July 8, 2008
Why the climate change rebellion is hot air
More than 80 Labour MPs have reportedly signed an amendment to the Climate Change Bill which would force the government to raise its targets for cuts in carbon emissions.
The bill commits ministers to a 60 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2050, while MPs want that changed to 80 per cent.
The background: Gordon Brown has asked Lord Turner’s climate change committee to examine the issue, reporting at the end of the year.
Yesterday I spoke to Tim Yeo, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has just put out a report warning that such targets are useless if the UK continues with various policies such as expanding airports.
Yeo takes a sceptical view of the 2050 target and would rather see the emphasis on a cut of up to 40 per cent by 2020. His point is that by 2050 most MPs will probably be dead. By 2020 many will be out of office….but at least it is within our lifetime.
Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the government’s commitment to addressing climate change - despite all the hot air - can be summarised by its approach to EU targets. It’s trying to change the rules so that it can include overseas projects, ones which haven’t started, and coal-fired power stations using carbon capture.
As Greenpeace points out, this would mean including a half-built Chinese coal-fired station (designed by a consortium including one British company) as “UK renewables”. Crazy.
UPDATE
Okay, more detail on the amendments. (There are two). One proposes including aviation and shipping in the targets. The other is lifting 60 per cent to 80 per cent. The Lib Dems are likely to back both while the Tories will support the first (at least). The only problem is that these were “committee amendments” and will have to be put forward again as new amendments at the report stage……after the recess. Bear in mind that nearly 200 Labour MPs signed an EDM supporting the 80 per cent target.
Green policies? What rot.
This have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with TAX TAX TAX.
Why should I, as an Englishman, be beaten to death with green tax on green tax when our contribution to plant food emissions is negligible as a proportion of world emissions.
Remember the whole in the ozone layer that never was? History repeats itself.
Posted by: Tony the Trader | July 8th, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentThe science says that the 2050 target is just as important as the 2020 target - or indeed any other year. What governs how bad climate change gets is the total emissions we put out in every year added together - because the carbon we emit takes a long time to come back out of the atmosphere, which effectively it just builds up. Viewed on a graph, it is the area under the curve that we need to limit not any one particular year.
Tim Yeo says the earlier 2020 target is easier to hold people to, but even midterm targets like this have been hopelessly missed in the past. That is why the Climate Change Bill breaks the pathway down into truly manageable chunks - 5 year “carbon budget” periods with annual indicators and reports.
However those 5 year budgets are set by Government with reference to meeting the 2020 and 2050 targets. So it’s not much use saying one is more important than the other - this is a whole process in which all targets must be guided by scientific advice. The best current advice is we need a 40% cut by 2020, and 80% by 2050. Make either target less rigorous and the area under the curve gets larger than the “safe” amount of emissions we can afford.
Posted by: Martyn | July 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this commentThe only strong science is science that can be repeated in a laboratory. These models always overpredict the near future, and as a computer engineer I find it ridiculous they will be more accurate 90 years from now. How can these consensus scientists believe based on science? They would have to understand the entire computer model, and nobody claims they are complete. How tiny an error in the model would it take to predict 1-6 degrees temperature rise a 100 years from now? They are basically weather models run for a 100 years. I don’t view the weather predictions a month from now more accurate than for tomorrow morning. Based on a 100 year weather forecast they want to raise taxes and regulation on anything to do with energy - despite the fact the Kyoto treaty is probably as effective at reducing emissions as the models are at predicting the climate. How many climate scientists would be required without the AGW scare? A non-believing climate scientist is like a turkey voting for Xmas. What has become of science? This stuff makes economics look as dependable as Newton’s laws.
Posted by: larry | July 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Report this commentJust goes to show the limitations of science and computer modelling. And economics. And no, they don’t always over-predict in the near future. Witness the under-predictions of melting of sea ice in the Arctic. We’re are entering a new paradigm that we have no collective experience of as a culture. I wish it were just a ruse to work up taxes. It’d be much easier to fix.
Posted by: Tobias | July 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm | Report this commentMy understanding was that the arctic was melting because of the water flowing faster underneath it, but the records are too short to say there is a problem now and the south pole appears to be gaining ice. Greenland clearly has more ice than a 1,000 years ago. The predictions on temperature have always been higer than has happened. Models that are tweaked to match the past but fail to predict the future are always suspect. The current financial funding supports positive feedback, not negative. Until the IPCC counter the skeptic’s scientific points these models don’t deserve the attention they are getting.
Posted by: larry | July 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am | Report this commentSo they want to slash our standard of living compared to other countries on the basis of highly disputable science, and even if the models were stone bonkers correct our 2% contribution would make not a fiddle of difference.
Posted by: John Page | July 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentIt is all about depriving people from money not about the environment.
Posted by: Contino Bricchio | July 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Report this commentThe cost of TRAINS and public transportation in UK is incredible and in most of the cases the car is the cheap option.
The number of plastic bag offered by shops is absurd and make me laught.
Try to by a pan-au-chocolat in GREGG: they give you a small bag where they put the product, a towel and they put all in a plastic BAG: more plastic and paper than food.
Incredible!
In my opinion the only action that the Laburist are good to do is to suck money from the people: only this.
I see the selfish brigade with their heads in the sand are posting again. Everything we do results in damage to the planet, we’re better and more efficient at it than third world countries. What we have to do is remember what he carbon cycle is and integrate systems already available to reduce energy consumption and to use all the wasted energy lying around or being land filled. It makes commercial, economic and environmental sense to do this, and do it now.
Posted by: Alan | July 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am | Report this comment