“How can you not have insurance?”
“Because I spent my money on the Clapco D29, the most impenetrable lock on the market today. It has only one design flaw, the door must be closed!”
Global Warming or Hot Air?
Global warming, or more accurately man-made global warming is the single biggest moral and political issue of our age. The western governments have bought into the notion that carbon dioxide produced by man’s industrial activities is causing a rise in the temperature of the planet, that this temperature rise must be stopped to avoid global catastrophe. But what substantiating evidence exists to back up this claim?
It is getting increasingly more difficult to have a sensible discussion on the topic, such is its impetus, and the strongly held beliefs of its followers. A whole multi-billion pound industry has been created literally out of thin air, and will not take kindly to being told that its existence is superfluous.
Furthermore, the policies that have been and are being introduced to attempt to curb this impending catastrophe have wide reaching implications, and will not be turned around quickly. Policy makers take a while to get going, and when they do, the policy tends to hang around even when it has outstayed its welcome. Manufacturers everywhere are required to use CO2 emissions as a yardstick for anything from fridge freezer design to measuring how environmentally friendly business activities are, indeed these companies even have the option to offset their carbon production by paying a company to go and plant trees somewhere else in the world. While everyone in the world seems to be asking how or what we can do to reduce CO2 emissions, isn’t it time we asked the question why? Is CO2 an issue in the first place, or is it just a lot of hot air?
Cooling Tower by mattfoster
It seems that nowadays the ‘facts’ of global warming are largely undisputed. In 2003, a survey was carried out involving all 530 of the world’s climatologists. When asked whether they thought ‘The scientific debate about climate change is over’, 44% agreed, 10% were uncertain, and 46% disagreed with the statement [1]. Even so, in popular society, the climate change denier is very much like a small boy whistling in the dark. He has neither the support of the UK press, nor those who rely on it for their opinions. Is it possible that the global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that to deny that global warming is an issue (let alone man’s work) is tantamount to global treason? What is true is that there are millions of people employed in the field globally, who have a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo; and if global warming became a non-issue overnight, many of these people would be out of work.
I don’t think that true evidence will ever be found to prove or disprove the issue. As the split in opinion of climatologists demonstrates, climate is a highly complex science, and unlikely to be definitively understood by man any time soon, if ever. Like many other economic booms out there, sometimes it’s just easier to run along with the herd than to stand in the way and risk being stampeded. Essentially the ‘precautionary principle’ when applied to CO2 and global warming produces a statement which looks something like this:
"If we are right about carbon dioxide warming up the planet, and that man is responsible for it, and we can successfully reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and also persuade everyone else in the world to do the same, then it might make things better than they would have been had we not done anything."
Does this sound like a well thought out plan? Not really. It sounds very much like scaremongering, and action from a place of fear never, ever yields satisfying results. When you go on to consider how much cash is being spent on a "just in case" scenario, it makes you wonder whether this money might be better spent elsewhere.
But, I hear you cry, “If we are screwing up the planet, surely doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how much it costs, I mean this is our planet we are talking about?” Well, many UK citizens would agree with that statement, but it is a big “if”, and not everyone has the luxury of such an insurance policy; many people are living day to day, and they want solutions now. Let’s take the developing world, for example.
I suspect that to convince China, India, and Africa to reduce their CO2 emissions will be met with raised eyebrows. They really don’t share our concern. China is just coming into its economic stride, likewise the Indian subcontinent, and people there want to have the goods and services that we in the West have enjoyed for many years. This requires cheap energy in the form of coal, oil and gas; resources which they have in abundance. Likewise, Africa with the help of the Chinese, is mining its natural resources, and wants to develop quickly. Are we going to tell these countries that they shouldn’t use cheap energy to kick start their industrial machines "just in case carbon dioxide causes global warming"? You’re joking, right?
The UK can decide individually what it wants to do regarding CO2, but it cannot force anyone else to join it on its righteous quest to save the planet. If the UK decides to forge ahead with these carbon reforms, even though no definitive evidence exists (or will ever exist), then John Q. Taxpayer will have to pay this ‘conscience tax’. The revenue will be collected by governments in tax collecting schemes, and redistributed to organisations that work within the CO2 economy. The end result is that UK products and services will become more expensive, especially when competing in a global market with others who do not share our less than optimistic outlook on life. More likely, western industrialists interested in the bottom line will welcome the opportunity to move their production to countries which don’t have such restrictive ‘environmental legislation’, thereby circumventing the legislation, avoiding carbon tax, and a reduction in carbon emissions. I doubt very much that the Chinese will be making use of our thriving carbon trading industry.
Meanwhile, politicians can do nothing but sit on the fence, being very aware of the apparent oxymoron of "CO2 friendly / Economic growth"; they are asked to stimulate economic growth on the one hand, and save the planet on the other. Economic growth means production, means motion, means carbon dioxide emissions which, they tell us, are destroying the planet. So what can governments do? Not a lot, it seems. Maybe raise a bit of revenue through taxation?
Grangemouth Oil Refinery, Scotland by scottog
I am not going to join in the global debate of what statistics might have been gathered to demonstrate one thing or another, there are enough reports and programmes for you to watch and make up your own minds (see below). Rather, I will try to take a slightly more philosophical, happy view of the situation to try and put things into perspective. I have never been a great believer of statistics; human beings have far more say in their lives than a collection of numbers, however well these might have been gathered, collected and analysed. What I find vexing is the very premise of the argument, which is fundamentally flawed.
If you stand back and ask the question, why are we here? I know this sounds barmy but bear with me here, folks. What gets you out of bed in the morning? What is it that you enjoy about life? What is it that you enjoy about being alive here on this planet?
Life is in a constant state of evolution, (yes evolution is still happening, we’re not done yet!) and we human beings are evolving just like all of the other life forms around us. We are creating new wonderful technologies to make our lives better. We are running faster, jumping higher, we are expanding our knowledge, we are improving our techniques for living, and we are having fun creating things that have not been before. This expansion is eternal, and will never cease to be. So if this joy of expansion is at the basis of life, then we aren’t exactly going to down tools and accept that we’ve got the job done, and that it’s time to stop creating, that everything is as good as it ever will be, and we can go home now. It’s a completely absurd idea. We will be constantly making more, creating new things and finding better ways of living life (including ways of living more in harmony with our wonderful resourceful planet).
Whoever or whatever thought up this ‘idea’ called life, was a pretty bright spark. Does it make sense that life, that creation would get this far, and then be halted because some human beings we were burning fossil fuel (which incidentally, is actually re-cycled previous generations of the earth’s inhabitants)? It seems a silly suggestion, and if that were the case, life would have ceased a long time ago. Life, as we know it, is a pretty phenomenal idea, as ideas go. And we must have an excuse to expand. A new idea, a better way of doing things, a faster car, a cleaner car, a cleaner world. So what we are seeing here in this CO2 debate is man doing what man does best; trying to make things better. The only thing is, he has forgotten the overwhelming well-being and stability of the third rock from the sun, and has jumped headlong into fear from which he is trying to act sensibly, and failing miserably.
What comes out of this scenario is many great things; alternative fuels, cleaner modes of transport, less reliance on foreign oil – and consequently less wars over it, a way of life more in keeping with the environment and the planet, more efficient use of resources, to name but a few. All of these will be created. But the planet is fine regardless, and nothing we do can ever affect that stability.
Just consider for a moment how this planet spins in it’s orbit in perfect proximity to other planets. Consider how the sun rises every day, consider that there is an abundant clean water supply, and the air purifies itself. Consider that food grows on the planet year after year after year. We have an abundance of everything that we need from Mother Nature, more than enough for everyone on the planet. Yes, I believe that we will find more harmonious ways to live on this planet. But we shouldn’t curse the wonderful resources provided by Mother Earth for the benefit of mankind.
As time goes on, more and more people are beginning to ask questions about this global warming phenomenon. Is the world really warming up, and what are the implications? Is this a serious issue, or just another press fuelled scare story? Well, there are a number of global warming naysayers out there who do not subscribe to the notion that we are destroying the planet through our activities. Many of these will be attending the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change which takes place in New York 8-10 March 2009 and will ask the question "Global warming, was it ever an issue". The conference aims to:
"bring together hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts to explore areas overlooked or even deliberately hidden by the alarmists who dominate the public debate concerning climate change."
and hopefully also bring some welcome balance to the discussion.
The world is economically driven. Environmentalism is really about economics. Politics is really about economics, even religion is really about economics. Politics always follows the money, and the political policy which comes out is always based around economics. I’m not having a go at "Dubya", but have you ever considered that he strongly resisted any climate change policy for a long time, and that he also comes from a Texas oil family? Similarly, Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth", is widely regarded as the mainstream representation of evidence for man-made global warming. It turned out to be quite a convenient movie for Gore; grossing over $49million at the box office. I suspect, had he titled his film, "Global Warming, it might not be a problem", he wouldn’t have motivated quite so many people into the movie theatres. Al Gore is, unsurprisingly, himself involved in a number of organiations which cater to the global warming business. One might consider his movie and book about global warming as a highly profitable sales pitch for his businesses.
I am not in any way suggesting that any of this is wrong. In fact it is quite natural, and totally understandable. People act out of self-interest, always. While it might appear that they are being altruistic, there is always something in it for them. This is how the world works. Relationships, Jobs, Religion, Politics, etc etc etc. What’s in it for me? Economics rules because people act out of self interest and they always want to thrive as much as possible..
Fortunately there are other offerings which add some well needed balance to the debate; programs such as Martin Durkin’s 2007 polemic documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which shows that not all of the world’s scientists agree with the established view, and still have the capacity to continually question evidence, as any good scientist should.
I hope that in the coming months and years that more and more balance is restored to the debate. At present, it all seems to be extremely one sided, an established ‘fact’ and I suspect that title is undeserved. The regulations spawned from the premise grow daily. There is no doubt that the majority want to live more in harmony with our beautiful planet. There is no doubt that we can find better, more environmentally friendly ways of living. But as the carbon debate continues, I suspect that people will start to see how ridiculous a notion it is, and quite how brainwashed they have become by those who stand to gain from its continuation. The recent branch of Geoengineering (planetary engineering) is a ridiculous, but well meaning case in point. This isn’t science fiction, or comedy (actually it is comedy, albeit unintentional), these are serious propositions.
But seriously, the good news is, that the planet is fine. In fact it is evolving like all of the species that are living and thriving upon it. It was spinning quite merrily in its orbit for billions of years before man turned up, and it will be spinning quite happily in many billennia.
Man’s activities, however serious they might appear, are about as significant to this planet as a very small flea on the back of a very big dog.
[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
