“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
“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
23 Comments
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
Indeed. Given that the globe hasn’t warmed at all for the best part of ten years, the hysteria we are regaled with is starting to look, well, hysterical.
Someone was trying to work out what a country which reduced its carbon emissions by 80% would look like. IIRC the answer was Haiti.
Global warming has been known about since the 1980s, and since then we have not done nearly enough to tackle it. Prominent scientists like James Lovelock argue that we may well have reached the point of no return. If he is right, the consequences are simply appalling for all of us.
The reason it has not been taken seriously enough by politicians is that the business sector has funded biased lobby groups to persuade governments not to do anything. It is no surprise that the USA in particular has been suseptible to this. It is also no surprise that the Conservative party, being the party of business has also been dragging it’s heels, and that even today many of their MPs remain unconvinced.
The Liberal party and the Liberal Democrats has never been in thrall to the business lobby and have an honourable record of being ahead in the Green debate.
The likes of Mr Tyrie on the other hand are making a case for a course of action that is highly irresponsible.
Geoffrey Payne
You have to admit though, that Mr Tyrie’s proposed course of action is not nearly as irresponsible as starving people to death by converting farmland to biofuels production (a “crime against humanity”, according to the UN), or of reducing our carbon emissions by 80% which would destroy the economy and kill thousands.
I think I’m right in saying that the Liberal Democrats support both biofuels and drastic reductions in carbon emissions?
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
The biofuels fiasco is largely a problem of economics. Only if you adopt central planning (bypassing liberal economics completely) do you get these absurd results. So Ziegler was eminently qualified to say what he did.
I don’t see that it’s fair to say that I can’t question the alleged “consensus”. As you also seem to do, I reject the unstated premise of the posting that caution should be thrown to the wind.
I don’t know if you saw the opinion poll of climatologists which found that 25% of them reckon the IPCC is overegging the issue? (This was run jointly by a warmer and a sceptic, so was presumably reasonably unbiased). We should speak of “the majority position” because there is no consensus. This will help us to avoid hysteria when we debate possible actions.
In all these discussions we are expected to work on the premise that drastic action is required – like the preposterous 80% CO2 cuts demanded by the LibDems. These would be utter madness even if there were a consensus. But when the reality of catastrophic AGW is disputed and the temperature isn’t actually going up, and serious economists have curled up in derisive laughter at the Stern Report, then calling for this kind of action smacks of having been out in the sun for too long rather than a proposal by a serious political party.
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?
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 🙂
Anyone who imagines the Tories are green has only to spend ten minutes on “grassroots” blogs and find out what the party is actually thinking.
You’ll note that, in the same way that what Ziegler says is different to the official UN line, what one Tory MP might be different from the official Tory line.
I think that this was a low blow, indeed – there are surely plenty of instances of David Cameron doing one thing and saying another on the environment, which are far more telling than the mumblings of one Tory MP…
…An MP that actually, if you would care to look him up on TheyWorkForYou is strongly against ID cards, student tuition fees and Labour’s illiberal anti-terror laws, all good Lib Dem issues.
Looks like a perfectly sensible comment to me.
Please notice that he said acting ‘swiftly’ would be extremely damaging, which from an economic point of view it would be. Any serious and lasting changes to social and economic behaviour is going to be a slow and tentative process because of the number of vested interests, and anyone who seeks to crush carbon emissions in one swoop will do far more damage than good.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
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.
Iain
I hadn’t appreciated that Zeigler wasn’t speaking in an unofficial capacity, so I accept that what I wrote earlier was wrong. Thanks for putting me right on this.
I’ll respond to some of the other comments on this thread later. Work beckons!
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 R
Slightly later than originally billed, here’s my response to your earlier comments.
The warming trend appears to have come to an end in 1999. There has been essentially no warming since then. It’s a trend which is confirmed by all the major organisations which track the global temperature (NASA/GISS, CRU, UAH, RSS)
The opinion poll I’ve mentioned had responses from 140 genuine climate scientists, so I think it carries a bit more weight than the one you refer to.
I would disagree that the burden of proof is on me (or people who share my opinions). The burden lies with those like the LibDems who claim we have to take drastic action. You guys need to show us that the costs are less than the benefits. I think you will find this hard to do with a target of 80% reductions.
Peter 1919
The Stern report is not taken seriously by any reputable economist that I’m aware of. Nordhaus , the professor of environmental economics from Yale thinks it’s grossly overstated. Tol, of the Universities of Carnegie Mellon and Hamburg says this of Lord Sterne’s efforts:
If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail.
The only people who reckon Sterne makes sense are Sterne himself, the government and the greens. And they don’t care what he says, so long as he agrees with them.
Oops, the last paragraph is me, rather than the quote.
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
I accept what you say about short-term trends, and cherry-picked starting points. Of course, if we on the sceptical side of the argument were really cherry-picking, we would have chosen 1998 as the start point, but people are referring to the trend since 1999 or 2001.
You should read (if you aren’t frightened by maths) this comparison of the last IPCC predictions to outturn. This seems to find that, statistically speaking, the IPCC’s forecast can be shown to be falsified to a 95% confidence level. The question of cherry-picking the start point is neatly avoided too by taking 2001 which is when the IPCC made its prediction.
This is obviously a blog post rather than a proper scientific paper, but it would suggest that Mr Tyrie’s position of “let’s just slow down a bit” is actually the correct one.
On the question of opinion polls, the Pielke/Annan poll nails the idea that there is a consensus. Clearly the number of sceptics is significantly greater than zero – they seem to have found at least thirty. Saying that “you can find an opinion poll to suit you” doesn’t change this. Either the poll is fraudulent or there is no consensus.
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.
Iain
The joy of the word “consensus” is that it can take on both meanings – this allows alarmists to try to stifle debate, but gives them wriggle room when presented with evidence of differing opinions. This is why “consensus” is repeated like a mantra whenever climate is mentioned.
Nobody argues that CO2 has no effect on climate – just the magnitude of the effect or what we should do about it.