Biofuel Emissions Undercounted

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released. The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay.

The New Scientist reports on two more studies that show again how mistaken the environmental lobby have been to campaign for more widespread use of biofuels. Somehow I doubt that will stop the madness quite yet, however...

Wind Power - Cui Bono?

The cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity from an onshore wind turbine, including the cost of stand-by generation, was 5.4p. The corresponding figure for an offshore turbine is a daunting 7.2p. Gas, nuclear and coal-fuelled power stations can do it for 2.2p, 2.3p and 2.5p respectively...

While the turbine owners count their profits, the consumers foot the bill via increased energy prices. When Alistair Darling recently banged the table about the 15% rise in bills of N-Power (amongst others) he kept quiet about what they said in return – that about half the increases are directly attributable to the Government's green agenda.

Following the surprise discovery that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar, the Spectator Coffee House had yet another interesting post on the government's favoured renewable energy source yesterday.

DNA Programmers & Bio Hackers

"We're heading into an era where people will be writing DNA programs like the early days of computer programming, but who will own these programs?"

Today a scientist can write a long genetic program on a computer just as a maestro might compose a musical score, then use a synthesizer to convert that digital code into actual DNA. Experiments with "natural" DNA indicate that when a faux chromosome gets plopped into a cell, it will be able to direct the destruction of the cell's old DNA and become its new "brain" -- telling the cell to start making a valuable chemical, for example, or a medicine or a toxin, or a bio-based gasoline substitute.

By this time next year, the first living cells with fully artificial genomes could be growing.

So, which do you think legislators should most fear, bio-terror or bio-error? Check the Washington Post for more details on the status of mankind's creation of artificial life.

Talk Is Cheap

According to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, the Bali roadmap is "a stark breakthrough." Really? Talks that have achieved "an extremely weak agreement" to start negotiations on a new pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol are hardly going to change the world. Even their "groundbreaking agreement" on deforestation appears to amount to little more than agreement to include forest conservation in their future discussions. So much for the UN's "historic" climate deal.

Putting Wind-Carts Before Sea-Horses

The Government's green light to build more than two offshore wind turbines per mile of UK coastline without first implementing a proper marine planning system through comprehensive legislation is potentially devastating news for the marine environment and threatened wildlife, including seabirds, fish and whales, not to mention the impact they will have on shipping and fishing. But it's all in the name of saving the environment, so it must be OK, mustn't it?

Whatever happened to talk of sustainable development? Clearly the same thing as talk of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, which is now higher than it has ever been over the past ecologically-enlightened decade under Labour.

Power to the People

"In other countries low carbon energy sources have led a process of decentralisation – in the Netherlands, for instance, in little more than a decade, combined heat and power (CHP) became the single largest supplier of the country’s energy needs."

I was very interested by the above fact, cited by David Cameron in his intro to today's energy Green Paper, Power to the people: The decentralised energy revolution. I have heard various comments on the radio today noting the cost-ineffectiveness of wind and expressing reservations about photovoltaic power. However, micro-CHP (which Nick Spencer & Robert White also strongly support in their recent book Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living) appears to hold out real prospect of helping us become significantly more efficient in our production and consumption of energy, which has to be a good thing for our finances (personal and national), our national energy security, and our stewardship of the environment.

In contrast to Labour's myopic approach on renewables (it's all wind!), I also welcome David's commitment not to prescribe which energy sources should be used and to level the playing field, allowing "the market to deliver a globally competitive low carbon future." Quite clearly there will be many issues to work through as we "move from a top-down, old-world, centralised system to a bottom-up, new-world, decentralised system," but this seems an exciting contribution towards the creation of a "safer and greener" Britain.

Common Fisheries Problem

"The UK fishing industry is warning it faces ruin because of EU quotas which result in thousands of tonnes of dead fish being dumped back into the sea." [BBC: Fish dumping 'will ruin industry']

"Fisheries Minister Jonathan Shaw has agreed that dumping thousands of tonnes of dead fish back into the sea because of EU fishing quotas is 'immoral'." [BBC: Dumping North Sea fish 'immoral']

Having recently learnt that 250% more fish are being caught than the oceans can produce in a sustainable manner, dumping back 40-60% of fish caught by trawlers in the North Sea is clearly not going to help the problem of over-fishing. However, neither is increasing the fishing quotas! The only way forward is to leave the European Common Fisheries Policy and regain control of the UK's exclusive fishing zone.

Click on either of the graphics for further details about the CFP from eurosceptic.com

The End Is Nigh

At last, the UN has agreed its fourth and final report on climate change — or, more accurately, its final "synthesis" of the report from the highly politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The twenty-page document, to be released tomorrow in Valencia by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, is intended to act as a blueprint for the next round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia, as the world's governments negotiate a successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires in 2012.

Despite offering no new scientific evidence for human-caused global warming, and despite reducing their earlier predictions for future warming and suggesting its impact will be less severe and more distant than they had previously claimed, this latest forecast makes the strongest assertions yet that mankind is pushing the climate past some irreversible tipping point, some "point of no return."

As regular readers will know, I'm all for a serious discussion about environmental and social sustainability. I just wish the debate could be a little less myopic and a little more open, a little less hysterical and a little more rational.

Global Trade Kills

Earlier in the year we noted how carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation, yet are not addressed by the Kyoto Protocol or any other proposed European legislation. Today we learn that shipping, used to transport 90% of world trade, is responsible for an arguably even more lethal atmospheric cocktail:

Pollution from ships, in the form of tiny airborne particles, kills at least 60,000 people each year, says a new study. And unless action is taken quickly to address the problem – such as by switching to cleaner fuels – the death toll will climb, researchers warn. Premature deaths due to ultra-fine particles spewed out by ships will increase by 40% globally by 2012, the team predicts.

Tiny airborne particles [including various carbon particles, sulphur and nitrogen oxides] are linked to premature deaths worldwide, and are believed to cause heart and lung failures. The particles get into the lungs and are small enough to pass through tissues and enter the blood. They can then trigger inflammations which eventually cause the heat and lungs to fail. There is also some evidence that shipping emissions contain some of the carcinogenic particles found in cigarette smoke.

Emissions of all of these particles could be limited by using more refined fuels in the shipping industry, which typically is powered by diesel fuel.

The scientist who led the research comments, "We leave judgement of what to do and how fast to do it to the policy process. Our aim was to provide a robust estimate on a global scale so that policy makers would have evidence that human impacts are occurring and so they could decide if the evidence was enough to justify strong and immediate action."

Sounds like yet another instance of the misplaced concerns of many in the environmental lobby. Neighbourly concern surely dictates that swift international action [an oxymoron if ever there were one] be taken to force the shipping industry to clean up its act.

Biofuels "Crime Against Humanity"

Every five seconds a child under ten dies from hunger or disease related to malnutrition and there are 854 million hungry people in the world.

Last month I asked when we were going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on questions surrounding biofuels, food security and the environment. At last, people appear to have taken notice:

Earlier this month, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler described current approaches to biofuels as "a total disaster for those who are starving."

Last week, in its October 2007 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor.

Earlier this week, in the Parliamentary debate to establish the first fixed targets for biofuels, the Shadow Minister for Transport, Julian Brazier warned, "If biofuels are to play a successful part in the fight against climate change, it is absolutely vital that they come from sustainable sources. Without clear and binding rules on sustainability, this proposal could damage the environment not protect it. It would be madness if UK biofuel targets actively encouraged people to rip up the rainforest."

Now, the UN's Jean Ziegler has described the conversion of food crops to fuel as a "crime against humanity" and has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. He suggests the ban would allow scientists to develop ways to make biofuels from other crops without diverting land from food production, such as a pilot project in India using trees planted in arid areas unsuitable for food crops. He also criticised European governments for choosing a military response to those fleeing famine and chronic hunger from sub-Saharan Africa and wants a new human right to be created in favour of these "refugees from hunger."

Let us hope good sense will prevail over the economic interests of the climate change lobby.

Living Sustainably

The United Nations Environment Programme's Global Environment Outlook: environment for development (GEO-4) report claims to be "the final wake-up call to the international community," warning that the human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return.

This fourth such report in ten years concludes that unprecedented population growth combined with unsustainable consumption has resulted in an increasingly stressed planet where natural disasters and environmental degradation endanger millions of humans, as well as plant and animal species. It suggests that 250% more fish are being caught than the oceans can produce in a sustainable manner and that the overall demand for resources would have to be cut to 15.7 hectares per person from its present 21.9 hectares per person if we are to stay within existing, sustainable limits.

As this blog has argued repeatedly before, it is on this question of sustainability, not inconclusive arguments about unproven theories of anthropogenic global warming, where the environmental debate ought to be focused. But how should we respond? In a newly published work, Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living, Nick Spencer & Robert White present a constructive and distinctive faith-based response to these questions and suggest eight principles for sustainable living:

1. We should value and protect creation, seeing that as a joy rather than a burden.
2. We should reflect the close bond between society and environment in our decisions.
3. We should pursue justice for the vulnerable and marginalised.
4. We should not confuse wealth and value; our goal should be relational health rather than money or personal freedom.
5. We should favour regulated, market-based solutions that take account of natural, human and social capital.
6. We should express commitment to our immediate environment and favour local solutions.
7. We should aim to offer just and equitable access to natural resources.
8. We should respond seriously and with hope.

A League Apart

Breaking News: The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to environmental campaigner Al Gore and the UN panel on climate change, the IPCC.

I merely repeat the question I asked a couple of days ago: Can anyone seriously tell me he is in the same league as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi?

Convenient Untruths

Just last week, the envirocrats again attempted to flood the news airwaves with their apocalyptic message that the fabled opening of the Northwest Passage means the Arctic is melting at a disasterous rate and constitutes the latest catastrophic evidence of global warming — when, in truth, scientists told us earlier this year that the ice sheets are not losing their mass through melting but because the ice is flowing into the ocean faster than the snow is replacing it and that, without knowing why this is happening, it is impossible to predict the extent of future sea level rises, especially as climate modelling predicts that snowfall on the ice caps will increase over the coming century.

It was therefore a good day for science and education today when, despite Al Gore being tipped as the favourite to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on behalf of the climate change lobby [Can anyone seriously tell me he is in the same league as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi?!], a High Court judge ruled in favour of Kent father Stewart Dimmock, who accused the Department of Children, Schools and Families of trying to "brainwash" children by sending thousands of copies of Gore's "shockumentary" An Inconvenient Truth to schools across the country. The judge concluded that the Oscar-winning film should only be distributed if it is accompanied by new guidlines explaining the numerous scientific errors contained in the former US vice-president's "one-sided" views — errors that he attributed to "alarmism and exaggeration."

As has previously been commented on this blog, if the Government were to send the failed presidential candidate's propaganda to every secondary school, then a copy of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle should also be sent, to encourage proper debate and help develop the next generation's critical thinking skills.

The Times lists the nine errors identified by the judge:

Error one

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting
of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr
Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would
release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Error two

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated
because of anthropogenic global warming.”

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting
down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over
the North Atlantic to western Europe.

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four

Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs,
one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period
of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was
a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

Error five

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly
attributable to global warming.

Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment
Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that
the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced
climate change.

Error six

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime
example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains
insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be
far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and
over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

Error seven

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans
to global warming.

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

Error eight

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first
time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long
distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.

Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find
is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned
because of a storm." That was not to say there might not in future be
drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice
continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

Error nine

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global
warming and other factors.

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3
degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality,
unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to
climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was
difficult.

Fill Up This Weekend!

Don't forget to save yourself some money and fill up with petrol this weekend, before the Chancellor puts the price of petrol up by 2.35p per litre on Monday! Does anyone still believe that road users need to be hit by yet more green taxes?

Tree-Felling Tree-Huggers

"Breathe in. Breathe out. In that time, an area of rainforest the size of five football pitches has been lost forever."

So a piece of literature that I received in the post from the RSPB informs me. "Every minute we destroy 25 hectares of the world's forests," it continues. This set me thinking about how misguided the anti-aviation environmental campaigners are. For, in the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 8,000,000 people flying from London to New York. Or, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, deforestation in the next four years alone will pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025!

So, while deforestation accounts for up to 25% of global emissions of heat-trapping gases (and paper makes up 35% of all the rubbish we throw away) and transport, industry and agriculture each account for 14%, aviation contributes at most just 3% of the total. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol didn't even mention, let alone attempt to tackle, this far greater issue.

Perversely, as a result of the efforts of the global warming fanatics and so-called carbon markets, countries are actually being encouraged to destroy the world's forests — take, for instance, the recent deal between China and the Philippines that could ultimately see 8.8 million hectares of "idle alienable and disposable lands and forest lands" developed for agribusiness and biofuel production to feed China's voracious appetite for fuel, threatening the Philippines' own food security.

When are we going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on these matters?

Blueprint for a Green Economy

"If we are to create a way of living that we can sustain, then water, waste, transport and energy, as well as farming, food, fishing and the built environment, have to be thought of as a whole."

Launching the Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group report, a day after the price of crude oil reached a record $80, former Environment Secretary John Gummer is surely right to place the emphasis on sustainability.

At the end of the day, for all the uncertain predictions about an imminent big freeze or, conversely, a global heatwave and for all the questions about the extent to which man has exacerbated the planet's natural cycles of climate change, one thing is certain: the world's reserves of fossil fuels will one day run out. Whether we make them last 50 years or 100 years, or even 200 years, won't ultimately affect mankind's carbon footprint. What our rate of fossil fuel use will affect is the timeframe available in which we can invest in the research and development of renewable sources of energy — during which we can answer the really big question: How can we sustain life and civilisation as we know it? Or, as the report puts it, given that there are plenty of other symptoms of the damage wrought by humans' modern lifestyles — such as desertification, soil erosion, and the destruction of forests — can we continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one?

Does the report provide a satisfactory answer that is "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? The introduction notes that "Instead of wanting the State to intervene and control, Conservatives seek only to ensure that the market framework is capable of delivering the nation’s requirements and that people, communities, and organisations, whether for profit or not, are empowered and trusted to play their proper and fullest role." Yet, about aviation, it complains:

"Growth in demand is heavily concentrated in short-haul leisure flights taken by UK residents. Between 1994 and 2004, 70% of the additional international trips that occurred were UK residents going abroad for leisure. From the perspective of the UK economy, this is arguably the wrong sort of growth. Shorthaul leisure flights exacerbate the country’s tourism deficit – the difference between what overseas visitors spend in the UK and what British citizens spend abroad – which already stands at around £15 billion. Today, over half of all air trips arriving or departing UK airports are UK residents travelling for leisure, and this proportion is set to increase." (p.355)

Thus, some of what are already its most criticised recommendations, such as no further airport expansions, rethinking Heathrow's proposed runway, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted, seem to burst with big state interventionism. The authors argue that "Scaling back airport expansion plans would lead to more efficient use of existing capacity, and accelerate the allocation of flight slots to parts of the market that value them most" and that this "does not mean that there would be a diminution in the cheap flights already available," but it is hard to see how such an approach could not but damage Britain's economy and international competitiveness.

I am happy to accept the premise that no government can be neutral in matters of wellbeing and we should therefore shift taxation policy towards the taxation of pollution — from 'pay as you earn' to 'pay as you burn.' However, if the shift is to be managed in an orderly manner, the Government will need to ensure that the alternatives that it wishes us to embrace are adequate. There is no point trying to tax us from flying if the rail network doesn't have the capacity to cope with the additional passenger loads. I would probably even be willing to accept that the best way of retuning growth to take account of environmental health is "by pricing carbon into the equation as the most effective surrogate for environmental cost" — so long as this genuinely is not used as a means to increase the total tax burden.

I agree that "It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and sustainable economic growth." So, its discussions about energy efficiency — for instance in the context of the household sector discussed earlier in the week by Zac Goldsmith, which include the rejection of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) regime — are to be welcomed. In the related context of planning and also of rural life and Defra, its recommendation that "the localism agenda be used to empower the very lowest of levels of government, nearest to the people whose lives they affect" is also strongly welcome. This also applies to the subsequent discussions about reform of Europe's infamous Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, "to shift the CAP across Europe from production-related subsidies (Pillar 1) to a system of paying farmers for the public goods and services they provide (Pillar 2)." As it says, "The more complex the world gets, the more globalisation seems to remove power from people, politicians, and even nations, and the more it is important that individuals feel they have a real say about the future of their own community." It is high time that this process should be reversed.

Given that I also believe we should "tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies,’" I would also not oppose the suggestion for the planning system to "prioritise the protection and enhancement of ‘town centres’ and ‘local neighbourhood shopping centres’ over and above out of town/edge of town retail development." If we wish to strengthen our local communities, then it seems vital that we maintain the economic and social viability of our towns. I expect that some of you might disagree, but I think this is an area where Margaret Thatcher's "Never call me laissez-faire" quote is probably relevant: "Government must be strong to do those things which only government can do."

Lastly, back on transport, I was pleased to see the call for increased carriage of freight by inland waterways and, in relation to proposed national road user charging, the willingness to "seek simple and transparent ways to achieve our ends and avoid grandiose schemes that rely on unproven technology and huge investment."

In conclusion, does the report tell us how we can continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one in a way "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? Given that these are merely proposals that will all go into the melting pot containing the many recommendations from each of the other policy group reports, then I believe we have to conclude that it does as least help illuminate the way forwards. The next challenge will be for the Party to compile a coherent manifesto around a single Conservative vision for the twenty-first century...

The Arctic: Mirror of Life

As Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist leaders unite in a silent "prayer for the planet" aboard a cruise ship amid icebergs on the west coast of Greenland, we have the perennial cuddly polar bear warning that "two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be gone by the middle of the century." [BBC]

No "might" or "could." No "models predict." Categorically, it will happen. This "grim news" is intended as a "call to action," so there can be no room for doubt or objective examination of facts — only emotive threats. The Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned the US to list the polar bear as an endangered species and, therefore, to take steps to protect its environment, is explicit: "Our hope lies in a rapid response, including both deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions and a full-court press on other greenhouse pollutants."

Let us briefly remind ourselves of the facts:

1. The new NOAA study† makes the following prediction:

"Based on the selection of a subset models that closely simulate observed regional ice concentrations for 1979–1999, we find considerable evidence for loss of sea ice area of greater than 40% by 2050 in summer for the marginal seas of the Arctic basin... With less confidence, we find that the Bering, Okhotsk and Barents Seas have a similar 40% loss of sea ice area by 2050 in winter."

2. The US Geological Survey claiming that this predicted loss of summer Arctic ice means no bears will be able to live there within fifty years is based on estimated vital rates whose precision was "low" and a study that "was short in duration relative to the life history of polar bears."

3. Actual study of polar bear populations has revealed that only two of the bear's populations are decreasing — and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, while in areas where air temperatures have risen, populations are growing.

4. Polar bears evidently managed to survive five centuries of warm weather during the relatively recent Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD).

Even if the ice were to melt and even if this were to result in fewer polar bears, one is still left asking to what extent anything we have done has exacerbated this situation and whether anything we now do could alter this eventual outcome. At least the religious leaders appear to have shown a little more wisdom and humility than the environmentalists and politicians — limiting their prayer to "A recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles," and stopping short of asking God to reverse the thaw for fear that "Such a request might have invited comparisons with the legendary vain attempt by 11th century English King Canute to stop the rising tide." [As if anyone would think to make that comparison!]

† The NOAA, you may recall, is the body responsible for skewing the global temperature data to give the appearance of half a degree warming since 1960.

Renovation Ethics & Finances

"We're saying that we should offer very generous stamp duty reductions, rebates, if your home is passed on in the best possible condition. And I think if you do that it becomes less of an ethical decision and more of an investment, a financial decision...

The principle focus is on energy and we can achieve massive reductions with very little investment. And from the home owner's point of view that does lead pretty quickly to energy savings, bill savings, but in order to make that happen, because most people aren't, you know, the savings aren't so big that it's going to drive people to make these changes unless they're driven by ethical concerns which is why you need to have this stamp duty rebate."

Now, maybe I'm missing something in what Zac Goldsmith said on The Andrew Marr Show about the Quality of Life Policy Group's proposals — which won't actually be published until Thursday, despite the widespread coverage in today's papers — but I can't see how it is either an ethical or a financial decision for the Government to offer me the carrot of being able to pay less stamp duty on my property when I sell it, given that it is not me that will be paying stamp duty on my property, but whoever buys the house from me.

Now, cuts in council tax and VAT for those who make "green" domestic renovations, as reported elsewhere by the BBC, sounds like more of an incentive. But can anyone help explain the thinking behind the stamp duty proposal?

Best Environmental / Green Issues Blog

I have just heard that I have been awarded third place for "Best Environmental / Green Issues Blog" in the Witanagemot 2007 Political Blog Awards.

Given my politically incorrect, scientific perspective on the AGW debate, this probably says as much about the bloggers who took part in the survey as about the rigour of my analysis. Nevertheless, to celebrate this August occasion, here is a comment that I recently left at Burning Our Money, responding to a question about data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which others found "amazing" and "truly jaw-dropping."

(For comparison, I also include the corresponding chart showing global temperature anomalies since 1880.)

One of the most interesting graphs from the NOAA is this one showing the effect of the adjustments they have made to the actual ("raw") temperature observations. As you will see, most of the "global warming" since 1960 appears to have been caused by these adjustments! Yet, given how little we understand (as evidenced by both the huge differences in future predictions and our inability to explain present observations) it is quite reasonable to suppose our adjustments are wrong, especially when it comes to the effects of urbanization. See The Difference: climate change for more.

Rape of Nature

Renewables are not green. To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, cause serious environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square metre that each source could produce smashes these environmental idols. Nuclear energy is green. However, in order to grow, the nuclear industry must extend out of its niche in baseload electric power generation, form alliances with the methane industry to introduce more hydrogen into energy markets, and start making hydrogen itself. Technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their conditions of evolution. Like computers, to grow larger, the energy system must now shrink in size and cost. Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

In Renewable and nuclear heresies, the noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel argues that key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, are "boutique fuels" — "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible." Analysing the amount of energy per square metre of land used that different power sources can produce, he shows that solar power would require 150 square kilometres of photovoltaic cells to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant, while biofuels would require 2500 square kilometres of prime farm land.

One critic, from the US government's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, quoted in the New Scientist, responds by noting that "even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways" — which is rather perverse when you consider that 70% of Los Angeles is used for roads and car parking. One might just as well note that the whole of the US electricity demand could be met if they dedicated "just" 780,000 square kilometres of land to wind power alone — an area the size of Texas, America's second largest state!

As Ausubel concludes, "We should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars and trucks."