Let’s get something absolutely straight about the climate debate, and the government propaganda that fuels it. Britain’s Climate Change Act 2008 has not made us the world leader in Co2 reduction legislation. There cannot be a leader in a one horse race. In a one horse race, there is no one to lead. With a field of one, there is no race in any real meaning of the term. Other competitors have failed to show up on the starting line.
Last week the UK government announced carbon reduction targets for the period 2023-27, in accordance with requirements set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. At the time that this extraordinary piece of legislation was going through parliament, we were repeatedly told that it would make us the world leader in de-carbonisation and the battle against climate change. There may have been some justification for such a claim then, but there is absolutely no justification now. The chaotic collapse of the Copenhagen summit, and the acceptance at Cancun that no global agreement on emission control is even in sight, have changed ‘the environmental’ landscape completely, and seemingly irreversibly.
Yet the government, and of course the rest of the media who regurgitate its press releases without a thought, are still trumpeting the old mantra, except that the tense has changed. No longer are we to become the world leaders, but according to Roger Harrabin’s BBC report on the new carbon budgets this is a “world leading agreement …”. Leading who? Who is following?
Similarly motivated climate legislation has been contemplated in other countries including Australia, America and France, but none has been implemented. Today brings a report that the oh-so-green Canadian’s climate legislation has hit the buffers too.
Three years after the Climate Change Bill was enacted, Britain isn’t a world leader in this field, it is just way, way out on a very precarious limb all by itself.
Now is the time for critics of climate policy to start asking everywhere that they can get a hearing; “If we were supposed to be world leaders in 2008, why has absolutely no one followed us? If what we are doing makes sense, then surely out of the world’s approximately 200 nations, with all their diversity of self interest and ideals, at least one would have managed to enact the same kind of legislation by now? What is the Climate Change Act for, why do we need it, and what effect will it have on an economy that is already in a parlous state?”
How about starting with your MP? Or a letter to the local newspaper? Sooner or later, people are going to have to start thinking about this.
And there is a petition that you can sign here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43914/sign.html
Spread the word!
TonyN
Can we assume that other countries aren’t as stupid as us if they havent folowed our ‘lead’?
Perhaps the decision by Tata -surely only one of many in future-to mothball a plant citing Carbon taxes as one of the reasons must indicate the writing on the wall.
Promoting a highly inefficient and expensive renewable energy infrastructure which will help to impoverish the population of the UK whilst slapping ever higher charges on Air passenger duty to prevent its inmates fleeing the country must also add to the pressures.
However, the fact is that reducing UK carbon emissions completely will only reduce global temperatures by a theoretical 2 thousands of a degree C by 2100. If the whole world decided to emulate our lemming like dash for destruction it would reduce temperatures by an equally theoretical one tenth of a degree.
I have asked PeterM to dispute these figures but he never has, so this is a direct challenge to him to prove that our sacrifices in the common good will have any effect whatsoever. Come on PeterM, none of your parsing and dancing on the heads of pins, demonstrate that this figure is incorrect.
tonyb
[TonyM: … and to what extend will scaleing back operations at Scunthorpe provide Tata with lucrative carbon credits?]
tonyN
Wasn’t carbon credits also a reason for closing down Redcar and moving operations to India?
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/redcars-steel-plant-is-closing/
This is a good article but it is the comments that are most relevant
tonyb
TonyN The UK is leading no one on Carbon reduction. That is now two steel production plants closed down by Tata. This proves they have no interest in the UK other than as a market. Today I read our chemical industry is in trouble as they are huge users of electric power. Word has it they have not been given much of a hearing. Last year though the German chemical giants made a beeline for Angela Merkel and she exempted them. Remember the German chemical industry is one of the biggest in the world. So much for our leadership!!!
Richard Budge bought up what was left of British Coal and has been successfully mining coal for a profit since. He started a company to build a CCS plant which has gone bust as it spent its entire subsidy without achievement industrial scale carbon capture, or perhaps without even pouring any cement.
The UK’s carbon emissions keep going up as more and more electricity is used as our economy changes so more and more coal and gas are burnt. Renewables’ have made no impact. So the latest bit of politicking was just a charade, perhaps the Lib Dems pushing something through so as to appeal to their supporters.
It all begs the question when we reach 2023 and we are still at our current levels of Carbon, who does the axe fall on? Who should be held accountable?
I feel really bad for the UK. A nation of very smart, very rational people being dictated to by morons looking to gain politically.
I can’t say the U.S. is much different in terms of politicians. But I do believe the truly violent defense of total freedom of speech on this side of the pond helps with cases like this. It’s harder to get total madness in power when all forms of dissention are allowed. There are times when the “crazy” people are truly the sanest people in the room, which is why you must never silence them. CAGW was one of those situations.
Even before I post my piece above it seems “other” talks are being held.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1389433/Secret-talks-sidestep-Chris-Huhne-s-tax.html
As Jeremy says, its us poor mugs the ordinary tax payers that seem to bear the brunt of our idiot politicians flawed policies. Here is another little titbit that will backfire on the moron community and send rents sky high
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=923673
A quote by Catherine Aird comes immediately to mind re the UK as a world leader in these matters: “If you can’t be a good example, then you’ll just have to serve as a horrible warning.”
However, for those who want a low-carbon society, the government’s plans aren’t working all that well, if this article by Jeremy Leggett (link below) in BusinessGreen is anything to go by, and in the context of a one-horse race to ruination, it looks as though they might come a cropper at the first fence. Could it be, in fact, that sheer incompetence will save us, in the end?
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/2072481/greenest-government-target-setting
Or could it be that the horse has been deliberately nobbled? I.e. Cameron & Co realise full well that it isn’t going to run and are surreptitiously making sure that it won’t run, but also know that they will need to continue to pay lip service to the idea until it’s obvious to everyone that it’s not working, and they can disown it and walk away?
Why is it that when I read something like ” lets get this straight ……..There cannot be a leader in a one horse race. In a one horse race, there is no one to lead. With a field of one, there is no race in any real meaning of the term. Other competitors have failed to show up on the starting line.” ?
I know straightaway that:
1) The statement will be totally unsubstantiated
2) And wrong as well!
Of course, if TonyN had taken the slightest trouble to look up what other countries were doing he’d have realised that he would need to use a slightly differently worded sentence.
So is it really the case that the UK are out on their own?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto36-2005.png
Not really. The best that can be said is that they are in middle of the field. But of course the pace of the race does need to be stepped up and soon.
TonyB,
I’ve just noticed that you’ve said something like “I have asked PeterM to dispute these figures but he never has,” and that reducing UK (and world) carbon emissions completely will only reduce global temperatures by a theoretical 2 thousands or reduce temperatures by an equally theoretical one tenth of a degree if the world were to follow.
So am I disputing them ? Well yes I am. What does the science say?
If, hypothetically, world emissions were to stop now then temperatures would rise very slightly over the next 20 years then start to fall as CO2 levels fell. If CO2 levels don’t fall neither will the temperature. If they are allowed to continue to rise out of control, then so will the temperature with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels leading to a warming of 3 degrees according to the IPCC.
PeterM
As usual you have truncated a quote in order to be able to put your spin on it . What I actually said was;
“However, the fact is that reducing UK carbon emissions completely will only reduce global temperatures by a theoretical 2 thousands of a degree C by 2100. If the whole world decided to emulate our lemming like dash for destruction it would reduce temperatures by an equally theoretical one tenth of a degree.”
So no one but you mentioned 20 years. What I am saying is that within 80 years we will have made no difference whatsoever. Would you like to comment again on what I actually said. Perhaps you would like to do your own calculations instead of continually pointing to the IPCC?.
tonyb
Yes, TonyB, I know you are saying ” within 80 years we will have made no difference whatsoever.” even if CO2 emissions are totally stopped. And of course you are just as wrong as you usually are !
We all know that they can’t be stopped altogether, but they can be reduced, and CO2 atmospheric concentrations can be brought under control.
I’m not suggesting that you believe anything I have to say but you might just like to check the website of every reputable scientific body in the world and you’ll find that’s what they are saying. They are saying it will make a difference.
But maybe there is one that I’ve missed and if you find it you could let me know.
PeterM
If I’m wrong provide me with the actual specific figures thast back up your sweeping statement-no generalities or pointing to the entire IPCC AR4. Give me some actual real world figures
tonyb
TonyB, I think you need to get back on topic as regards the title of the thread is concerned. But if you do want to continue the discussion on the NS thread, then its down to you to provide credible scientific references to back up your claim that emissions reductions will in 80 years time make “no difference whatsoever.”
PeterM #12
Heres your chance to get out your rusty calculator and challenge the problems and costs of carbon mitigation and temperature reduction by participating on my new thread on this very subject
Max has had a very good stab at it so look forward to your contribution
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-70804
tonyb
There’s no need for me to re-invent the wheel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
First 4 Conclusions:
1) The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.
2) The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.
3) Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.
4) The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed — the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.
PeterM
If you had bothered to read my article you will see I quote the Stern review and more up to date ones. You have missed the point-what we need to know is what temperature reduction would be achieved through all these costs-which Stern greatly understates-and the technological difficulties enumerated in my article by the Chief Scientist at the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate change.
Instead of quoting others let’s have some ORIGINAL thought from you or directly reference a link that provides coherent calculations
tonyb
You’ve started of by questioning the amount of CO2 which is present in the atmosphere due to human influences. Then you question the accuracy and relevance of the the historical record on temperature. Then you question the scientific consensus on the extent of future warming to continued and increased human CO2 emissions. Now you are wanting to discuss the economics ot mitigation/adaptation and yes we will need both.
There are just no points of agreement, to start with, which can make any discussion on the economics of climate change even remotely sensible.
It would be like discussing the economics of intercontinental air travel with someone from the 19th century who was convinced that heavier-than-air flight was totally impossible!
PeterM
So you don’t know the answer-that’s fair enough.
The question I ask is so basic that there must dozens of peer reviewed articles that will give me the answer. .Perhaps you would be good enough to provide links to just 3 or 4 of them?
tonyb.
TonyB,
You’re talking about economics now. Sometimes known as the ‘dismal science’. It doesn’t work quite like the other sciences in the sense that everything goes through a system of peer review. Whereas the level of consensus in subjects like Physics and Chemistry would be high , it is quite low in economics for reasons I shouldn’t need to explain.
I’m sure if Churchill had asked a group of economists at the start of WW2 on the relative costs of fighting the war, or just giving up, at least half of them would have said there was just no money in the kitty, Britain was broke and there was no way that any war could be afforded!
PeterM
Churchill??!!
The question I ask is based on Physics not economics. You have already shown you have no expertise in the latter but claim to have some in the former. Here it is again; by all means post your answer on the other thread to retain relevance.
Question: Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?
a) By 2100
b) By 2200
—– ——
Peter, if you are unable to make the calculations yourself you must know the answer in order to be able to so stridently assert that the roof is falling and we must do something immediately.
Could you therefore provide a link to 4 or 5 studies. Thank you
tonyb
You’re asking what would happen if human emissions of CO2 were stopped right now? I’m not sure that anyone has written a paper on it but I would say that atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t go any higher than they are now!
Then they would start to fall. There have been various estimates and calculations on how fast they would fall. So at the end of the 21st century it would be slightly cooler than it is now. And slightly cooler still at the end of the 22nd century.
If they fell back to less than 300ppmv by the end of the the 22nd century then we would expect the climate to be similar to waht it was at the start of the 20th century.
PeterM
Don’t be too vague here Peter when trying to permanently set the Earths temperature to some perfect level you imagine was the norm. Is this the 1900 version of your ideal temperature or the one ten years later after a precipitate decline? Why not take the rather warmer period in 1870 as being the norm, or around 1830 or indeed the 18th Century which was on the whole warmer than the 19th century after the rapid increase in temperature around 1700, which was still below the temperatures reached around 900-1250AD, the Roman Optimum and the Holocene.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=539
So somewhere around 0.2 to 0.8 degrees cooler in 200 years time -depending on your start point- if the world went on a total carbon fast? (ignoring the carbon levels in previously warmer times) Look at the figures Peter, we (Britain and Australia) are the guinea pigs here as we spend hundreds of billions in mitgation that will have no effect whatsoever on temperatures because we are too insignificant. Even if the whole world joined in it wouldn’t even reach anything like a complete degree even assuming carbon is the culprit you believe it to be. Don’t you think we’ve got better things to do with our time and money?
Tonyb
“Don’t you think we’ve got better things to do with our time and money? ” Like finding another country to invade maybe?
TonyB,
I just noticed your invitation to visit Judith Curry’s blog. I’ve probably left it a bit late to make a useful contribution.
I was watching a clip from the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers on TV recently” and it occurred to me that its perhaps time for a remake. However, this time the plot could centre on scientists who looked the same as they did previously, sounded the same, had all the same memories etc but for some inexplicable reason started to talk total crap in the area of what used to be their expertise!
PeterM said
“TonyB,
I just noticed your invitation to visit Judith Curry’s blog. I’ve probably left it a bit late to make a useful contribution.” Then you went into all sorts of silly waffle.
I made a link to the article at post 13 on this thread which you answered with 14, you then danced round the subject until my 19 to which you replied with 20. I also cross posted it on the New Statesman thread. It is complete nonsense to say you’ve only just noticed it, although you have done your best to ignore it until your back of an envelope calculation at #20.
I then asked you to clarify whether you were starting from a warm or cool point at the start of the 20th century to which I await a reply i.e what is your ideal temperature that you want to re-create..
Tonyb
TonyB,
An ideal temperature for the planet? Can we choose? I would suggest it be kept as close as possible to what it would be without any human influence. Maybe about a half degree higher than at the start of the 20th century , and it can be argued that this would be just enough to stave off any return to a glacial period.
However, as it looks like the 2 degree target for global warming may not be achievable, so any discussion of an ideal temperature seems somewhat academic at the moment.
Tell you what, when atmospheric CO2 levels are finally stabilised, it will be time to give that question some serious thought.