James Fairbairn, ScienceAlert 20 Aug 09;
The Earth’s climate is changing. Of that there is no doubt. Then again there is also no doubt that the Earth’s climate has always been changing, since day one. The debate that is raging is whether, this time, man in all his dark glory is causing it. This is not an article about the complex science of climate, it is an article about why it is important that each of us does our research and makes an informed decision.
This topic is the single most important topic of our times. What governments do as a result will affect us all. None of us can afford to be agnostic or to go with the flow. It is not being overly dramatic to say that the entire future of the human race potentially depends upon the outcome.
The argument that you are presented with each day is very simple. It has to be. Our entire mass media system is based on short bursts of information: sound bites. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “greenhouse gas” and its increasing concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere - from about 0.0290 per cent to 0.0385 per cent in the last 100 years - has been caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels. The CO2 is “polluting” the atmosphere and leading to a “runaway greenhouse effect” where the planet will get warmer and warmer, leading to mass extinctions, sea level rises and will threaten our entire civilisation. CO2 is to blame. And we have caused it. Therefore we must and can solve it.
The solutions presented are, again, pretty simple. Governments will tax CO2 emissions through a quota system by which companies will have to buy permits allowing them the right to “pollute” the Earth with additional CO2, and will be able to trade their quotas in a global carbon trading system. Over time the quotas will become more and more stringent, reducing CO2 envisions, and hence saving the planet from doom. It all sounds pretty sensible.
If only life and science were that simple in reality. As I said before this is not an article about the science of climate, however it is essential to briefly consider the Earth’s ever changing climate and the factors that have historically influenced it. So what are they?
The Sun, the source of our heat and light. Does its energy output ever vary, and what impact does that have on climate?
Volcanoes. Do the vast releases of gases and heat from surface and submarine volcanoes influence climate? Are we measuring all these releases?
Water Vapour. It too is a greenhouse gas, and it is more than 30 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. Does the cloud cover of Earth affect climate, and if so what affects this cloud cover?
Further considerations include other greenhouse gases, such as methane; the inter-action of gases between the air, plants, oceans, bacteria, animals; wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, and its movement through the universe in general…
And I’m afraid that is just the tip of the mountain of information with which you will need to familiarise yourself. I bet you wish you had paid more attention during school geography and science lessons now, don’t you?
So what other questions do you need to ask?
Is the recent CO2 increase being caused by man? Does the increase in CO2 cause climate to change or is it caused by changing climate? Is the speed and amount of modern climate change unprecedented? Is the temperature range in the last 100 years outside normal variability? Has CO2 been considerably higher, and lower, than present and yet the Earth’s oceans have neither boiled away nor permanently frozen solid? Is CO2 actually pollution? Plants rather thrive on it after all.
So why is all this important? If we are to believe that “CO2 is a pollutant” and it is the only problem, then you have a problem because, if you take the argument to its ultimate conclusion then you are the problem. You exhale more than 350kg of CO2 each year. Your lifestyle leads to further CO2 emissions through the use of transportation, your consumables and your food supply - whether it be methane emitting livestock or the transportation of your food from the farm to your table.
Therefore if man is the problem, surely the only effective solution will be fewer humans: a lot less than the seven billion who are currently causing the apparent problem.
You are probably saying to yourself “But why would governments go along with this if it wasn’t necessarily correct?” And for that matter why would corporations or scientific bodies either?
Let’s look at governments first. Politicians have two raisons d’etre: to be seen to be taking positive action by the electorate; and when in power to raise taxes to pay for services to appease the never satisfied voters. Making CO2 the problem addresses both of these issues very effectively.
A politician who is seen to be taking action to combat “carbon pollution” (probably the most unscientific term ever created as it is open to debate whether it is pollution) gains lots of kudos when it comes to the all important “green” vote.
As for taxation well there are literally billions of reasons. Take Australia for example. Its carbon emissions scheme is expected to raise revenues of about $20 billion a year by 2012. More than enough, for example, to pay off the deficits created by the recent economic stimulus packages. And the best bit is that the voters love it. A tax that is popular is manna from heaven.
So what about corporations: surely they hate extra taxes? Well, yes and no. Certainly, there are some industry sectors which will thrive for as long as CO2 is seen as the problem, and will naturally manipulate the agenda to their benefit as much as they can. Examples such as the nuclear power industry (remember Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Sizewell?), or arable agri-businesses (nasty old farting cows causing global warming) spring to mind. But anyway, as with any tax, the ultimate payers will be the end consumers, you and I, through higher costs passed on by the corporations.
But the biggest winners by far will be the banks. There are literally trillions of reasons why they love this scheme. It is estimated that by 2020 the global market in “carbon” will be worth more than US$2 trillion, thus making it the single biggest market in the world! And, what’s more, it is a market created out of, and trading in, thin air. Can you think of any reasons why they might be motivated to smooth the agenda onwards?
Yes, that’s all very well. Corporations are all in it for themselves, as are politicians. We all know and expect that. However we are told daily in the (corporate or government owned) media that the scientific debate is over and consensus has been achieved, aren’t we? But has it?
Where do scientists get their research grants from? And who wouldn’t like to attend all expenses paid junkets, sorry conferences, in exotic locations?
In a way this whole CO2 thing is our placebo. We are “doing something about our wicked ways” after-all. And maybe our polluting ways have given us an over inflated sense of power and control over nature itself. Maybe we can do what King Canute failed to do and we can hold back the tide. Assuming that is that CO2 is the only cause.
However the big danger is that while we sit there at the waters edge, shouting “stop!” at the rising tide, we ignore what we are actually doing to the environment. More than 99 per cent of environment-related media stories are about CO2. But is it 99 per cent more dangerous to our survival than all the other things we are doing?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not pro-car: or in the pay of the oil companies. To survive our species must live sustainably in harmony with the eco-system. We must stop polluting in every way. We must change the way we live or eventually Mother Nature will punish us and we will go the way of T-Rex. That is inevitable. The big question here is, by “tackling CO2” are we addressing the problem, or ignoring it and potentially making it a damn sight worse for our ultimate survival? No doubt other pollution reducing benefits will come from CO2 reducing activities; however, would it not be more efficient to deal with the actual problem directly rather than indirectly? Recent media reports have shown that corporations are already simply moving their worst polluting activities to the developing world where carbon restrictions will be less onerous. Is the human life there worth any less?
The world economy is being re-shaped through the development of a new multi-trillion dollar global financial industry paid for by an indirect tax on all consumers. The question you must ask yourself is whether this is the right solution to the problem at hand?
The downside with making an informed opinion from this is, of course, is that you can never be 100 per cent sure you are right. You can only make the most informed choice based on the balance of probabilities from the information you have received. Many of us, no doubt, will have placed considerable intellectual credibility on taking a stance on this whole subject. However each one of us must keep our minds open to new arguments and information. There is too much at stake and ultimately we must be prepared to take a volte-face if necessary.
As CS Lewis very presciently once said “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
