Keeping climate change in perspective
Fraser Nelson 11:48amRichard Littlejohn is perhaps the funniest journalist in Britain today, but it’s a mistake to be distracted by the brilliance of his jokes. He regularly unearths the social and political trends making a direct impact on people’s lives. Today its the “global warming racket” – how councils are hiring “carbon advisers” on £30k a year. Hull Council has 30 staff working on “environmental issues”, he says, none of whom proved any help when its flood defences succumbed.
This is my problem with the global warming “debate” – it skews priorities, and allows councils to assemble a highly-paid green Gestapo while losing track of their basic duties (like keeping council tax bills down). On a national level, too, it’s all the rage. I’ve lost count of the number of Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members who proudly tell me they’re holidaying in France and taking the train. If anyone is thinking of cancelling a trip to a developing country where livelihoods depend on tourism, can I put into perspective the impact of air travel with some other polluters identified on page 199 of the Stern Review.
World Greenhouse Gas Emissions (from World Resources Institute)
Road transport 9.9%.
Agriculture soils 6.0%
Livestock (ie, bovine flatulence or farting and burping cows) & manure 5.1%
Cement 3.8%
Rail and ship and “other” transport 2.3%
Landfills 2.0%
Air transport 1.6%
Rice cultivation 1.5%
Food & tobacco 1.0%
In 20 years time, when the science is clearer, I suspect will look back on these years as time when rational debate was replaced by a form of pre-Enlightenment hysteria. How global warming was seen as a black and white issue, how you were either with Al Gore or you were a Evil Climate Change Denier. How intelligent people hugely distorted their lifestyles, without any idea of how much good they were doing – and whether the planet (and, here’s a thought, those living on it) may better benefit if their efforts were diverted elsewhere.
For the record, I accept the planet is warming and manmade activity exacerbates it. I'm just arguing for a sense of perspective in what we can and can’t do about this. I have yet to see a credible study saying man’s response can make a serious impact to this largely natural process. I’m open to persuasion – if any CofeeHousers know of such research, please say! At least 20,000 British pensioners will probably die from the cold this winter: a deeply unfashionable cause. But it’s just one example of a problem we can solve.
Previous
Comments
James T Kirk
July 17th, 2007 1:06pmGlobal warming could be this epoque's "the earth is flat". My analysis is that the sun is the reason for climate change, and man's contribution, if it exists at all, is minimal. Animal gas produces more methane than man's activities. What is not in doubt is that this is a hot political subject, and therefore no politician can ignore it.
David
July 17th, 2007 1:41pmIt is all FUD spread about by politicians seeking more reasons to tell us what we can/should and cannot/should not do. This planet has gone through innumerable hot and cold phases both with and, more often, without the aid of man.
Mr Eugenides
July 17th, 2007 5:02pmCouldn't agree more, Fraser. I too sign up to the basic premises of man-made climate change as a theory, but am deeply unconvinced by the hysterical response of the green lobby, and even less so by the bandwagon-jumping of our political classes. But do you really think many "intelligent people" are vastly altering their lifestyles in response to green concerns? Perhaps my circle of Glasgow graduates is different from yours (though I'm pretty sure it's not that different), but I don't think I know of a single person who has made a single serious sacrifice in the name of environmental friendliness. It's all just a lot of, er, hot air.
EyeSee
July 17th, 2007 5:50pmIf people could still think for themselves this climate change (can't say global warming, because when we 'knew' another ice age was coming it appears we were wrong, but don't mention it) malarky would never have happened. When the Royal Society says that you are not allowed to disagree with CC you know it must be a load of tosh; since when did science not encourage debate? It just shows what a fundamental need man has for religion as, having swallowed the left liberal line that religion is a form of oppression and ditched it we get people putting their faith in any charlatan with a new idea. What I would love to know is, does Al Gore actually believe what he is saying or is it just what it seems; political grandstanding. God, clever people are stupid sometimes.
Michael Gorman
July 17th, 2007 8:47pmI have argued the case that global warming is natural, and due to geophysical causes rather than solar variations. I suggest that man-made changes are dwarfed by natural events. See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.gorman
Nick
July 17th, 2007 10:29pm"Richard Littlejohn is perhaps the funniest journalist in Britain today" Do you actually believe this ? What would Boris say ?
Richard V
July 18th, 2007 12:17pmI think your view, Fraser, is closer to the scientific mainstream that you might guess from the reporting in the Independent. I have made a couple of progs last few years on climate change which challenged alarmism. The way the debate has been turned into scepticism v alarmism is very dangerous. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm