Search
Talking Politics
Climate change and uncertain science
Wed Jul 08 11:40AM
Pressure from the Americans on the right, and from climate change activists on the left - which way can the government go?By Liz Stephens
The UK is currently the only country in the world to have introduced a long-term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change (The Climate Change Act of 2008). However, as politics.co.uk is reporting today, UK government advisors are allegedly coming under pressure from the US to tow a lax line on climate change.
From the opposite direction, the government is facing criticism from UK climate change activists who have been highly critical of its manifesto, 'The Road to Copenhagen', saying it does not go far enough to save the planet.
With the Copenhagen summit coming up in December, the pressure is on for the government to come up with a viable solution that will make a difference and not just tell others what they want to hear.
US 'grooming' allegations
Allegations were made to politics.co.uk from a source within Westminster, who said that the committee on climate change (CCC), led by Lord Turner, is "being groomed" by the US. The implication is that the US would prefer the UK to accept lower global carbon emissions targets, given its historical stance on the issue. The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, for instance, which sets much lower targets than those of the UK.
The CCC - which was set up as an independent body following the Climate Change Act - advises the government on carbon budgets, which set the ceiling on the levels of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere by the UK. The 'Building a Low-Carbon Economy' report it released last year has formed the basis of the government's climate change strategy.
As the issue of climate change is unprecedented in the international community, each country's actions could have big repercussions for the next. Therefore, it is understandable that countries would seek to build a consensus to protect their own interests. However, despite the advent of Barack Obama, who made "green jobs" a key feature of his election campaign, the recent Clean Energy Act shows that the weight of US industry is still largely hostile to climate change action. The Act allows US industry two billion tonnes of carbon offsets a year. These offset concessions are so generous that if they were all used, US industry wouldn't have to make any carbon emission cuts until 2026.
The Act also contains no global initiatives for tackling climate change, only US specific ones. If international consensus were built around it, things would work out well for US industry, but not so well for the environmental future of the planet.
Today's allegation comes from a single source, and is therefore uncorroborated, but it raises serious concerns about the games being played at the highest level of international relations to secure a climate change status quo which is acceptable to American industry.
Pressure from UK environmentalists
Many environmentalists are already unhappy with the current global emissions targets set by the government. Although the Climate Change Act commits Britain to reducing emissions in the UK to 80 per cent by 2050, it is only committed to a 50 per cent global reduction.
Leading climate change activist, Aubrey Meyer, author of the theory of 'Contraction and Convergence' (C&C) says the government is ignoring the true figures. In a comment piece for politics.co.uk today, Meyer says: "The government is quite incorrect to claim that a global contraction in emissions of 50 per cent by 2050 is sufficient to prevent a globally averaged temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius."
Meyer criticises the government for not committing to an 80 per cent cut in global carbon emissions (coupled to carbon 'feedback') - which he insists is vital to saving the planet from meltdown.
Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth have criticised the government for allowing carbon markets (where countries buy and sell carbon 'credits' to offset their emissions) in their 'Road to Copenhagen' manifesto. "Continued support for offsetting through expanding carbon markets will neither tackle climate change nor set Britain on a low carbon path to new green jobs and industries," said Andy Atkins, executive director of the organisation.
So even with some of the toughest environmental legislation in world, the UK is still at the mercy of a dissatisfied green lobby. Much of the science of climate change is still confused and that leaves people arguing over the data instead of solutions to the problem. With some theories about climate change now having been in existence for over 20 years, many activists are desperate for tough decisions instead of more debate.
The Climate Change Act offers a framework to work from, but it has so far failed to turn conflicting theories into organised action. With ministers currently making decisions on the basis of a bewildering mass of confusing scientific advice and strong lobbying from all sides, there may be a need for a further statement of intent.
Preparations for Copenhagen
The UK will seek to influence other countries at Copenhagen to commit to a global plan. However, many countries have so far resisted any approach that would bind them to a rigid emissions reduction pathway.
The environmental audit committee (EAC) is currently hearing evidence in Westminster from leading climate change experts and will report back with recommendations to the government before the Copenhagen summit. Aubrey Meyer submitted evidence to the EAC and provided figures showing the Met Office's own Hadley Centre predicted an 80 per cent cut in global emissions (coupled to the carbon cycle) was needed by 2050.
In evidence seen by politics.co.uk, Met Office scientists, advising the EAC during a session on June 23rd, appear to discount their own data. One of the scientists had previously advised the CCC on the 'Building a Low Carbon Economy' report.
This situation is almost a microcosm of the big problem. When there are so many sets of conflicting opinions and data that even the scientists misunderstand them (wilfully or otherwise) it's almost understandable that this argument is still continuing.
Today's revelations make clear that the government faces sustained pressure from all sides. The EAC and CCC are in the unenviable position of receiving information (or overtures) from all these sources and making recommendations to the government which will have a far-reaching and hugely significant impact, not just within the UK but globally. What the UK does next will have strong ramifications, as the world seeks to find a solution to the ever increasing threat of climate change.
Comment on this article
Video
Add to my Yahoo/RSS
Latest UK news
- Police recognised protester from TV shows ITN - 40 mins ago
- Revealed: Full Cost Of Emergency Bank Loans SkyNews - 2 hours 11 mins ago
- Bridge Collapse Fears As River Levels Rise SkyNews - 3 hours 12 mins ago
- Royal Aide 'Not A Threat' After Prison Escape SkyNews - 2 hours 45 mins ago
- Rain puts Cumbria back on flood alert ITN - 2 hours 52 mins ago
MORE ON YAHOO! NEWS
Subscribe to our news feeds
Editor's Corner
SITE HIGHLIGHTS
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our: Updated Privacy Policy
Jason, that would be Dr Mitchell Taylor then. There was declining ice chiefly in 2007, and a little in 2008. But then there was much declining ice in the late 1930s too. So far this year the Arctic is in excellent health ice-wise.
Report abuse
frankdineen [27]: Never said the worlds climate didnt/couldnt change. The evidence is there in the ice cores that the rate of change has increased drastically compared to ancient history. That evidence is not dellusional it is fact.
.
What you seem to fail to understand is it is the rate of change that man has caused and will harm the eco systems. You can stop a car from 100mph and you dont die is you do it slow enough, try stopping the same car in less than a second and you will be dead! Its the rate of change that the issue same with the climate change it is the rate.
Report abuse
Global warming fact or fiction, because it is political we will not get the truth. And what is the point of the UK cutting emissions, if America is only interested in profit and not the planet. And with the hysterical greens shouting and screaming the planet is doomed, is it any wonder people are ignoring it.
Report abuse
Climate change is happening, but the climate has changed, sometimes dramatically throughout history. Is the infinitesimal amount of CO2 produced by man the key driver? The most prevalent greenhouse gas never mentioned is water vapour. The second most prevalent is methane and these two major elements in the gree house effect are beyond legislation......... there is no certainty that it is mankind causing the change.. not too many hundreds of years ago we grew grapes up to and beyond the midlands.. have a look at temperatures during the middle warm period (around the 1100s) Perhaps it is all a plot to tax and control many more of our activities.. remember Gordon Browns tax on air tickets,, where has all that money gone??
Report abuse
banks93 [28] : In which case austrialia should not have had that drought and in fact should have been the worlds largest food producer, same with northern africa. I dont think you are looking at the whole issue of what is likely to happen.
Report abuse
There is no such thing as climate control, climate change has being going on since the formation of this planet and will go on long after we are gone. what we need is a cull on human beings, this planet cannot sustain human population growth at it's current rate. In truth we need to cut the world population by at least one and one half billion people. In truth the only thing that will save the planet is a super virus or a war to end all wars. I laugh when I read all the half witted and half thought out ideas on climate change. A few years ago they were saying we will have to pipe water from the north of Britain to the south because the south will soon be be like desert. Then we have the country covered in floods. Lets live in the real World we are the problem, there are to many of us nothing more nothing less.
Report abuse
steveberry66. Your info about average temp increase in the UK is incorrect, as is your comment about flash floods not being evidence of climate change due to them having always been a feature of the UK climate. Sure, they have occurred in the past, but not in anything like the frequency with which they occur now. Your response is typical of those who speak with their heads still in the sand.
Report abuse
"uncertain science" is good comment, but what a can of worms! There are so many threads to this issue that it's hard to know where to begin. Perhaps some consideration of whether it is wise to ignore the issue might be a start.
::
The climate changes, whether we (Humans) exist or do anything or not. We already spend enormous amounts of effort in moderating the effects of climate in order to survive and prosper (keeping dry, warm, sheltered, etc.). On the whole this works becaue weather is *relatively* stable, that is to say the patterns are consistent (as winter follows summer etc).
::
We have trouble when unexpected and extreme weather happens (our efforts to moderate are inadequate). This will continue to happen. So what if Humans influence climate? Will that make any difference? That's a $64,000 question. But what seems a folly to me is any attitude towards ignoring climate in terms of how we behave (as individuals and as a species), or to put it another way, carry on as normal (i.e. as now).
::
However, there are indications that there are going to be climate changes that will have a devastating impact on the planet, possibly threatening the survival of the species (Human or otherwise). Whether these are due to 'natural' forces or 'man made' forces, what's the difference? They are going to hurt either way. So why do nothing? But Man can be that stupid.
::
I am convinced that we are contributing to problems with climate (amongst many other things), and that some of these have the potential to be catastrophic, at least to many. A rise in ocean levels would be an example. That should be fairly easy to understand shouldn't it? What happens if loads of ice melts? Leave a tray of ice cubes on the kitchen table for a while and you will see. The 'problme' many people have is relating that on the planetary scale. The physics is the same. Now, whether the ambient warming of the planet (which will led to ice melt and ocean levels rising) is due to natural or man made processes, who cares? What matters is how we intend to deal with it. To ignore it is to comdemn countless people to suffer and die.
::
Now we come back to uncertain science. How we deal with it is not an exact science (yet). Trying to pinpoint the what and where and when is also not an exact science, but we ignore it at our peril. But then isn't that's Man's way? We only tend to deal with issues when they hurt. That's a 'natural' consequnce of our condition. The kicker here is that when it comes to issues of climate, when it hurts is likely to be too late. For some things, it might already be too late. Is that a good reason to ignore it? You figure...
Report abuse
I have to say I must concur with the views of the 'detractors' here. There is no measurable point at which to get irrefutable evidence of 'climate change' being caused by man. Nature is nature and will go through its own cycles. As has already been said in the first couple of pages of these posts, there are people with loud voices getting very rich on the back of this, there are increased taxes and utility charges being foisted on all of us on the back of this, and there are so many so called 'experts' making a bloody good living on the back of this.
The sun shines for a few days, it rains for a few days, blah, blah, blah - and mother nature goes about her business. I remain unconvinced that this issue is anything other that scaremongering with a view for some (including HMG) to make some money and political mileage
Report abuse
The problem with man-made climate change, as ably demonstrated by comment 21, is that it's supporters use the same flawed logic as used by those of faith in discussions with atheists. "These things are true because I have been told they are true". To state that any correlation between CO2 and temperature has been proved is WRONG. It is true that a number of scientists have postulated that there is a direct correlation, however scientists are regularly wrong. (Witness the "wine is good/bad for you" argument for an expression of the confidence one should place on the views of anyone reported in the media as a "scientist". You only have to look for yourself to see that any correlation is complex and currently indeterminate. (Search google for Vostok Ice core data and graph it for yourself)
Report abuse