Climate change
Note by Sir Robert May FRS
Published: September 1997
This note sets out my personal view of a subject in which there
remain significant uncertainties. The main source of assessment of the
science is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This
is supported by 150 nations, and the UK chairs its science working
group. Its last scientific assessment drew on the work of some 3,000 of
the world's leading scientists.
It might have drawn on the work of
scientists, but the conclusions were written without
their approval by bureaucrats and politicians. Many more scientists
have voiced their strong objections in The
Leipzig Declaration, The
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists, The
Heidelberg Appeal and The
Oregon Petition.
The Greenhouse effect and concerns about it
- The physical
principle of the greenhouse effect is well established. Put simply,
the earth's surface temperature depends on the balance between
incoming short-wave energy from the sun and outgoing long-wave
energy emitted from the earth's surface and atmosphere. Some gases
("greenhouses gases") in the atmosphere allow short-wave
solar radiation to pass through and warm the earth's surface, but at
the same time these gases trap some of the long-wave infrared
radiation emitted by the ground, and keep the earth warmer than it
would otherwise be. Were it not for these natural "greenhouse
gases", the most important of which is water vapour, the earth
would be roughly 30°C colder, and we would not be here.
The language is rather naive (e.g. trapping)
but the reality of the Greenhouse
effect is not in dispute.
- Concern arises
because human activities are increasing the concentration of
greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane. Why?
These are negligible compared with water vapour, which has 100 times
the concentration. While these facts are certain, the
implications for changes in average temperatures, both global and
local, are less certain. Less certain? More
like damned impossible. The ultimate effects of such
temperature change on rainfall and storm patterns - floods and
droughts - and on other aspects of our environment are hard to
predict in detail, although the broad outlines seem clear. Not
to many scientists. In what follows I expand on these themes,
sketch some likely consequences for different parts of Britain and
other places, and outline some policy choices.
Facts about greenhouse gases
- Concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 25% over the
past 100 years (Fig 1). If current trends in fossil fuel burning
continue, carbon dioxide will be present in the atmosphere at twice
pre-industrial levels by around the middle of the next century. Once
atmospheric concentrations have been increased they take a long
time, characteristically around 100 years, to decrease even if no
more carbon dioxide is added. As with turning a large ship, there
are long lags between actions aimed at levelling-off carbon dioxide
levels, and the levels actually stabilising. This is a strong
argument for early action. Why? The presence
of increased carbon dioxide seems to be wholly
beneficial.
- Other gases,
including methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also
contribute to the greenhouse effect. They too have been increasing
in the atmosphere. Methane levels have doubled over the last 100
years. Twice a very small number is still a
very small number. Nitrous oxide levels are currently rising
at around 0.25% each year. As for carbon dioxide, all these
increases are clearly caused by human activities, largely connected
with energy generation, transport and agriculture.
- Carbon
dioxide contributes most to human-caused global warming, accounting
for around 70% of the total. The other gases contribute the
remaining 30%, with methane accounting for about 20%. That is
if there is any human caused global warming or, indeed, any global
warming at all. We have not got to the proof yet.
Greenhouse gases and global temperature
- Over
the past 130 years, global average temperature has risen about 0.6°C
(Fig 1). Oh no it hasn't, see below.
This may sound trivial. But the temperature difference between today
and the extreme of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, is only about
5°C (although this was a decrease, rather than an increase, in
temperature). The estimated range of variability in global
temperature over the past 1,000 years is around 1°C.
Whatever happened to the Little
Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the frozen Thames, or
the Mediaeval
Warm Period when England was a vinyard? Britain is still cooler
than it was during the Norman conquest.
- Direct attribution of
these temperature changes to human activities is complicated by the
fact that climate varies naturally from year to year, and from
decade to decade. Long-term human-induced warming has to be
distinguished against this natural background. Although we do not
have data reaching back many hundreds of years, by comparing
observations of global mean temperatures with natural variability
estimated from climate models, we find the warming has, over the
past couple of decades, extended beyond the bounds of our estimates
of natural variability. This is why the IPCC considered it valid to
conclude that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global atmosphere.

Figure 1
Cobblers! And a suppressed
zero.
- In
order to predict how increases in atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will affect global
temperature and other climate variables in the future, complex
mathematical models of the earth's climate system have been
developed. Complex certainly, but of
any value? There is no dispute
that, all other things being equal, a doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentration would, by itself, lead to an increase in
average global temperature of around 1.2°C. No dispute,
except by thousands of scientists around the world.
- The difficulty is
that other things are not equal. A serious problem is that the
models are highly non-linear. A doubled input does not necessarily
lead to a doubled output; two and two do not always add up to four.
These mathematical arcana are often manifested in feedback effects,
which can amplify or ameliorate global warming. Important such
feedbacks in global climate models arise from water vapour, cloud
cover, ocean circulation, reflection from icecaps, and other things.
There is nothing particularly arcane about non-linearity. It is the rule, except for the electromagnetic
properties of outer space. It is an unfortunate fact that our linear
mathematics, while so powerful and comprehensive, cannot deal with
it in a generalised way. However, two and two do always add
up to four. If two and two equalled five you could prove anything,
such as that Sir Robert May is the Pope (see footnote). Feedback is
not a manifestation of non-linearity, it is a separate phenomenon.
- With a warmer
atmosphere, more evaporation occurs from the oceans and from wetland
surfaces. On average, a warmer atmosphere will possess a higher water
vapour content. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, so a
positive feedback results, amplifying the warming effects.
Suddenly water vapour is a powerful
greenhouse gas, when it has hardly been worth mentioning so far. It
is now needed as an amplifier for a negligible effect, which it
actually swamps.
- The effect of cloud
cover seems to be very variable, depending on local conditions
and on the kind of cloud. Clouds reflect some solar radiation back
to space, so reducing the global warming effect. However, they
counter this by acting as a blanket for thermal radiation from the
earth's surface, thus increasing average temperatures. Which of the
two effects dominates depends on cloud temperature, height and
optical properties (whether it is ice or water, thick or thin). In
general, low clouds cool global climate, whereas high clouds tend to
increase temperature. Feedback can therefore be positive or
negative, making the modelling difficult, with the effects varying
from place to place.
Difficult? Some might say downright
impossible and not worthwhile
attempting until fundamental knowledge improves.
- Ocean circulation
is particularly important because the ocean acts as a big heat
reservoir, redistributing heat globally via its circulation. The
timescales involved in ocean circulation are much longer (typically
decades) than those in the atmosphere and so couplings between
oceans and atmosphere, and possible changes in ocean circulation,
must be taken into account in predictions of climate change. Quite
small changes in regional transportation by oceans can have a large,
but difficult-to-predict, influence on local climate change.
Conversely, it is possible that small changes in regional climate
could result in large, and possibly abrupt, changes in ocean
circulation patterns. All this introduces major uncertainties,
particularly at the regional level.
But we are not going to let little things like
uncertainties prevent us from making predictions, are we?
- Another feature of
non-linear systems is that, under certain circumstances, quite small
changes in a "forcing" variable (for example atmospheric
carbon dioxide) can lead to abrupt and large changes in a dependent
variable (for example, ocean circulation). A possible example of
this is the disruption we have seen to the "El Niño"
system. This is a region of unusually warm water which appears every
three to five years in the Equatorial Pacific and which strongly
influences weather patterns, especially in tropical and sub-tropical
areas. In recent years, intense El Niño phenomena have been
recorded, which are thought to have led to extreme weather events in
the Americas, Australia and Africa. If global warming continues,
perturbation to weather systems like this are likely to become more
common.
El Niño is a repeated weather pattern. It
has been recorded for generations and has nothing to do with recent
events or with spurious politically
generated theories. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a forcing
variable, it is a parameter. The only forcing variable is solar
radiation.
- The IPCC predicts
that when all these feedback effects are taken into account, a
doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to an average
global temperature increase of between 1.5 and 4.5°C, most probably
2.5°C.
The IPCC, of all bodies, has no realistic
means to take these effects into account, as they are not even
understood by science.
- Any prediction will
depend, of course, on the assumptions we make about future emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These, in turn, depend
on assumptions about future populations, economics and energy
generation. The IPCC approaches these uncertainties by spelling out
a range of possible scenarios, and then predicting the climate
change for each.
- Figure 2 offers a
summary - and a dramatic summary at that - of the IPCC findings. Dramatic?
Yes, but then so is much of fiction. The left hand side of
the figure shows the outcome of the IPCC's various scenarios for
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the next two
centuries. Each of these scenarios describes atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels eventually stabilising at some steady level; in the
case, for example, of S450 this happens around the year 2075, but in
most of the scenarios it takes longer. The right hand side of the
figure shows the predicted rise in average global temperature
associated with each scenario, once carbon dioxide levels have
reached their steady state; the horizontal line shows the range of
predicted temperatures, and the dot the best guess (for example, for
S450, the temperature increase is predicted to lie between 0.8 and
2.1°C, with a best guess around 1.3°C). The figure on the right
also displays three vertical lines. The first (labelled a)
represents the estimated range of variability in global temperature
over the past 1,000 years (around 1°C), and the second (labelled b,
at 2°C) represents double this millennial variability and could be
taken as a level at which manmade warming would be self-evident,
beyond all dispute. The third (labelled c) shows the difference
between the last ice age and the warmest time since (around 5°C).

Figure 2
All pigs fuelled and ready for take-off
- These IPCC scenarios
represent the levels at which atmospheric carbon dioxide will
stabilise. To achieve any of these, carbon dioxide emissions
(from transport, power generation, agriculture, etc.) will not just
have to stop growing, but will have to be reduced below the present
level. For example, S450 assumes that global carbon dioxide
emissions will fall below current levels by about 2035, and will
reduce below 40% of current levels after 2100. Presented this way,
the assessments make stark viewing. If the "best guess"
estimate for global warming associated with any of the IPCC
scenarios is accepted, only scenarios below S550 - which I rate as
rather optimistic, given current trends in emissions - keep
temperature increases below the 2°C threshold.
Suddenly, after all this uncertainty the word
"will" makes its appearance.
Consequences of global warming: general
- So far, this paper
has focused on average global changes in temperature. Of great
practical interest is how climate change will affect individual
regions. Broadly, temperature increases will be greatest at high
northern latitudes, in part because the melting of sea-ice will
allow more solar radiation to be absorbed, thus amplifying warming
in this region. Warming is also likely to be greater over land areas
than over the oceans, due to the slow thermal response of the
latter. The models predict extensive areas where rainfall will
become greater, and others where the opposite is predicted; in
general, places which already get heavy rainfall are likely to see
it get heavier; conversely, where rainfall is now light it is likely
to get lighter. But the geographical details of these findings
remain, at present, uncertain.
Uncertain? You said it! So why all the "will"s?
- I note a few general
conclusions, before turning in more detail to the UK. One class of
consequences of climate change relates to sea level change. As the
ocean warms, it will expand and sea level will rise. Some land ice
will melt, and so changes to the large ice masses over Greenland and
Antarctica will have additional effects. A rise of some 50cm in
average sea levels may be expected over the next century, but there
will be larger local effects. As heat diffuses slowly to the deeper
ocean, it will cause further expansion; hence, at any given time,
the observed sea level rise will only be a fraction of that which
will inevitably follow. Even if there were to be no further change
in climate (which would require, for example, a 60% decrease in
carbon dioxide emissions), sea level rise will continue for hundreds
of years. Only a thousand years ago
Greenland was a verdant pasture, grazed by the flocks of the
settling Vikings. That is how it got its name. Why was the Earth not
then inundated?
- Temperature
change also has effects upon the hydrological cycle, which
effectively translates into changes in where rain falls, and where
water ends up. As global warming increases, the world will see more
and worse droughts and floods.
The worst weather recorded was in the little ice age, not
in the mediaeval warm period. It has been claimed that half a
million lives were lost in the storm of 1421. In the Great Storm of
1703, 30% of the English merchant fleet was lost and 7,500 seamen
perished, 400 windmills were destroyed, the Eddystone Lighthouse was
swept away and the Bishop of Bath and Wells was killed when his
chimney stack fell into his bed chamber.
- By the year 2020,
climate change in Britain is likely to correspond roughly to a
northward shift in climate characteristics of some 100-200km. This
and other changes will have major effects upon the habitats and
ranges of many species of plants, animals, and micro-organisms. Many
of the species, and indeed ecosystems, thus affected will not be
able to respond fast enough to "move with the temperature
change". The overall effects are extremely complicated, and
vary from region to region, in all cases surrounded by a good deal
of uncertainty. Rather than make any attempt to survey these
questions, I observe that a major recent study has attempted to
assess the economic value of the "ecosystem services"
delivered by natural ecological processes: soil formation, water
supplies, nutrient cycling, waste processing, pollination, and much
else. The assessment, necessarily very rough, is around £10-34
trillion per year, with a best guess of around £21 trillion, most
of it outside the market. This is roughly twice the conventional
global GNP, at around £11 trillion per year. Large swathes of this
£10-34 trillion are at risk from the possible environmental and
ecological changes sketched by the IPCC.
Pie in the sky. Whatever happened to all that
uncertainty?
-
Consequences of global warming: Britain
Climate models are not sufficiently accurate at present to
give reliable predictions of local climate changes. In the UK,
however, climate change may already be having an appreciable effect.
Of the five warmest years in Central England's 337 year old
temperature records, three (1989, 1990, 1995) have occurred in the
past 10 years. The summer of 1976 was the warmest ever, and that of
1995 the second warmest; in summer 1995, temperatures in Central
England were 3°C warmer than the average between 1961-1990. 1997 is
challenging these records.
Why choose Central England? It is one of the
most populous places on Earth (as shown by the photograph of the UK at
night). It has more people, homes, factories,
vehicles and concrete per unit area than almost anywhere. There are
accurate surface temperature records for hundreds of rural sites
around the world. They show no warming. Neither do the satellite
or balloon measurements. The most obvious characteristic of
Central England is that it is the epitome of the Urban heat Island.
Why not choose:
Frobisher
Bay, Eureka,
Resolute,
Mould
Bay, Sachs
Harbor, Clyde,
Point
Barrow, Kotzebue,
Nome,
Bethel,
Northway,
Cordova,
Yakutat,
Talkeetna,
Cold
Bay, Coral
Harbor, Juneau
& Kodiak, St
Paul Island, Fairbanks
& Fort Greely, Gulkana
& Fort Greely, The
`Arctic Rim' ,
The`GIUKGap', Angmagssalik, Danmarkshavn,
Godthaab, Godthaab
& Angmagssalik, Egdesminde,
Jan Mayen
Island, Akureyri,
Stykkisholmur,
Stykkisholmur
& Teigarhorn, Reykjavik,
Keflavik
& Hofn, Spitzbergen,
Bear
Island, Franz
Josef Land, Vardo,
Tromo/Skatto,
Bodo, Thorshavn,
North
Greenland stations, Murmansk,
Archangelsk . Kanin
Nos, Ostrov Vize, & Ostrov Dikson, Ajan,
Okhotsk,
Korf,
Sejmchan,
Ostrov
Dikson, Ostrov
Vize, Turuhansk,
Dzardzan &
Olenek, Ostrov
Kotel, Salehard,
Kirensk &
Tura, Nikolayevsk
& Oktiabrskaya, Haparanda,
Visby
Flygpla,
Jyvaskyla,
Finland & Ostersund, Sweden, Inukjuak,
Coral Harbour, Fort Chimo, Gander
International Airport, Goose,
Sable
Island, Farmington,
Gloversville
& Stillwater Reservoir,
Tennessee,
Scottsboro
& Valley Head, Florida,
St. Cloud,
Fairmont,
Southern Iowa,
Spickard,
Jefferson
Water Plant and Truman Dam, Fort
Scott, Kansas and Lamar, Missouri, Sedan
(Kansas) & Cherokee (Oklahoma), Clinton,
Missouri, & Bush Field, Georgia, Rocky
Ford, Sedan
(Kansas) and Cherokee (Oklahoma), Perry
& Kingfisher, Dodge
City, Newkirk,
Western
Oklahoma, North
Platte Boulder,
Denver, & Cheesman, Yellowstone
National Park, Yosemite
National Park HQ, Colfax,
Basin,
Lander,
Laramie,
Northern Utah,
Southern Utah,
Little
Falls City Reservoir, Cedar
Lake, Snoqualmie
Falls, Davenport,
Blaine & Olga,
Lexington,
Eastman &
Glenville, Lamar,
Ashton,
Cascadia,
Three Lynx & Bend, Pontotoc
Experimental Station, Lampasas,
Eagle
Pass, Hallettsville
& Danevang, Albany
& Dublin, Liberty
& Houston United,
Tombstone,
Childs,
Utica,
Orogrande,
Death
Valley, Santa
Rosa & Willows, Napa
& Willows, Santa
Cruz, Waynesville
& Highlands, Sodankyla,
Kajaani,
Wlodawa &
Bialystok, Lerwick
Thorshavn,
Tiree,
Valentia
Observatory & Shannon Airport, Malin
Head, De
Bilt, Debrecen
& Pecs, Horta, Gibraltar,
Choshi,
Osaka &
Maizuru, Krasnovodsk,
Cardzou,
Srinagar,
Peshawar
& Fort Sandeman, New
Delhi, Gauhati
& Darbhanga, Bikaner
& Jodhpur, Ma'An
& Irwaishe, Ankara,
Afyon &
Konya, Edirne
& Canakkle, Macao
& Guangzhou, Palmyra
and Hama, Tabuk,
Bahrain &
Dharan, Nassau,
San
Juan, Martinique
& Barbados, San
Fernando de Apure, Pilar
Observatory and Chepes, Pehuajo
& Santa Rosa, Patagonia,
Punta
Arenas, Islas
Juan Fernandez, Ushuaia,
Artgentina and Punta Arenas, Chile, Majuro,
Yap
Atoll &
Koror, Palau Islands Kauai,
Niamey,
Burkina
Faso. Marrakech
(Morocco) & Nouakchott (Mauritania).
Capetown
and Calvinia,
Johannesburg
International Airport (Jan Smuts), Kimberley
& Bloemfontein,
Madagascar,
Indian
Ocean Islands, Dar-es-Salaam,
Darwin,
Northern
Australia,
Thursday
Island, Charleville
& Longreach, Brisbane,
Coffs Harbour,
Norfolk
Island,
Canberra
% Wagga Airports, Gabo
Island, Wilson's
Promontory, Cape
Otway, Launceston,
Hobart, Adelaide,
Launceston
& Hobart Airports, Alice
Springs, Geraldton,
Western
Australia stations, Chatham
Island, Christchurch
& Invercargill, Islas
Juan Fernandez, Easter
Island Papeete,
Rapa,
Tarawa
Atoll, Funafutu,
Rarotonga,
Wallis
Island, Willis
Island, Nouméa,
Lord
Howe Island, Hokitika,
Norfolk
Island, Macquarie
Island, Invercargill,
Campbell Island, Stanley, Signy
(British), and Orcadas (Argentinian), Gough
Island, Signy
& Orcadas, Mawson
Station, Davis
Station, Mirny
Station, Casey
Station, Halley
Bay, Scott
Base, Syowa
(Japanese) and Molodezhnya (Russian). Vostok
Base or Amundsen-Scott
Base?
Links and picture are from Still
waiting for greenhouse.
- In the summer of
1995, rainfall in Central England was about two-thirds of the normal
amount. Overall, the most obvious impact was in the energy sector,
with net savings to the consumer for the period November 1994 to
October 1995 of about £335 million. There were negative impacts on
agriculture (about £180 million), water supply (£96 million) and
the building insurance sector.
This is not climate. It is weather.
- With global warming,
we can generally expect the weather to become more extreme and more
variable: more heat waves, more floods, more droughts. The deep
depression, or "hurricane", which wrought such havoc in
Southern Britain in late 1987 resulted in damage estimated at £1.9
billion. The indications from climate models are that the number of
deep Atlantic depressions is expected to increase; by the middle of
the next century, the incidence of gales across the country is
predicted to increase on average by 30% if no major global actions
are taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. There may already
be some evidence for this. Since the "hurricane" in 1987,
there have been "billion dollar" storms around the world,
each year. 1990 as well as 1987 was a particularly bad year for
storms in Europe.
More weather.
- Climate change
scenarios suggest that, as well as becoming more windy, the south of
the UK is likely to become hotter and drier, with very warm days
becoming much more frequent and the demand for water increasing. In
contrast, the north west is likely to become wetter. Drought in the
south east and flooding in the north west are likely both to become
more common. Storm damage will be more frequent, with effects on
flooding and erosion of coastal areas and on the cost of flood
defence. As temperature increases and precipitation patterns change,
natural habitats, wildlife species and farming zones will steadily
migrate northwards (insofar as they are able to) by around 50-80 km
per decade.
How many times was uncertainty
mentioned above? It seems to have been forgotten.
- In the longer term,
and more uncertain, are possible effects on ocean currents and
productivity around the UK. As mentioned earlier (paragraph 13),
there is an important link between deep ocean circulation and the
hydrological cycle. Increased precipitation in the North Atlantic
region, and increased fresh water run-off, will reduce the salinity
of surface water. Water will therefore be less dense and will not
sink so readily. Such changes in marine salt balance could modify
the fluid dynamics which ultimately drive the Gulf Stream. I
emphasise that the Gulf Stream, in effect, transports towards the
British Isles "free" heat which amounts to 27,000 times
the total power generation capacity of the UK! The possibility that
this might be significantly reduced, much less turned off, is an
awesome prospect.
Heads I win. Tails you lose.
- More generally, the
world may also be affected by migration of populations from areas
severely affected by changes in sea level. For example, over 6
million in Bangladesh will be displaced, and 7 million in Egypt
severely affected, by a 1m rise in sea level (assuming these
populations do not increase, which is unrealistic).
Now we have the word "may", meaning
"might", but it is soon transmogrified into
"will". Have we got scares for you!
What to do
- I believe the world
must aim to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, especially
carbon dioxide. The Prime Minister's personal appearance at the
Special Session at the UN General Assembly in June, where he
affirmed the UK's target of a 20% reduction in CO2, was a
valuable demonstration that the UK takes these issues very
seriously. Kyoto in December will present another opportunity for
the Deputy Prime Minister to work with our partners, moving further
toward concrete international actions to combat global warming.
With all due respect to those two outstanding
applied physicists, this example of the fallacy argumentum ad
vericundiam looks suspiciously like grovelling.
- The UK has already
taken exemplary steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, mainly as
a result of the moves from coal to gas power generation in the late
1980s and early 1990s (which will result in our carbon dioxide
emissions in 2000 being 4 to 8% below 1990 levels). Although painful
to the coal industry in the UK, these changes entailed relatively
little cost in overall measures of environmental protection or
changes in national lifestyle. The next steps in the UK will be a
lot harder.
The so called environmental taxes, in addition
to many other new impositions, have had a major effect on the
already parlous state of British industry; and it is getting worse.
- The
UK's atmospheric input of carbon dioxide can be broken down, by end
user, into road transport (around 22%) domestic uses (about 27%) and
industry (about 28%); a miscellany of other categories (including
other transport, and heating and other energy use in shops and
offices) make up the remaining 23%. Thus the task of reducing such
inputs potentially falls very broadly.
In other words, the pain is spread broadly, but not equally.
For example, as always rural communities suffer most from the
taxation of their personal transport.
- And we need to think
long. Whatever target for 2010 is agreed at Kyoto can only be a
first step for the international community. A long term view of
policy options is necessary; effective decisions in the short term
must not hinder our options for taking measures to meet future
reductions targets.
Even if the whole global warming myth were
true, Kyoto would have a negligible effect. The real Green aim is to
take humanity back to the Stone Age. They certainly don't want any
of that nasty old Iron Age smelting going on.
- In the short term,
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are technically
possible, and can be economically feasible. Policy measures to
accelerate technology development, and to encourage diffusion and
transfer of new technologies to all centres, will help. An
integrated transport policy, plus strict air quality standards,
should help reduce vehicle emissions, but will not of itself be
sufficient without development of cleaner fuels, more efficient
engines, and alternative energy sources. The same is true for energy
supply for industrial and domestic uses. New technologies will need
to include reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in the
"harvesting" and subsequent use of fossil fuels, switching
to non-fossil fuel sources of energy and a better efficiency of
energy use where possible. Better management of the natural
environment can also help. Improvements in how we develop and
sustainably use forests, agricultural lands, and soils in general
could play an important part in reducing emissions and in enhancing
the rate at which carbon is biologically fixed.
More diktats, interference, control, snooping,
taxation etc.
- UK industry should
see climate change as opportunity not as threat. Industry should be
constructively addressing climate change in their forward planning.
Mitigation of climate change will require big changes in the energy,
transport and construction industries, in terms of much greater
efficiency in production and use (which in turn will bring greater
industrial efficiency and competitiveness) and the development of
appropriate, known, technologies. Many aspects of the Foresight
initiative are addressing these questions.
In other words, there will be even more
bureaucratic interference in industrial and university research.
- Most of these actions
will be impossible unless the public in general are persuaded of the
need for them. For example, if we are to cut transport emissions not
just per vehicle but in aggregate, then some tough choices may have
to be made about private car usage. I believe there is a crucial
role for ministers collectively to play, leading the British people
to appreciate the need to take firm and early action.
Tell it to Old Two-Jags.
- The
quality of the UK's contribution to research on climate change, in
the broadest sense, is strong out of all proportion to our relative
size or research spending. We should aim to maintain this strength,
so as to have international policy underpinned by fundamental
understanding, to continue our position of international policy and
scientific leadership in this arena, and to help persuade the
world's sceptics that climate change is a real and serious problem.
University research will be even further diverted from real
science to the generation of political propaganda by subreption.
- Ultimately, the
problem of climate change demands international co-operation and
co-ordination. No matter how good a job we do in the UK, its global
effects will be marginal compared with what happens over the next
few decades in, say, China. Developed countries, with the highest
level of emissions, need to take the lead. We need to promote among
developed countries an understanding that serious and urgent action
to limit emissions is needed, and to press for a solid result in
Kyoto. I also believe the Government should use the moral authority
conferred by the UK's conscientious efforts to meet its own targets,
combined with our disproportionate contributions to basic
understanding of the underpinning science, to help developing
countries reconcile sustainable development with amelioration of
atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. By this, of
course, I do not mean patronising moral exhortations nor throwing
money at problems, but rather partnerships in which we explore
appropriate forms of help. The Global Environment Facility and, on a
small scale (around £3m pa), the post-Rio Darwin Initiative for
helping developing countries record and conserve their biological
diversity, are models.
Don't you just love "our disproportionate
contributions to basic understanding of the underpinning science",
which translates as "our propagation of pseudo-scientific
propaganda"?
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON. |