Climate change gurus should cool it and not set their sights too high
On the contrary, it was yet another prophecy of doom posing as a news item reporting the UN’s view that the evidence for global warming is now “unequivocal”. Hmmm. The words of one geologist came to mind: “The public appetite for all this crap seems to be insatiable.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is warning that average world surface temperatures could rise by three degrees celsius by 2100, and possibly even more, if no measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Such dire warning deserve a suitably profound response so it came as no surprise to read later that morning that French president Jacques Chirac is calling for “world environmental governance”.
More prosaically, there are demands from all the predictable quarters for a new international agreement — in succession to the Kyoto Protocol — that would contain stronger greenhouse gas emissions caps for developed countries, as well as incentives for developing countries such as China, India and Brazil to reduce their emissions.
My instinctive response is to hang on a second — not exactly what the climate change lobby wants to hear.
There is no time to wait and see, no time even to think, they say. We must act now, this very instant. If you are in that camp, I suggest you put down this paper and busy yourself working out your carbon footprint and how you are going to offset it.
If, however, you have a halfway-open mind, it might be worth knowing a fraction more about the IPCC and how it operates. It was established by the World Meteorological Association and the UN Environment Programme in 1988.
It has previously produced three substantial assessment reports on the scientific basis of climate change.
These were compiled by hundreds of scientists. It was the first instalment of their fourth report that commanded the headlines and airwaves last week.
The IPCC assessment reports have been remarkable achievements, bringing together scientific expertise from across the globe. At the same time, there are some serious limitations to the IPCC process.
Unfortunately, the scientific content of the reports is far too complex to be understood by non-scientists. Recognising this, and assuming, probably correctly, that it is very unlikely anyone but the most expert student of the debate will wade through several hundred pages of scientific evidence, the IPCC provides a ‘summary for policymakers’. This, rather than the actual report, is what was delivered last week.
But this summary, sadly, is as much by policymakers as it is for policymakers: its wording is determined not by scientists, but by governments. The contents are thus less a reflection of the breadth of the scientific discussion than an exercise in political consensus-building. As if this obvious politicisation of the process was not bad enough, the IPCC has failed to deal adequately with the numerous criticisms raised about the assumptions it makes.
Two examples can exemplify this problem. The first concerns the treatment of the economics of climate change. In order to estimate future carbon emissions, it is necessary to project global economic development over a long period of time. This is no easy task, as you can imagine: there are so many unknowns such as population growth and technological development.
The IPCC bases its predictions on the assumption that the least developed countries will over time catch up with today’s rich nations in terms of their per capita incomes.
While this may be plausible, David Henderson, the OECD’s former chief economist, has demonstrated that the IPCC’s models have led to a serious overestimation of future global economic growth. In one of the scenarios used by the IPCC, even North Korea achieved a higher per capita income than the United States by 2100.
The IPCC’s understandable desire to establish and defend a ‘consensus’ has seriously damaged the very basis of our understanding of climate change. It has done a disservice to science, which should be an open inquiry process in which scepticism is regarded as a virtue, not a vice.
HOWEVER, the bald fact remains that the only certainties when discussing climate change are that the average global temperature has risen by approximately 0.7 degrees centigrade since 1860 and that an increasing world population has an influence on the climate through increased energy and land use.
Nevertheless, the essentially political doctrine of a “climate change consensus” has narrowed down the debate to such a degree that the focus is almost exclusively on the question of carbon emissions rationing. To understand why we must go beyond this debate, it is worth considering the Kyoto Protocol.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialised countries have committed themselves to a reduction in emissions of 5.2% on 1990 levels by 2012. The actual achievements, however, have been disappointing. According to the UN statistics, most industrialised countries are miles away from their reduction targets. In Ireland, emissions have actually increased by a massive 35.1%, but that is by no means the worst case. In Spain, emissions have increased by 46% and in New Zealand by a staggering 47.3%.
This failure to meet the Kyoto commitments has financial consequences. In order to close the gap between the target and the reality, the Spanish government and Spanish businesses will have to purchase emission certificates costing around €3 billion.
In Ireland, a much smaller country, the fine is still expected to be up to €1bn.
But as the costs of cutting carbon emissions become more and more apparent, is it likely that the political support for more severe targets will be sustained? Are we really prepared to tie ourselves to emissions targets even lower than the existing Kyoto commitment?
Besides, is it reasonable that Irish businesses should be penalised for their success by being forced to buy emissions certificates from countries which have them to sell as a result of their more sluggish economies?
Yet cutting carbon emissions by 60% to 80% over the coming decades is precisely the kind of policy that supporters of the so-called climate change consensus have in mind. Given the experience with the much less ambitious targets under the Kyoto Protocol and the consequences, both practical and financial, how likely is it that more stringent targets could achieve any kind of international political agreement?
The Kyoto Protocol should serve as a warning, not as a model. That is not to suggest that nothing should be done about carbon emissions or that increasing energy efficiency is unnecessary — quite the opposite. In fact, increasing energy efficiency may be a desirable goal for a number of reasons, of which fighting climate change is only one.
But if emissions-rationing regimes do not successfully contribute to achieving these aims, then it is only reasonable to consider alternatives. Those wanting to save the polar bears and the penguins need to think more broadly.
