When environmentalism clashes with the environment
Charles Clover, author of The End of the Line, argues that the proposed Severn Dam project, which could generate up to 5% of Britain’s energy needs, would be an environmental disaster:
“It would cut greenhouse gas emissions at a massive cost to wildlife. The 85,000 overwintering birds that use the Severn mudflats to feed would have nowhere else to go. And the returning salmon, sea trout, lamprey, twaite shad and allis shad of the rivers Severn, Wye and Usk – also protected under European law – would be chopped up by the turbines.”
This seemed a good article to me because debates about renewables usually centre on issues such as cost and effectiveness. It is rare to see a piece debating the impact on the environment. Mr. Clover, like our own Dave S, believes that we need to focus more on reducing our energy consumption, since renewable energy will simply encourage us to maintain our current levels:
“The danger is that projects such as the Severn barrage are seen as easy wins by politicians terrified of the consequences to their comfortable lifestyles of telling their electorates what CO2 reduction targets actually mean: turning some lights off, flying less or buying a more efficient car. Without energy efficiency, there is a danger of having a barrage in every estuary, or onshore wind farms everywhere, so our energy use can grow unchecked.”
I too would like to see more a focus on the energy reduction side. As I argued a while ago, if politicians were really serious about reducing climate change emissions, then they should shift the tax burden away from income to products that are environmentally-unfriendly (such as flying). This would penalise those who continued with their high carbon lifestyle, and benefit those who reduced their emissions. To ensure that those on low incomes didn’t lose out, the tax cuts would come in the form of raising the tax threshold (the point at which a person begins to pay tax), to £13,400, while remaining monies would be used to increase the basic state pension. Some people would lose out quite a lot if they didn’t change their behaviour, but then that is the point. Let’s price the externalities properly, rather than obsessing about renewables as a panacea.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Environmentalism
‘we need to focus more on reducing our energy consumption, since renewable energy will simply encourage us to maintain our current levels’
How awful!
So it is about saying that people are inherently wrong for wanting wealth, travel and the like and that we should all determine our lives according to the gospel of green orthodoxy? Anyone thinking otherwise is a pariah who can legitimately be taxed back to the stone age if need be.
We could, of course, try to adapt our world – but then that doesn’t carry such an easy moral sneer does it? Now if you will excuse me, I’m just going to turn the lights on.
Tell me Rumbold, aren’t you the person who once claimed that you were a libertarian?
MaidMarian:
I am a libertarian. People from across the political spectrum accept the idea of pricing externalities fairly. Basically, an externality is something which affects a third person (i.e. one not involved in a transaction). A good example is a firm which dumps waste into a river. We have laws/fines/taxes to deal with situations like this, because the firm is affecting more than just itself/its customers.
Since climate change is a problem, we need to work out how to reduce the problem- the best way to do this is to build into the tax system the real impact of environmentally-unfriendly activity. Renewables are good as well, but they are not the only solution.
If you want to fly everywhere, that is up to you (there should be no legal restrictions)- all that will happen is that your impact on the environment will be properly costed.
It seems that a lot of aspects of the modern day developed world lifestyle are unsustainable and leading to crisis within the next 50 years or so-
We have a debt crisis, global warming, a developing third world (our lifestyles are going to take a massive hit once those millions of child workers doing our mining, growing and sewing decide to unionise rather than work 100 hours a week to subsidise this “information age” we’ve cooked up)- and an energy crisis.
Things need to change fundamentally, the abuse of natural resources by private despots is a relic of feudalism, and it’s doing possibly irreperable harm that future generations will have to suffer through.
Rumbold,
Agreed. The proper cost of flying. We are effectively subsidising leisure flights, which is mad. And the way we celebrate key events by ostentatiously expending power in light shows and the like should one day be seen as being as irresponsible as celebrating by unloading an assault rifle into the air.
MikeSC,
True. Our excess comes at someone else’s cost, that is both wrong and unsustainable. Mostly wrong. Me, I’m tight-fisted. I go around switching of lights and lowering heating. I hate buying stuff when I could get by with what I have, fix what is broken, improvise or do without. It’s entirely meanness, but I can spin it as concern for the planet.
Best way to reduce energy costs? Get your child to go to uni. Cut 35% off my bills straight away.
The Severn Barrage has not, & never has had, anything whatso-fucking ever to do with being green.
Just like biofuels, it’s essentially a wheeze designed by government to show off about how it’s “doing something”. These people who talk about being “green” give the impression of never having been to the countryside in their lives, of never delighting in nature, landscapes, wildlife & wild places.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/severn-barrage-environment
Paul Kingsnorth is a top man & knows what he is talking about on this issue.
I personally think it should not be allowed to go ahead, nor should the third runway.
Rumbold – No, I’m sorry, ordinarily I quite like your writing, but this got up my nose.
‘People from across the political spectrum accept the idea of pricing externalities fairly. Basically, an externality is something which affects a third person (i.e. one not involved in a transaction). A good example is a firm which dumps waste into a river. We have laws/fines/taxes to deal with situations like this, because the firm is affecting more than just itself/its customers.’
Firstly, that looks suspiciously like an attempt to conflate a legal activity with criminality – I hope I am overreading. But the tax system is sure as hell not there to enforce laws on dumping waste. I would love to see US levels of enforcement on dumping of waste, but this is a side-track.
Secondly, you seem to assume that your idea of charging for externalities will have some impact. I would suggest that this would get short-shrift in China and other places.
Moreover, I have no problem with the idea of externality per se. That though was not the sentiment of the article – that sentiment was surely the moralist ramming of a green agenda down the collective throat. What you are more or less saying is that it is legitimate to target ways of life through act of government.
You may well believe that – fair enough. I however believe that it not the role of government to do that.
‘Since climate change is a problem, we need to work out how to reduce the problem- the best way to do this is to build into the tax system the real impact of environmentally-unfriendly activity. Renew ables are good as well, but they are not the only solution.’
NO NO NO! Taxes do not cut emissions, people cut emissions. Here’s radicalism – how about instead of demanding that government force people into a way of life you take this up with the public themselves? And while you are at it, go and explain to the developing world why they should not do things like drive?
You may find they react better to being asked, rather than statutory hectoring.
Sure, renewables are good as they are part of the adaptation that so many see as a threat and an affront to green orthodoxy.
Out of interest Rumbold, what do you think about the generational aspect to this? What you are saying is that the 40-60 generation get to live high on the hog and burn carbon for fun unmolested, whilst the next cohort get to be taxed to the hilt and priced out of travel and the like – yes?
You are no more a libertarian than I am Bjorn Lomborg.
MaidMarian:
I think that I explained myself poorly. I used the waste example as a way of trying to highlight what I meant by externality. I don’t think that the tax system should replace the legal system, but I see nothing wrong in using it to try and properly cost externalities.
Or rather, it is legitimate to target ways of life that have a negative effect on others, but not always through legal means. For example, I cannot drop litter wherever I want to, because it has an impact on others.
If action X is causing result Y, and result Y damages others, then it is legitimate to ask how action X can be reduced or even eliminated.
I am focusing on Britain specifically. Yes, we need China and others to do this too, but I have never been a holder of the ‘after you’ view. Either something should be done or not. Moreover, it is the developed world that has contributed most to carbon emissions, so we should be the ones to take the lead.
Tax affects behaviour. I believe that people are essentially good and caring, but it doesn’t mean that there is never a role for the law/tax system. I encourage others to reduce energy use, but that will only go so far.
I am not sure I see the point about generations. It is future generations that will have to bear the brunt of climate change anyway. It would have been nice if governments had always priced externalities properly, but that is not the case.
People would not be priced out of flying. Nor would most be ‘taxed to the hilt’. The proposal would be tax neutral over all initially, and as a bonus for libertarian-minded people, the overall tax take would fall over time as people stopped using so much energy.
I presumed you were Benny.
greenpeace have suggested design modifications to protect the birdy habitats.
any ‘renewables’ entering the national energy mix are to be welcomed, as support to future technology, instant carbon reduction and as a useful public good (which energy is).
the issue of not being energy pigs is slightly seperate. every council across the country is running programmes to this end, but all that work is destroyed the m inute the central government continues to piddle about with coal.
i dont thing the uk is going to be a ‘green leader’ untill the next labour-type government, which will be another decade or so away. tory greening is to plant hedgrows and trees now and again, and probably subsidise hybrid engined sports cars.
liberalism is not enough to restrain our carbon gluttony.
Rumbold – ‘If action X is causing result Y, and result Y damages others, then it is legitimate to ask how action X can be reduced or even eliminated.’
Yes, but how far you take that is the key issue here. That and how far social control outweighs other things such as adaptation.
Put another way, you can probably quite easily convince the public that littering is bad (and having just emerged victorious from a fight to the death with the council about some fly-tipping, I certainly know!) but you are applying it here to aspirations to travel and the like.
The two are very different and I have always found it quite surprising that many in the green movement just seem unable to see the shades of grey here. It is an inability that leaves me suspecting that the agenda is as much about disapproval of others as it is about saving the world.
‘Either something should be done or not’ Regardless of whether that something will actually have any real effect? That’s lip service isn’t it?
Rumbold – honestly, I respect much of what you have to say, but (and you may find this an odd thing to say) you are massively underreacting to climate change. Fiddling with taxes and hectoring the public in one small country IS lip service. A global programme of adaptation and R&D is what is needed, but I would hazard a guess that the green movement would treat anything other than drops in standards of living as heresy. It is as if the vision rather than the impact matters.
If I can jump in (I’ll take that as a yes)
Put another way, you can probably quite easily convince the public that littering is bad (and having just emerged victorious from a fight to the death with the council about some fly-tipping, I certainly know!) but you are applying it here to aspirations to travel and the like.
I’d be interested to know your attitude towards more conventional pollutants, such as NO2 and Carbon Monoxide. There are large areas of the country where levels of these gases, which are toxic and associated with a wide range of respiratory problems, especially in children, exceed guideline figures. The people driving through do not wish to emit, in the same way that a flytipper wants to dump rubbish. They simply want to get to work, or take their children to school, or whatever. How is a solution to be found? Are the residents expected to beg the people traveling through to travel less?
Release of these gases is not something to be banned completely, like littering, but something which just needs to be moderated, for the health of the population at large. A solution still needs to be found, but the justice system is too rigid for the purpose. So what better way than through the taxation system, by including the cost of the healthcare (publicly incurred) into the price of the vehicle or the fuel? This same principle applies to GHG emission.
Rumbold – honestly, I respect much of what you have to say, but (and you may find this an odd thing to say) you are massively underreacting to climate change. Fiddling with taxes and hectoring the public in one small country IS lip service. A global programme of adaptation and R&D is what is needed, but I would hazard a guess that the green movement would treat anything other than drops in standards of living as heresy. It is as if the vision rather than the impact matters.
Both approaches need to be taken. There are huge projects and fundamental research which must be publicly financed, but equally the power of markets to find solutions is undeniable. If you make an opportunity available then private money will pour in, dwarf public capital, and bypass politics. Just look at the amount of venture capital that has poured into the industrialization of solar panels. It is not to under-react to make use of more than one approach.
I would hazard a guess that the green movement would treat anything other than drops in standards of living as heresy
There is an element of truth that some people are tied to environmentalism as a proxy for other political beliefs, but that does not reduce the level of the threat. Reality should be above politics.
jb21uk – I don’t disagree with much of what you have to say – it’s just this,
‘Release of these gases is not something to be banned completely, like littering, but something which just needs to be moderated, for the health of the population at large.’
What a lovely euphemism, ‘moderated,’ is! Who gets moderated? What is the penalty for breaching the ration? Does car use in the third world get moderated in the same way? Do I get to factor the healthcare costs into car fuel use overseas? Does the tax change you talk about also include a compensation for any loss of economic activity caused by moderation?
A better solution, to my mind would be to make non-polluting vehicles and make them cheap (at public expense if necessary) rather than tell people that they can not drive. I do not have a driving license incidentally – do you?
You mention solar panels. On a recent visit to Eastern Europe I was impressed at quite how many hoseses had them, and they were subsidised – in a relatively poor country! But the panels I saw would not survive a brush with the NIMBYs and the planning system here. These are the battles that need to be waged, not hitting people in the pockets because you happen to dislike how they live.
Again, I do not argue with big parts of what you say, but, like Rumbold, you want the world to be as you want it to be rather than as it is. My view is that working with people, rather than demanding lifestyle changes is the way to go. I am really not convinced by chavscum’s pro-death policy idea.
I, of course, respect your differing view.
‘how many hoseses had them’
Obviously meant to say, ‘houses.’ Any chance of getting the correction facility fixed?
Well this is the problem with many people not really understanding the LONG term environmental goals – which are really long-term social goals. People jump on the environment bandwagon and so many are short-termist thinkers.
In the end, how are we going to “reduce” energy usage if we do not change our SOCIAL situation? No one seems to think about this one – and this is really and truly where the ‘environment’ meets long-term social and economic sustainability.
If we are not changing how our economy works -i.e. everyone RUNNING around to increase our profit margins every year by x % and expect exponential growth, well then, all the “mitigation” strategies – are just that – short term mitigation strategies.
People have overall forgotten that the original point of the environmental agenda was to say, if we carry on living this way, we cannot support it, because of the side-effects and pollution that is resulting.
Now we are considering very piece-meal approaches to reducing pollution instead of considering WHY there is so much pollution in the first place.
If politicians (or anyone else) were really serious about climate change, they’d look at investing into sustainable transport for example. No point ‘penalising’ people when you aren’t giving them any alternatives. Governments are leaving ‘climate change’ to fluffy behaviour change third sector initiatives which while all very well and good in themselves, are not going to do much at all if they are not contributing to serious infrastructure development.
The focus is all about ‘convincing’ the public. This is greenwashing actually – The public will be ‘convinced’ if there is something to actually convince them of. Again, behaviour change campaigns to get people to recycle etc. – well that’s the sort of thing that we needed about 15-20 years ago. Now, we need a lot more than just convincing individual members of society to change. We need systems to offer up to these people -what are we actually offering apart from low-energy lightbulbs, a bit of insulation here and there? Nothing substantial, nothing at all. And all the climate campaigning around air travel is frankly absolutely useless without real alternatives. Given the exorbitant prices of rail travel both within England and Europe, really – what have we got to offer people? Nothing.
What a lovely euphemism, ‘moderated,’ is! Who gets moderated? What is the penalty for breaching the ration? Does car use in the third world get moderated in the same way? Do I get to factor the healthcare costs into car fuel use overseas? Does the tax change you talk about also include a compensation for any loss of economic activity caused by moderation?
Moderated is simply in reference to toxicity. In the same way that one has to moderate personal salt or alcohol intake. That is merely a description of reality, if you don’t believe in harming other members of society, which is a basic tenet of our society.
The argument is not what the problem is, but the correct solution. You suggest subsidizing the purchase of electric cars. The problem is that does not most efficiently allocate resources. The person driving a lot is the person we all want to use the electric car, so why not reward him proportionately. And this is as much about reward as punishment- a green tax would be revenue neutral, which gives those people willing to make more-or-less irrelevant changes (lifestyle wise) to electric cars, CF lightbulbs or decent insulation get back what otherwise would have gone straight to the government on income tax.
The third world argument is relevant in industry, but not in car use. I am here, next to the motorway, someone else is in the car, or the reverse (I don’t drive, but I am a regular passenger). We both live in the same society. The driver’s commute cannot be subcontracted to the third world, and someone driving in the third world is not causing respiratory problem here.
You mention solar panels. On a recent visit to Eastern Europe I was impressed at quite how many houses had them, and they were subsidised – in a relatively poor country! But the panels I saw would not survive a brush with the NIMBYs and the planning system here. These are the battles that need to be waged, not hitting people in the pockets because you happen to dislike how they live.
Firstly solar panels, photovoltaic and hot water, don’t require planning permission in the UK, except in conservation areas, which do not cover much of the country. The problem is cost, and not NIMBYism.
Then photovoltaic panels are a good example of short-term misallocation of resources. Long-term they are an interesting source of energy, but join me in a calculation: This pdf gives approximate figures for a photovoltaic installation. A 1KwPk system would be expected to generate 700-750 KWh per year, and cost £4000-9000. In contrast, replacing 5 100w incandescent light-bulbs with CFLs (80w reduction each), each running for 5 hours a day for a year, saves 730 KWh, and costs about £40. That is a perfect example of why the market should be used to find energy efficiencies, and not government agencies.
MaidMarian:
I like a lot of what you say too, but I think that you are wrong on this.
I agree that despite what Gordon Brown would have us believe, he can’t save the world on its own. But we can make a start, and give a lead. If other countries see that our system is working, then they might be persuaded to follow suit.
But my point is about when one person’s right collides with another person’s right. So having the right to travel is fine, but it does mean that if travelling has an impact beyond the seller and buyer, we should look at the impact. I agree that there are shades of grey, and we shouldn’t demonise, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything.
One interesting question on green taxes is how to avoid driving industry elsewhere. It seems like the best way to go in domestic situations on the one hand, but on the other, you can see how very energy intensive industries (production of Aluminium is the most clear-cut example) would simply move to the cheapest place for electricity. That might be positive environmentally (moving production of Aluminium close to renewable sources) or not. But there’s the same issue here with normal taxation- you might see the setup of energy tax havens, and the loss of business elsewhere. If you were to set-up exemptions for certain industries, I don’t know at what point you’d draw the line.
renewable energy will simply encourage us to maintain our current levels
Screw that. In the future, people can, should and will be richer, i.e. have access to more energy. The status quo is clearly unacceptable to anyone other than a few percent of the population of the planet.
That means we need _both_ green energy _and_ carbon taxes or similar, with the one financing the other. If a small fraction of the upper fringe of the few comfortable percent want to go off and indulge themselves with a low-energy lifestyle, that is fine as long as it is understood it is a fad of the same type as feng shui; nothing to do with actual environmentalism.
If a small fraction of the upper fringe of the few comfortable percent want to go off and indulge themselves with a low-energy lifestyle, that is fine as long as it is understood it is a fad of the same type as feng shui; nothing to do with actual environmentalism.
I agree to some extent, but those people are also the one’s who are going to pioneer expensive new technology and (to an extent) lifestyle changes, which the rest of us can adopt later. You might also say that is the role of Britain worldwide, to find a way to maintain our standard of living without damaging the environment.
Now, we need a lot more than just convincing individual members of society to change. We need systems to offer up to these people -what are we actually offering apart from low-energy lightbulbs, a bit of insulation here and there? Nothing substantial, nothing at all. And all the climate campaigning around air travel is frankly absolutely useless without real alternatives. Given the exorbitant prices of rail travel both within England and Europe, really – what have we got to offer people? Nothing.
Those simple solutions are extremely important though, and that low-hanging fruit has to be taken. On air travel, it is not just about not flying, but changing the culture around it. For instance, persuading people against the idea of weekend breaks. Better to fly once a year on a longer holiday than to regularly take these short breaks. Much more realistic though to change these things through taxation, rather than through ethics alone. I favour the carbon card idea, to give individuals a free allowance balanced across heating, electricity, fuel and flights before taxation kicks in.
Also, I agree with your implicit suggestion about funding more high-speed lines. We should be connected much more into the european network- overnight trains (say, from Manchester to Barcelona) would be great.
Rumbold,
Not all of what is alleged about tidal power that is quoted in that article is true. Wikipedia, far from agreeing that a turbine is a mincing machine, mentions one such scheme on the St Lawrence, where the fish kill is zero.
The environmental impact of the La Rance plant in France – which, I’d agree, is not directly comparable – suggests that there has been ecological substitution rather than a loss of diversity.
Frankly I think that this is the worst sort of Nimbyism, where the global loss of habitat through climate change is not being weighed in the balance of local concerns.
Rumbold,
This weeks copy of the New Scientist has this article in it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html
My point being, rather tentatively, that mud flats – that your birds sit on – are probably not much above the existing sea level. So your, and cjcjc’s idea, that ‘doing nothing’ is a solution to habitat loss is actually hypocricy. It is to be expected that mud flats and other geographical features will eventually re-establish themselves, further inland what with the rising sea levels that New Scientist mentions. And these areas will be reinhabited by either the same species, or ones like them. Those that managed to adapt. Whilst the Nimbys whose houses are knee deep in mud, will be homeless. Ain’t Mother Nature wonderful?
I know this is evil of me, but I really do hope both you and cjcjc have bought beach front properties on next to unaffordable mortgages.
Now that would be putting your money where your mouths are!
Frankly, this is why I am not a Libertarian, nor a petrol head Tory. They can’t see the wood from the trees.
Cry me a river….
Anyway Rumbold,
Whatever happened to Devils’ Kitchen, the sweary Libertarian that couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag on climate change? Used to try to comment here? Is he still a leading light with you Libertarian chaps?
You have to admit, our ‘new friends’ the BNP are more persistent, although equally thick.
Though in different and even more sinister ways…
Though denial, whether from Libertarians, or the BNP about what actually goes down, annoys the hell out of me…
Still, my friend, I only say these things because you transcend the boundries that you – yes, you -set for yourself.
And then, with one bound, you set yourself free!
Perhaps you are an entryist into the Libertarian Party, what with your commitment to, lets see, IKWRO, Black Sisters, etc, etc. You would not get a Rizla Paper between thee and me on issues like that. There is rarely an article that you write here that I disagree with.
You know that.
This is one of those rare occasions. When you spout Libertarian nonsense on behalf of whom, Rumbold, who, exactly?
The three fucking monkeys?
Exxon, Shell and Mobil?
C’mon, you are far, far better than that…..
Douglas:
I don’t think that I was being nimbyish when I raised these concenrs. Surely it is legitimate to ask what impact an environmental project would have on the environment. We know from history that constructions like dams can cause huge suffering (see Mirpur), and be ecological disasters. In fact, surely my stance is an anti-nimby one, as the dam would benefit me at no direct ecological cost.
I don’t calim any expertise in the matters, which was why I tried to avoid saying that everything Charles Clover said was right and instead pointed out that we need more of these discussions.
I have a lot of affection and respect for you Douglas. But I don’t know Devil’s Kitchen- I have never even met him. Yes, we share some of the same beliefs, but that is about it. And I don’t see why arguing for a change in the tax system is a libertarian idea (as opposed to being a liberal idea, conservative idea, etc.).
Rumbold,
Of course it is completely legitimate to ask what impact any project – not just ones that are likely to have a beneficial impact on the countries entire carbon footprint are likely to have on the environment and to look at alternatives. But, it seems to me, that cavilling over a few fish or a nesting habitat for some birds misses the point that elsewhere, these habitats will be destroyed completely. I wonder whether a local consultation on the Severn Tidal Power Scheme is ever likely to give proper weight:
firstly to the need for each nation on Earth to make whatever provisions they can to reduce their carbon footprint?
and secondly, whether the likely loss of many other habitats – such as the Wash – would be considered at all.
This is national level – indeed international level – politics, and not really something that ought to be decided locally. I fully expect this to get fudged, mainly because corporate interests, whacky Greens and local interests coincide.
To stretch an overused metaphor to beyond breaking point, we do indeed live in a global village and the pooh that we allow to fester in our house stinks out the whole town.
The only way we are going to get out of this fix is by using what little grey matter we have, and indeed, it may already be too late.
I apologise for the continual barrage of anti-libertarian flak that I send your way. You know that I have a high opinion of you both as a writer and as a friend. However this seemed a particularily ‘political’ piece for you, and is indeed revelling in the kind of anti-science bullshit that Greens are all to keen on promulgating. Hence the diatribe.
Douglas:
I agree that Britain needs to reduce her carbon frontprint. But I don’t think that it is anti-science to question whether such schemes are desirable, and whether other schemes would have less of a negative impact on the environment.
I never get offended by your words because I know that you are not attacking me personally: you are simply passionate.
Rumbold,
If you ever look down here. I think it is anti science to debate whether this is ‘desireable’ or not. Of course it isn’t desireable. It is, on the balance of the probabilities, less undesireable. It has less impact. That is the measure we have to take now. Because we have allowed, encouraged, broken hearts like yours to stand in the way of dealing with our issues, on the lack of, it must be said, your assumption that our effort would be a waste of time.
No, it does not have to be that way. Lets all get behind the reversal and see where that leads?
Not being a scientist (or having much scientific knowledge) people like this guy (Bjorn Lomborg,) just leave me wondering who’s right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqZWbLLbAOM
He says that even if we implemented Kyoto, it would delay global warming by about six years by 2100 (meaning that overall its impact would be little) and yet it would cost about 150 billion dollars every year for the rest of this century.
He reckons we could do better things with that money.
Hmmmm. Who knows? (Not me)
Not being a scientist (or having much scientific knowledge) people like this guy (Bjorn Lomborg,) just leave me wondering who’s right.
He’s just one man ultimately, and his training is in political science and statistics. In that interview, when he talks about rising sea levels, he takes the IPCC report as gospel. I understand the 4th IPCC report focusses on linear changes, at the expense of possible feedbacks and tipping points. The sea level figures he talks about take no account of the melting of land-based ice-sheets, which might cause sea level rises an order of magnitude or two higher, and put large numbers of coastal cities at risk. Otherwise, it takes no account of the release of methane from melting tundra, which could have a severe effect on temperature rises. He is assuming a fundamental predictability in the climate, which would be justified if we were capable of modelling it long-term. The reality is we are faced with an incredibly complex and perhaps chaotic system which we do not understand, into which we are throwing a spanner.
jb21uk,
Says it all.
I think, always have, that avoiding the outcomes he mentions might be the tipping point about us claiming to be an intelligent species….
So, Rumbold, are you on the side of the mad, bad Bjorn Lomborg, or on the side of sense?
It is frankly not a political point. It is about survival…
“Who knows? (Not me)”
Then why do you persist in regurgitating Spiked/RCP talking points?
Do you ‘know’ any better? I just find the bashing of anyone who takes a more jaundiced opininn of the enviromental bandwagon a bit boring.
And for example, the way that the Glastonbury festival will gush about their efforts to be as green as possible, and say how some of their electricity is being generated by locally sourced used cooking oil, and how they were using biodegradable tent pegs and such stuff.
If it gives you a warm glow inside then fair enough, but I think it’s legitimate for other people to roll their eyes at this kind of eco populism.
Douglas:
Look, I think we need renewable energy projects. But it doesn’t follow that every such project is therefore good.
Well, as you ask the question in such a neutral way, I would say that I am on the side of those who want to do something about climate change, while also defending people’s right to over dissenting views without being branded ‘deniers’, ‘paedos’, etc.