How green are the Conservatives?

“Acting swiftly to reduce carbon emissions across the world could be as economically imprudent as it would certainly be morally reprehensible.” Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP for Chichester, 5 March 2008

Hat tip: Rupert’s Read

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

23 Comments

  • Iain Roberts 24th Mar '08 - 6:50pm

    Sounds like a perfectly intelligent and reasonable comment to me. Whether it’s right or not, it deserves a sensible response.

    Andrew Tyrie quite rightly points out that, whilst there’s little doubt that man-made global warming is a reality, there’s still huge uncertainty over both its extent (how bad will the consequences really be) and how best to tackle it.

    My analysis of the science may differ a little to Mr Tyrie’s, but we would do well to treat this as an intelligent debate rather than decrying anyone who questions the worst case scenarios.

  • Iain Roberts 24th Mar '08 - 9:01pm

    Bishop:

    This particular blog thread probably isn’t the ideal forum for a sensible discussion on the scientific evidence around global warming.

    Suffice to say that both the claim that global warming hasn’t happened for the last decade and the suggestion that large-scale growing of biofuels would do more harm than good are worthy of debate but certainly not the scientific consensus.

    The quote about biofuels being a “crime against humanity” was made by one person, Jean Ziegler and wasn’t, as far as I know, in any way an official UN position. Ziegler is a professor of social science and economics so, whilst his views are worthy of note, I’m sure he wouldn’t claim to have any scientific specialism in the area of biofuels.

  • Iain Roberts 24th Mar '08 - 10:36pm

    Bishop,

    Ziegler’s opinion was his own – it was a little naughty to suggest that it was the UN position, as if the United Nations had come out against biofuels.

    I didn’t for a moment suggest you couldn’t question the consensus – quite the opposite.

    Whether a particular CO2 reduction target is appropriate depends on the cost of implementing the target against the risk of not doing it. To make the case that 80% cuts were preposterous you’d really have to show that sort of calculation – just saying it doesn’t make it so. But you’re perfectly right to question it: any target should exist for good reasons and make economic and environmental sense.

    As you point out, there is a wide range of opinion on the issue and, amongst experts, your position is a minority one whereas the Lib Dem position (in general, rather than relating to specific proposals) is supported by a majority of experts. That doesn’t make you wrong and me right, but it does put the onus on you to prove your case.

  • Wasn’t the Stern report all about the risk of the economic costs of not tackling global warming being far greater than the economic cost of tackling it?

  • Iain Roberts 25th Mar '08 - 6:59am

    Bishop,

    You say above “the temperature isn’t actually going up” – a claim I’ve heard several times from sceptics (that there’s been no temperature increase over the last decade). I believe it’s based on the HADCRUT3 Met Office data of global temperatures.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html

    The last decade has very clearly been warmer than previous ones. The most recent year is unusually cold (as the graph shows, these outliers are common and to be expected), so if you just compare “temperature 10 years ago” with “temperature now” it looks like it’s fallen, but that’s clearly not what the data shows.

    As for your poll “showing” 25% of climatologists think the IPCC is overegging the issues, I suspect there are enough polls around to prove whatever you want them to if you’re selective enough.

    Here’s one I’ve just found:

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30780279.htm

    “Six of the 10 [climateologist] experts contacted by Reuters in the last 10 days stuck to projections by the U.N. Climate Panel that sea levels will rise by between about 20 and 80 cms by 2100. Four said gains could be higher because of likely bigger thawing of Antarctica and Greenland. None thought the IPCC was exaggerating the risks.”

    I won’t claim it’s the last word on the matter 🙂

  • Iain Roberts 25th Mar '08 - 10:30am

    Letters from a Tory:

    Yes, you’re right. Zeigler’s comment was perfectly sensible (which isn’t to say that he’s right; but the biofuels issue is a complex one and he has some good points that deserve serious consideration).

    What’s a little misleading is Bishop’s original suggestion that it was the official United Nations line: that was my only concern.

  • One argument from a climatologist I’ll always remember was that one should be sceptical of politicised arguments because the conclusions are usually based on selective science.

    Global ‘warming’ is a current conclusion of present trends based on today’s best data.

    ‘Climate change’, however, is an inclusive theory which integrates all historical evidence and reminds us that, over the long run, what goes up will also come down.

  • Iain Roberts 26th Mar '08 - 7:22pm

    Bishop,

    I haven’t read the Sterne report myself, so I’m sure you’ll excuse me leaving that debate for another day – I honestly know very little about it.

    With the opinion poll, as I mentioned, no poll is the last word and there seem to be enough around for everyone to find one that backs up whatever line they want to push, which rather reduces the impact.

    I agree that the Lib Dems have a responsibility to back up the 80% cut with evidence both that it’s needed and that it’s a sensible, achievable target.

    Now onto this “global warming stopped in 1999” business. As climate sceptics are the first to rightly point out, short term judgements on climate are bad science. Trying to prove something from a ten year period (especially one that’s been picked because it supports the theory) is definitely bad science.

    There may be a case for global warming slowing: I won’t dismiss good evidence. Unfortunately, looking at a 10 year period in isolation and selecting the period to look at so it gives the right result isn’t good evidence by any standard.

    If, for example, you look at the temperature trend over several decades rather than cunningly making the start point 2002, it’s painfully obvious that the upwards trend has continued with more hotter years this decade than any previous one.

  • I like to compare graphs of climate trends with stock market tracker charts: hugely volatilite on a day-to-day basis with emergent trend cycles over different length periods.

    Over any period, however, spikes and troughs are indicitive of tumult, are undesirable and necessitate continued vigilance.

    Speculation isn’t helpful, however much you may profit.

  • Iain Roberts 26th Mar '08 - 8:32pm

    No-one has ever suggested that “consensus” means “every single person agrees” in this case. Consensus is being used in the sense of “the judgment of most of those concerned” rather than “unanimity” (both are valid definitions).

    You also have to be careful about the questions being asked. Do your climatologists deny human-caused global warming? There are lots of different questions and I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that consensus exists on all of them.

    Whilst I can follow the maths in the post you link to, I don’t have the ability to check it, perform the calculations myself and see how valid it is, but as always I’ll be keeping a keen eye on what the experts are saying and trying to reach an informed view.

    For now, based on the totality of evidence I’m aware of, I think the science supports human-caused global warming being a continuing and serious threat; though I accept of course that (as always in this sort of science) the evidence isn’t perfect and a sensible debate continues.

    I don’t accept your proposition that global warming has been shown not to be too serious. I think that conclusion is based on a partial dataset and, in some (but not all) cases, bad science.

    I do, though, genuinely appreciate the intelligent and sensible debate; long may it continue (though perhaps not right here 🙂 )

  • Iain, to talk about global warming is a misconception of the situation.

    I don’t think anyone can have much doubt that humans are influencing the environmental balance and ecology of the planet, but we can argue forever about what outcomes are likely and how we should go about tackling them.

    For my part, I see ‘warming’ as a gross simplification of the idea that more energy is being held in the atmosphere. More energy means more powerful weather events and greater contrasts across climate cycles, and not just necessarily higher mean temperatures.
    These changes have knock-on effects on the different atmospheric strata and latitudinal weather cells, which all makes localised and medium-range forecasting more unpredictable.

    Seeing as the boffins can’t explain the future in language that satisfies a tabloid headline writer, it doesn’t surprise me that so many people waste so much time trying to establish certainty in their own minds by trying to create ‘definitive’ theories, rather than undertaking sensible action to reduce profligacy, minimise waste and avoid the potential of any danger.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Andy Daer
    @Mark Frankel, yes, it would be nice and neat if it were true that "the Arabs" reject the two state solution. In fact, it is the leadership of the Israeli state...
  • Mark Frankel
    If you break into your neighbour's territory, murder 1200 of its people, kidnap hundreds more and use them to further weaken your neighbour's peace and security...
  • Mark Frankel
    Israel did not emerge from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. It emerged from the ruins of the British Mandate in Palestine. The British tried to implement the ...
  • Andy Daer
    Tom is normally a reliable commentator, but his pessimism here is unjustified. Trump habitually rocks the boat with crazy ideas, and drops them if they turn out...
  • Roland
    @ Nonconformistradical Agree it’s a conundrum. Basically, the plans and thus the houses were sold on the “vision” of all the facilities being in place, ...