by Andrew Goodman
Man made global warming is the biggest social and political hot potato of our age. The UK and US governments have been convinced; we are responsible, and we have to do something about it, or the planet is going to perish in a cloud of carbon dioxide. Well, the politicians may be convinced, but are they on the right track? But, hasn’t the ship already set sail?
The global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that is it becoming nearly impossible to have a balanced discussion on the topic. A large and extremely powerful business sector has sprung up out of nowhere to serve the ‘problem’, and it will not take kindly to being told that it is surplus to requirements.
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.
Those who supply products and services are being asked to equate their activities to a quantity of carbon dioxide, the lower the emissions, the better the classification. Companies may declare themselves ‘carbon neutral’ if they offset their emissions by planting trees which will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. While everyone is focussed in on the question ‘How can we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions?’, shouldn’t we be standing back a bit further and asking ‘It is really something that we need to worry about?’. Is CO2 really an issue, or just a natural consequence of life on planet earth?
While it may appear that the facts of man made global warming remain undisputed, you may be surprised to read that in a survey carried out in 2003, in which all 530 of the world’s climatologists were questioned whether they thought that the ’scientific debate about climate change is over’, 44% were in agreement, 10% remained uncertain, and the majority, 46% disagreed. It seems the majority believe there’s still something to discuss.
In spite of this, the global warming naysayer is still very much in a minority, and not a popular one at that. The mainstream UK press and those who read it to form their beliefs are typically of the opinion that it is a problem that requires immediate action. Indeed the force behind the movement is so great that public admission of non-belief in (man made) global warming is met with considerable scorn.
What we can say without a doubt, is that the industry which has sprung up to cater to the ‘global warming show’ is worth billions of dollars, and employs millions worldwide. Budgets are continually increasing as worldwide panic sets in; recently, Barack Obama allocated $129bn to encourage solar power, hybrid cars and renewable energy. If it became clear that man was not causing global warming, what would all these people do?
Regardless of the size of the computer that they apply to modelling the coming weather patterns and climate of the earth, the global warming debate will never reach a satisfying conclusion. The weather is a complex and highly variable science, and no-one truly understands how the earth keeps itself in balance. This is not about to change any time soon.
Like most economic bubbles, it is almost always easier to go with the flow than to struggle against the current and risk being sucked under. The issue of CO2 and global warming is founded on the precautionary principle, and if we had to put words to it, it would look something like this:
“If carbon dioxide produced by man’s industrial activities is responsible for the global rise in temperature, if we can cut our emissions to an acceptable level (whatever that may be), and convince every other nation in the world to do the same, then ultimately we might be better off than if we had just stood by and done nothing.”
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 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. Lets take the developing world, for example.
We have enjoyed industrialisation for many years, now it is the turn of China, India and Africa. They are looking forward to products and services that we have enjoyed for many years. It is totally inappropriate for us to demand that these countries behave in a particular way to suit our carbon plans for the future. We couldn’t wield a stick big enough to make that happen. I wouldn’t expect them to buy into such a ridiculous notion. What they may lack in technology, they more than make up for in their understanding of life on planet earth.
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.
What happens is that the UK sourced products and services will have an additional cost implication, making it harder for us to compete in the global market as we intentionally handicap ourselves. Business answers to the shareholders, and if the costs get too high, they just move production elsewhere, circumventing the legislation, the carbon tax, and doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions. So our rapidly developing carbon management business will be useful only to the UK, and actually not that useful on the grand scale of things.
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?
It is not my intention to get involved in the debate with tales of woe and melting ice caps. Mr Gore and his contemporaries have covered that well enough (see below). I merely suggest you assess the situation with a broader view and to try to consider that such an occurrence might in fact be nothing more than self serving alarmism, from certain interested parties. The planet is in a constant state of flux, but never before have so many paid so much attention to it, and gathered so many statistics. As if they somehow have some significance to anything. The premise of global warming is flawed. Allow me to explain.
Consider this planet we are living on. Was is just a cosmic mistake? Is it all random? How did it all come to be, in all of it’s beauty, perfection, and magnificence? How can the earth be such a perfectly balanced environment, providing it’s inhabitants with everything that they have ever identified that they need, in abundance (we have never run out of anything). Who or what lies behind this wonderful creation? If you believe that there is some creative force that has put all of this in place, then do you honestly think that it would allow the destruction of the planet, billions of years in the making, because of the burning of some previous recycled generations who inhabited the earth 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 its time to stop creating, that everything is as good as it ever will be, and we can go home now. Its 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 resource-full planet).
The carbon debate reflects man’s creativity in flowing energy in new and creative ways. The only thing is, it is based on a false premise; that man is responsible for such grand scale effects such as the weather, or the temperature. The planet is a platform for us to create upon. We are not expected to adjust the orbit of the earth, nor the humidity in the atmosphere, nor the temperature of the sun. This is all being dealt with elsewhere. If you feel like it’s an impossible task to save the planet, there’s good reason; it’s not your job.
What is good is the spin offs of the situation; perceived shortage of oil, lack of security of energy supplies, pollution, oil wars all lead to cleaner alternative fuels developed. These are cleaner, less reliant on foreigners and their unstable economic or political systems, and reduce the squabbling over the ‘finite’ resources of planet earth. Even so, the planet is finding its balance and we cannot do anything to affect its stability.
Just consider for a moment how this planet spins in its 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 took place in New York 8-10 March 2009 and asked the question “Global warming, was it ever an issue”.
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.
Had Mr Gore called his film something like “Global Warming, it’s probably nothing”, one suspects he wouldn’t have made his money back, let alone any profit. Instead along with his book, the movie turned out to be quite a profitable pitch for his ‘earth services’.
I say this not as a criticism to either Gore or Bush. They are behaving perfectly normally, and acting out of their own self interest. You may regard the most powerful man in the world as having to deal with everyone else’s interests too, but actually, he’s only dealing with his own, as that is as far as his power extends. Everything is ultimately about economics. Power, religion, jobs, politics, it is all about economics. What is in it for me? They all ask. Economics comes out top because it is about the individual thriving, and when you can see the world this way, it starts to make more sense.
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 worlds 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 new term Geo-Engineering is an interesting idea. Engineers believe that they have to act to do something about the global temperature rise. Some ideas touted have been, giant sailing ships spraying clouds of water vapour into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with iron to promote algal blooms which trap CO2 and then sink to the ocean floor, and my personal favourite, the giant sun shades in space to reflect back the sun. I wouldn’t want to live under one of those.
The planet is not in a state of regression; it is the best that it has ever been. It is evolving like all of the species upon it (it’s sometimes hard to believe this is the case with human beings, they are so short-sighted), it’s been around for billions of years and it will be around in billions more. As will human beings. Let’s put this issue into perspective; humans didn’t create the planet, and they won’t destroy it. There is a larger force at work, who’s done some pretty fabulous design work in the past. It’s all under control.
