per ton. So, by not landfilling 2.4 million tons, councils "save" £115 million – although the tax is paid into Whitehall coffers, so it would just be a transfer from one pocket to another.

The problem here is that dumping 2.4 million tons in landfill costs councils about £150 million, including tax. But, to divert it to other disposal options will cost between £250 and £500 million, with a significant capital investment for the waste handling and treatment – possibly £1-2 billion.

There are some savings to be made from reducing collection from weekly to fortnightly, but these are marginal, as councils are to impose food waste recycling, and collection will be weekly. Possibly, costs may even increase.

Thus, what this amounts to is that, in order to avoid paying the EU about half a billion in fines, local councils must add at least £100 million extra to their own costs (ignoring capital costs). Thus, the true picture is that we will end up paying more for a seriously degraded collection service. The savings are illusory.

It helps not one whit to learn that this is being done in the name of saving the planet from global warming, but at least we can enjoy the warm glow of satisfaction from knowing that these are yet more benefits of EU membership.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Peabody Energy Company - by Richard... Friday, February 19, 2010

Offers its 240-page argument on the EPA endangerment case. It relies heavily on "Climategate" and the CRU e-mails, plus the lacunas in the IPCC report - "Amazongate" and others – then concluding:

The EPA relied on IPCC reports that were not prepared in accordance with US data quality standards and therefore do not meet US standards of reliability. Thus, [the] EPA's attempt to transform a benign naturally-occurring substance into a dangerous air pollutant is based on evidence that it should never have used in the first place.

That seems to me an innovative and effective approach. That the assessment reports did not meet "US standards of reliability" is probably unarguable. Get that excluded and where does the EPA go?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD