To view my article on Sustainable Energy click here

Climate change heresy or orthodox?

Arguably, most people have been persuaded of the view that climate change is the greatest challenge we face globally and that mankind is the principal cause by virtue of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions we have been releasing into the atmosphere through burning the fossil fuels of coal, gas and oil over the last century or so.  A significant body of evidence and computer modelling has been assembled in support of this proposition.  A number of predictions of outcomes have been made on the basis of this modelling foretelling floods, tempests and temperature rises of up to 8 °C leading to many million deaths. 

Opinions have been a bit more divided on what to do about it with the main focus on prevention rather than adaptation and most debate has been about how to cut emissions.  One aspect of all of this that has struck me has been the vehemence with which the proponents of the above line of thought or orthodox view have attacked anyone daring to question their assumptions and conclusions.  The scientists have largely spoken with one voice; for example in the joint science academies statement  entitled global response to climate change signed in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and USA.  More recently the economists have got in on the act via the Stern Report. 

But, I ask myself, if the scientific base is so incontrovertible why such a strong reaction to the likes of Bjorn Lomborg and a few other academics raising queries?  Can it be the impatience of someone who thinks the facts are so blindingly obvious that no-one could possibly challenge them or is it the intolerance of someone unwilling to risk their own preconceptions being turned upside down?  To me it seems rather like a modern version of orthodoxy versus heresy. 

Allow me to digress into definitions briefly.  My shorter Oxford English Dictionary says orthodox means "holding correct, i.e. currently accepted, opinions” while heresy is “a theological opinion or doctrine held in opposition to the 'catholic' or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church" or it is "an opinion or doctrine in science at variance with what is orthodox".  Now, it is about 450 years since people were burnt alive at the stake in England or buried alive in Flanders for their faith and I do not suggest protagonists in the climate change debate could even consider such acts but I do observe people hold very strong views and I am very surprised that scientists in particular should be determined to reject other arguments out of hand. 

What is at stake here is very important to human health and happiness.  If the analysis is right but we do not act, the next generation will curse us.  If the analysis is wrong but we disrupt our society and economy at huge cost, unnecessarily as it turns out, then they will still curse us.

Although the empirical evidence around us of climate change is clear to see with plenty of statistics to support, there are things to question.  Much, for example, was made of the "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the 20th century which showed a sharp increase right at the end conveniently co-incident with the period of greatest consumption of fossil fuels.  But a closer look reveals that yes there was an increase of 0.7°C overall but within that a less consistent picture emerges.  No change 1900 - 1920, up 0.4°C between 1920 and 1940, down 0.2°C between 1940 and 1975, up 0.5 ° between 1975 and 1998 and no change 1998 to date. (What, even with all the New Labour hot air?!)
 

We know there have been several ice ages in recent geological history and we know there was a medieval warm period a thousand years ago with a colder period in the 17th and 18th centuries.  We know from geology that major changes in climate have occurred, for example in Devon in the South West of England we have lovely red soil dating from the aptly named Devonian era when it was a desert.  But we don't have detailed climatic measurements over anywhere long enough a period of time to have a clear picture of what happened locally and globally or a clear understanding of why it happened.  The continents have shifted and drifted so how can we tell if it was them moving into a different climatic zone or a change in the zones themselves? 

There are those who maintain that the ambient temperature of our atmosphere is primarily determined by solar activity.  This makes some sense in that we are wholly dependant on the energy from the sun for life and it would be unsurprising for the levels of energy emitted and received to vary somewhat.  I'm not sure we have the means to measure this over any long period of time so as to see how it has affected us.  And it has been pointed out that temperature measurement stations in urban locations would skew the statistics due to the “heat island” effect.  I could go on but the point is we can't be sure how much climate change is being driven by factors beyond our control and how much by what we are doing. 

There is a temptation to apply the pending tray solution, namely put the issues to one side and wait long enough for it to cease being an issue.  For example one could say that at the present rate of consumption the world will be faced with a declining supply of fossil fuels within decades rather than centuries (except for coal that is) so will be forced to develop alternatives anyway.  We could look at things differently by researching other ways of climate control to perhaps dissipate greenhouse gas (GHG) clouds.  After all some postulate that when no planes flew over the USA for days after the 9/11 attack, ground level ambient temperatures increased and it was because of  the absence of the condensation trails from the aircraft so they deduce that aircraft flying have a global cooling effect.  This theory is having some difficulty in getting off the ground, so to speak, but you never know! 

So what are the common sense "action this day" options if we accept that something must be done?  This is where I veer toward orthodoxy on the precautionary principle.  I believe we should all do all the things that make good sense in themselves and stop short of the more radical changes in lifestyle that I fancy fundamentalist green types would have us embrace.  That means energy efficiency and conservation should be guiding principles.  But if we really mean business about reducing CO₂ emissions we have to turn to technological solutions to find alternatives to coal, gas and oil or at any rate find economic ways of cutting the carbon emissions from electricity generation and the transport sector.  In particular clean coal technology with carbon capture and storage combined with a major programme of nuclear power plant construction, i.e. the two cinderellas of energy in public perception until very recently.  Or is that heresy become orthodoxy?