Yesterday afternoon I visited the Climate Change Clinic which is being run by a collection of environmental groups opposite the conference centre. I'd been invited by Greenpeace's press officer Ben Stewart. While I was there he got me to do a computer test to check how much carbon I was producing annually. The results are above. I produce 19.73 tonnes per annum. Apparently my house is very environmentally friendly, as are my eating habits, but you can see from the pie graph above, that if I didn't drive a car my carbon emission would be about 50 per cent lower. While I was there I asked what the average had been for people who had taken the test during the Tory conference. 15-20 tonnes was the average. I was told that at the LibDem conference the average had been slightly higher. However, I've just been sent an email which says this...
"Very roughly, we would say that the Conservative results so far range from 5 to 45 but on average is 15-20 tonnes CO2 per year, Labour average was much the same at 15-20 and, since talking to my colleagues who were also at Brighton, we would say that the Lib Dems average was also 15-20 tonnes. These are merely estimates as we never intended to publicise the comparisons."
Hmmm. Bit of spin there methinks. I know what I was told! The email goes on...
In all results the biggest problem is air travel because CO2 emissions emitted at high altitude are 2-5 times more damaging than at ground level. All results are well over the UK average of 11.3 and a far cry from the global fair share of 2.5 tonnes ie the amount we all need to reduce to if we are going to tackle the climate change crisis.
The trouble is that to get down to 2.5 tonnes you'd presumably have to abolish all air travel and do God knows that to car users.
It seems that I have developed a reputation as a 'Climate Change Denier' on some of the environmental blogs, but nothing could be further from the truth. it's happened purely because I linked to an Australian article which questioned some of the assertions in the Al Gore film and questioned David Miliband's statistics. The trouble with this entire debate is that it is too polarised and it's impossible to engage in a rational discussion.
24 comments:
"In all results the biggest problem is air travel because CO2 emissions emitted at high altitude are 2-5 times more damaging than at ground level."
This is wrong. Carbon emissions have the same atmospheric effect regardless of altitude.
Other greenhouse gasses are altitude sensitve - but not CO2.
Perhaps the provenance of these figures should be reassessed...
Sounds like something to be discussed on Doughty Street then.
Carbon emmissions at altitude aren't a problem, it's the water crystals (those white trails) which cause an additional problem.
Anyway, a cheeky question, maybe someone will help. I'm the lucky owner of acres of woodland (mainly douglas pines and oak). So can I fly guilt-free and rev around in a sports car? Surely my personal carbon survey would reveal that I'm actually soaking up carbon...
From your pie chart it would clearly be possible to cut to 2.5 tons by going entirely nuclear even to the extent of replacing oil with hydrogen electrolysied by reactors - thus cutting out almost all the car & aircraft as well as electricity based CO2 production.
I am not advocating this, at lest for that reason, because I think the whole scare is rather silly but the remarkable thing is that, with the exception of Professor Lovelock, those who claim to believe we face catastrophic warming aren't advocating it either. Quite the opposite which I suggest shows the true Luddite agenda.
Iain, while this may be reasonably taken as my bias, I disagree with you about both sides being so polarised it is impossible to engage in rational discussion. I think I & the large majority of sceptics have debated rationaly on the facts & figures. It is an easy out to say that because both sides reject many basic statements from the other it is impossible to test which statements are & which aren't true.
Iain , I doubt there are many people who deny that climate change is a real phenomenon although for funding and psychological reasons I suspect the apocalyptic end of it is a bit over cooked .
That is not the same thing as denying that David Cameron has any sincerity on the issue because as Bozzer said UK action is like farting in a hurricane and cannot be taken seriously
What are the real problems with climate change
1 Exponential Growth in developing and Asian countries. Do we pull up the ladder?
2 US political intransigence on Petrol prices
3 Politically un taxable air travel ( Do we say only the rich can travel again as it was until fairly recently )
4 Heavy Industry located in Asia and old Warsaw pact areas either locally owned or located there for cheap labour and to avoid environmental laws ( not to say employment laws)
Solving such problems needs global action which is itself a problem as there is global government and god forbid there should be. It is intimately bound up with wealth creation in the developing world but also growth addiction everywhere. There is not easy answer and real sacrifices will be needed. The implication that by recycling a bit and insulating your loft you change a thing is harmless but partly misleading . We can`t have it all and this front must be opened up for debate. At the moment its all about feeling good about ourselves which won’t do although technology and practice obviously have a place that will develop eventually..
The ZAKS of this world do little but harm by there foolishness and self serving "princeCharlesery".Real questions should be asked but i don`t see this as a good idea for the Conserrtvtaive party from the lead more from the fringe
Iain, you are quite right to complain about the lack of rational discussion. This is partly because laypeople do not understand the nature of science, instead, they demand clear answers when none can be given. No scientist that I know claims that we are anywhere near understanding teh totality of earth systems. On the other hand, every scientist that I know thinks it is overwhelmingly likely that anthropogenic global warming is happening. What they do not know is what happens next, though most agree it will not be pleasant and may well be destructive on a currently unimaginable scale. In that context, simple scepticism becomes a dangerous delusion.
Couldn't agree more - the whole Global Warming lark is so highly political that you just need to open your mouth at the wrong time and you're accused of being in the pay of the Oil companies!
Personally, the only way I would see that these figures can be reached is if everyone had anuclear power car - but how realistic is that?
http://www.oluf.co.uk
BRIAN APPLEYARD- Science yes but what about the more pressing problem of Global growth money and politics , or have I got it wrong ?
What good name by the way , how did you come up with Apple yard , how very amusing ..............
dont give up - it is possible to have a rational discussion - seriously
MR> FRUNING
`I do have an answer to the problem of green house gasses emitted by aircraft and motor-vehicles but unfortunately it involves a Star Trek style Transporter.`
I was trying to make the same point but as ususal you , in the case, have made it better and quicker ( and funnier)
Nice one
Unfortunately, the way of things now is that it is very difficult to have a rational discussion in public, as the media insist on 15 second soundbites, and what is worse is that generally their (and the public's) understanding of science is very poor.
It ends up being a political discussion involving rhetoric rather than the actual facts, as anyone can make a statement which is unverifiable in the timescale of the discussion.
This "high altitude effect" is an excellent example - I can't find any scientific basis for that, only various statements that it is so from not very reputable sources, who probably got confused with other pollutants.
Additionally, "green" organisations blaming this that and the other on global warming do nothing to help rational discussion - for instance Katrina was an accident waiting to happen - but you probably won't hear much about this being a relatively quiet Hurricane season despite all the predictions. This just provides sceptics with something that they can legitimately argue against, thus avoiding the central issue.
The only place where a proper rational discussion can be had is in the scientific community. Yes, they all have individual biases, funding questionmarks, etc, but its the best we can do. And the current thinking is that it is a real problem, but the actual effects are very hard to predict.
PS f0ul - you don't need a nuclear powered car - just a hydrogen powered one. You make the hydrogen from water using a conventional nuclear facility (or solar etc if they are available).
Mr Dale,
You need to sell that Audi tin can of yours and get on your bike! Would help with the waist line too.
This advice is free!
Well, we all knew that the Lib Dems were noxious.
"a rational discussion" = Dalespeak for wishful thinking session?
Iain, we certainly produce less hot air that the Lib Dems!
If you ever visit a few of these environmentalist's sites, each of the various carbon calculators gives you a diffent answer - with a different associated cost attached. It seems that they only tally if they've shared the same basic software package.
It's funny that no-one ever really questions the honesty of the 'Guess-Your-Carbon-Weight' calculators. But more worryingly, it has become de rigeur to be pressured into paying an unknown Third Party organisation for the alleged carbon-cost arising from one's everyday activities.
If you've ever wondered where your 'carbon offset' guilt-money goes (the truth is so undemocratic that it makes you want to support the honesty of direct taxes!) I've written a little piece on every Tory's (second) favourite website: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1724/
Austin
Don't worry about the car, there's some recent work been done on a new concept hydrogen engine. Roughly, water is mixed with injected powdered boron to produce hydrogen fuel and boron oxides, which can then be treated to regain the boron with oxygen given off as a by-product, replacing the oxygen converted to water by the hydrogen burning. Very neat, looks promising, and there's no explosive hydrogen tanks cluttering up the boot - all the fuel production happens inside the engine.
But even when car engines become zero-polluting I'd bet that the greenies will still rage against SUVs, Chelsea Tractors, etc. I suspect that there are many of the hard environmental persuasion who hate technology, even when it solves problems.
To them, the greenhouse controversy (horribly complicated, and with a growing number of scientists beginning to suspect that variations in the sun's emissions have a much bigger effect than previously suspected) is a heaven-sent opportunity to exercise their luddite mind-set.
I am glad that capitalists are starting to worry about the environment. If we leave it to the greenies, they would completely destroy our way of life. Capitalist on the other hand, prefer the cheapest solutions, to breast beating and self loathing.
Enemy at the gate! a tactic employed by politicians for years to trick us in to fighting wars, and there has been no greater enemy to civil liberties, democracy and freedom than Global climate change, THE enemy at the gate.
It is time we all approached this problem with second world war rationing mentality. Until we all see this as a foe to be conquered we will never make the changes necessary to protect the interests of future generations. 2 stamps for petrol 1 stamp for holiday CO2.
In Response to MR Colin D.....Profit
Iain
"I have developed a reputation as a 'Climate Change Denier' on some of the environmental blogs"
If so it is an instance of shooting the messenger. Anyone reading your Miliband entry would see thaty you specificly went out of your way to support GW, indeed I implicitly criticised you for that. Their problem is that commentators her have been overwhelmingly unconvinced of GW, at least the catastrophic version of warming.
Similarly following a recent headline story in the Scotsman (a quango had realesed a report repeating all the old arguments) comments there showed a similarly sceptical trend.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1461342006#new
This was clearly not in line with the Scvotsman's editorial position. I grant that both of you appeal to rightists & thus are not a statisticly random sample, on the other hand both are open to anybody (more than you can say for the Guardian or C4 discussion groups)
While it is true that, in polls, most people express as much support for renewability & fighting global warming as for motherhood & apple pie, when asked to list issues, any issues, in order GW invariably comes last.
I suspect that, in purely electoral terms, the position of all 3 parties insisting that they are the greenest may, despite the MSM unanimity on the subject, not be optimum. The recent reversal of Bliar on the nuclear power issue suggests that he recognises this.
That's all well and good Iain but do the Tories carry out carbon offset to neutralise their tonnage as the Lib Dems have done for years?
http://www.climatecare.org/
Climate change debate is more like religion in the 1400s than science... Cries of "heretic" flying in all directions and prognostications of hellfire and damnation heaped upon the heads of unbelievers...
Just one thing, if something like "Targetneutral" (http://www.targetneutral.com/TONIC/index.jsp) reckons that it only costs about twenty quid a year to neutralise the CO2 output of an average car, why are the "official" figures for the costs of doing same orders of magnitude higher?
Where is this CO2 questionarre - can anyone do it? Can you post a link?
Post a Comment