Related articles

---

• No Related Post

---

It’s not so much that people don’t care about climate change, it is that they don’t believe it. Are they right?  What are the arguments for and against?

The list of climate change sceptics is getting longer. One of the most vocal members of this list is the former Chancellor Nigel Lawson who, in his book “An Appeal to Reason”, argued that the solutions being advocated to fight climate change will cost far more than the climate change itself.

Here is a quick look at some of the arguments used for and against:

Argument one: there is no evidence the climate is warming up.

The climate changes all the time, there is no doubt about this. During the 17^th century there was a mini ice age, for example. Up until a few years ago the Earth had gone through a period in which temperatures had been rising, but this appeared to come to a halt at the turn of the millennium. Reports suggest that the models produced by climate change scientists can not account for this cessation in rising temperatures. On the other hand, the polar ice caps seem to be melting. For centuries sailors lost their lives in search of the north-west passage, a sea route across the north of Canada. In 2000 a number of ships successfully managed to complete this crossing

One of the more irritating comments spotted on one blog, was the suggestion that Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. In other words, the island was once covered in greenery.  In fact this is not true. The land was named by the Viking explorer Erik the Red who so named the island so as to make it appear more attractive. In other words, Greenland was named by a spin doctor.

There is a lesson in this. Both sides in the debate use spurious arguments to back up their claims.

Argument two: climate change has causes that are not man made

 The truth is that the causes of climate change are complex. Anyone who says they know, without a doubt, what the causes are is either lying, or deluded.

We do know, however, that the climate is heavily determined by both life on Earth and the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air. When the process known as photosynthesis first evolved, the world’s climate changed rapidly. Photosynthesis occurs when plants or other organisms break carbon dioxide down into oxygen and carbon. The evolution of photosynthesis changed the makeup of the atmosphere, boosted the amount of oxygen and forced life to adapt. (Before this oxygen was poisonous to life.) The carbon created by this process is the bedrock of life. Life on Earth is carbon based.

Some organisms, such as cows, are like machines for generating carbon dioxide and methane. The cows process the carbon taken from the grass they eat, and release methane via a certain process that humans are not supposed to duplicate in polite company. This does not mean, however, that cows create global warming. The grass grows back, and re-absorbs carbon dioxide. The process involved is, in-effect, cyclical.

When living things die and rot into the ground, they are passing the carbon they contain back into the soil. Over millions of years, the carbon deposited in the earth when living things die is, after it is subjected to enormous physical pressures and a very long timeline, converted into oil or coal, which we use as fuel. When we burn these fuels we are re-releasing into the atmosphere carbon deposits that had been stored for millions of years. The gradual build up of these carbon deposits over time changed the climate. By releasing them so rapidly, we are reversing a process that was millions of years in the making in just a fraction of that time.

Global warming sceptics claim that their point of view is being silenced

There is probably truth in this argument. Sceptics on global warming are often dismissed as ‘flat Earthers.’  By dismissing this alternative point of view in this way, supporters of the theory of man made climate change do their cause no favour. 

Global warming is a scam, designed to wrangle money out of us

Conversely, it could be argued that much of the science which opposes the idea of man made global warming was supported by companies and countries which have the most to lose from the cap on using fossil fuels. The value of oil currently sitting in proven reserves is after all worth trillions of dollars.

What is clear is that as the population rises, our reserves of fossil fuels may prove inadequate to meet global demand.  It is essential that we rapidly learn how to harness energy from renewable sources. Solar power may ultimately prove a more efficient means of providing energy than do fossil fuels.

According to an article in Scientific American, in May 2008 “the energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption of a year.”

According to the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation: “Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives the solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil.” They claim that the energy which is beamed down on the world’s deserts is 1,000 times greater than the entire global energy consumption. In other words if we were to cover an area of the desert roughly the same size as the South East of England with solar panels, we would generate enough energy for the entire human population. Right now, solar power remains expensive, but the more we invest into exploiting this resource the better we get at it.

Net discount value

If someone was to offer you the choice of receiving £100 now, or £150 in ten years’ time, chances are you would choose the here and now.  The truth is, future wealth is worth less than present wealth, and to adjust the value of future wealth we apply a rate of interest.

Global warming sceptics, with Nigel Lawson at the fore, argue that if we were to discount the future cost of global warming, then the cost of dealing with it today would in fact be much, much greater.

If there was no scope to improve our ability to extract energy from renewables, this may be a legitimate criticism.  But this argument overlooks the fact we have spent trillions of dollars over several hundred years honing our ability to extract the maximum amount of energy from fossil fuels. The equation between traditional and renewable energy is therefore distorted.

The last thing the oil industry wants is for us to enhance our ability to extract energy from alternative and ultimately cheaper sources

Leaked emails

The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia have seriously undermined the credibility of the global warming argument. However, this does not in itself disprove global warming. It has been suggested in today’s Telegraph that the leaking of these emails was in fact a Russian plot, because Russia, with its huge oil reserves has more to lose from a carbon cap than most countries. However, this argument does seem to smack somewhat of fiction, and should perhaps be kept to books and films starring James Bond.

It is easy to find faults and manipulated data on both sides of the argument. It is important we do not let our own biases influence the interpretation of data. 

The danger that global warming poses a worse threat than commonly recognised

It seems to be human nature to understate how serious a threat can be. The credit crunch is a classic example, with economic forecasters such as the IMF and OECD continuously underplaying the seriousness of the crisis. Equally, it is possible that they have underestimated the strength of future recovery.

There is a danger that the methane lurking in the polar ice caps is such that as temperatures rise and the ice caps melt, methane will be released in massive volume.   This could spark off a positive feedback loop, in which global warming accelerates, leading to more rapid melting of the ice caps, leading to the release of even more methane, leading to another acceleration in global warming. At this point it may be too late to solve the problem. 

Conclusion

Climate change is a complex process, and the science of climate change is still in its infancy. Warnings of man made global warming may be wrong, but equally they may understate the danger.

But, whether we suffer climate change or not, it is clear that the world needs more sources of energy.

Providing we are willing to invest the required amount of money, there are potential solutions to our need for fuel that in the long term may not only remove the danger of man made climate change, they may also prove cheaper than fossil fuels.

While these technological opportunities could ultimately benefit most people, the energy companies may actually lose out.

It is important to understand that there are groups with vested interests who simply do not want us to find a cheaper and more efficient alternative to oil.