In Denial About Climate Denial

Poor William Reville, occasional science writer for the Irish Times. He wrote recently that the attitudes of some environmentalists reminded him of religious fundamentalists. Nearly as bad as the Pope accusing some Muslims of having a propensity to use violence. Needless to say Reville's comments provoked a furious response (though not quite as extreme as the Pope's) - not unlike those of, er, some religious fundamentalists (of a Muslim or Christian orientation, we're an equal opportunity offender on this blog ;-).

Dr Reville isn't anti-green or - worse - a climate change denialist (the new Satanists in the Green panoply of eco-heaven and hell). He just argues for common sense:

The green movement draws attention to important issues that everyone must take seriously and it has played an important role in galvanising action from mainstream politics. But many green interpretations and solutions are largely intuitive and some have little scientific justification. Take the notion of the idyllic state in which simple pre-modern societies lived/live in nature. This is simply a myth, as anthropology confirms. Inter-tribal warfare, intra-tribal murder and violence were and are commonplace. Also, what is idyllic about an 80 per cent infant mortality rate and complete vulnerability to disease?

But common sense upsets some folk it seems. Still, I have immense faith in the common sense of the Irish people. In the recent Eurobarometer of EU citizens' main concerns, only 4% of Irish people thought that protecting the environment was one of the two most important issues facing Ireland at present (see page 76: the EU27 average is 5%, by the way). The environment is on the list: just nowhere near the top.

This must be terribly frustrating for those of a green fundamentalist bent. Especially when their colleagues are spending €12.5 million of taxpayers' money trying to persuade the taxpayer to Change their behaviour. And there's the problem: people think others should change - not them. The Change campaign's own research shows that the majority of Irish people disapprove of a range of potential initiatives such as raising taxes on coal, gas and heating oil (see slide 23). But they're happy to see people in SUVs pay more. I'm guessing most of those approving don't drive SUVs ...

This is not to say that keeping people fully informed about the environmental consequences of their private choices isn't worthwhile. Of course it is: a better informed decision is usually a better decision. For example, research shows that consumers are more likely to change their behaviour in response to energy and recycling labels on products than, say, organic and fair trade labels.

But for a climate agnostic like me (and Dr Reville), I take heart from the refusal of the Irish people to be browbeaten into eco-guilt and shame, despite the earnest proselytizing of the Green faithful.

Comfort Binging

Apparently we've been binging on comfort according to Sustainable Energy Ireland. Their latest report - Energy in the Residential Sector - sets out a detailed analysis of people's use of energy in the home over the past 15 years or so and how it has risen. Naturally this has upset a lot of folk, who have accused the rest of us of being addicted to comfort - honestly. Paul Cullen in today's Irish Times says we are 'addicted to warmth'. It seems we have become a nation of wimps: too fond of our central heating and electric lighting for our own good. What will they accuse us of next: an addiction to running water and indoor toilets?

The primary drivers of our increased energy consumption have been population growth and income growth. We have chosen to spend a lot of our extra spending power on gadgets and the energy to power them. There is nothing wrong with that. The challenge is to maintain and improve our standard of living whilst making sustainable choices about how we achieve this. Table 18 of the SEI report shows electricity's share in meeting residential energy needs rising from just 22% in 2005 to 52% in 2020. The problem is that I don't know where the electricity is going to come from. As I've noted before, we are taking some huge risks with our future energy security by over-investing in an unproven level of renewables-based power generation, and on a UK inter-connection.

It isn't just about power generation of course. We have just been through a massive mis-investment in new houses and apartments built to dismally low standards for insulation and energy performance. Over the next few years, new houses will be built to better standards - but the damage is done in the short term. So we will go through a period of expensive 'retro-fitting' of better insulation etc to the existing housing stock. Government incentives to do just this will play a useful part. Warmer weather due to climate change will also help of course - no need to run the central heating as often, as long or as high. Though I don't expect that one to feature in any adverts about Change ;-)

In the end, economics will lead to changes in our behaviour - just as the benefits of economic growth drove our increased consumption. Much that is desired in terms of changes in response to climate change, such as to commuting habits etc are now happening as a result of rising fuel costs. But behavioural economics will also help: such as using signals to our neighbours about our energy consumption that make us more aware. Not so much smart meters as 'status meters'.

As ever, it will be the cumulative impact of private, voluntary decisions that will create the conditions for a better place to live for this generation and the next.

Will Carbon Footprints get the Boot?

I was one of a panel of speakers at a conference on Carbon Footprinting organised by IBEC today. The thought struck me as I listened to a number of presentations on the measurement of carbon footprints (and what to do about them) that this may all become very academic in the very near future.

We are feeling the pain of a whiplash economy, with nearly every business person I've spoken to remarking on the sudden (negative) change in their individual markets at the end of March going into April. And usually in the same breath they remark this came after a stronger than expected start to the year through January and February. As one business man - who deals with a lot of foreign nationals - put it to me: 'the Poles all went home at Easter and didn't come back'.

Just how severe the deceleration in the Irish economy has been in the past few months is shown in today's economic commentary from Davy. They make George Lee look like a raging optimist with this latest missive. The chart from the report show the rate of change in the number of first-time mortgages approved in the first quarter of 2008: the number was down fifty percent on the same period last year.

Davy are penciling in growth rates for this year and next that are the lowest since the 1980s. And, needless to say, most (make that all) of the risks are on the downside. The scariest of which (though Davy don't say it) is a rise later this year in ECB interest rates to curb an oil-fueled inflationary spike. One of those scenarios you really only want to look at through your fingers from behind the couch. Make it the 1970s in that case ...

Hence my thoughts about carbon footprints and all of that. Consumers, both south and north of the border, are looking at huge increases in their energy costs over the rest of this year. Neither they, nor the companies trying to hold on to their diminishing spending power, will be worried about Kyoto targets, ETS schemes or CO2 emissions. Job security, the cost of living and mortgage rates will have their undivided attention.

Of course the issue of climate change will not wait for an economic recovery. I'm a climate agnostic rather than a climate skeptic, and I do think that we should respond to the risk of climate change e.g.: by introducing a moderate but rising carbon tax if oil prices start trending downwards. More importantly, I believe we should help those outside of Ireland most affected by climate change in the short term but least able to help themselves (e.g.: through Irish Aid).

Carbon footprints will get the boot in 2008-09, and it may be some time again before they are back on the agenda with consumers, businesses - or voters.

An Inconvenient Cooling

The recent spell of global warming peaked in 1998 - a full decade ago - with each year subsequently recording cooler temperatures (and in the case of the recent winter in the Northern Hemisphere, extremely cold). There is an interesting debate taking place (even though we're told 'the debate is over') which suggests, according to Don Easterbrook, that we may have entered a thirty year cycle of cooling (with the next cycle of warming due some time after 2020).

The BBC's More or Less programme has got in on it with a wager between two climate watchers about whether we'll see a year warmer than 1998 by 2011. If we do then it will be pretty clear that we are still in a warming phase (with all the implications for human involvement in global warming and responsibility for doing something about it). If we don't then it suggests that the global cooling proponents may have got it right (this time).

Of course there are those who don't think we have the luxury of waiting until 2011 to see which side is 'right' - James Hansen and Bill McKibben among them. Personally I think they sound like the lyrics of David Bowie's Five Years - inciting panic when panic is unwarranted. If anything it looks like we are tracking the least threatening of the IPCC's illustrative marker scenarios (see table SPM.3 on page 13). Some prudent preparations for a less benign scenario are called for in my opinion - not least because the main beneficial side effect I foresee is that we will solve the energy and food crisis before we face a real environmental crisis.

But if I was going to a 'Five Years' moment it would be about the prospect of us flipping into another ice age (the next one is 1,000 years overdue). A colder climate is far, far deadlier than a warmer climate - the former means starvation, the latter means longer growth seasons. Time, as always, will tell.

Consensus Without Consent

The European Council's Spring Summit last week in Brussels was a gift to the 'No' campaigners in the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. A key topic for discussion was the European Commission's directive on the next phase of climate change strategy known as 20/20/20 (see my previous post). We were treated to the spectacle of the Taoiseach being told in no uncertain terms that he (we) had no choice but to get on with meeting the target set out in the directive - and summarised in the chart.

The Irish Times quoted the European Commission’s president José Manuel Barroso, in reference to Ireland’s onerous 20% reduction target, as saying that "Our proposal is equitable, fair and technically sound - we will not change it.” He went on to say that "Ireland has benefited so much from structural aid from the EU because it was much lower than the average and now it is higher than the average." Moreover, if Ireland's leaders did not get on with delivering the target then they would be left with a "level of credibility close to zero".

To complicate matters further, it seems that Ireland's Greens want to set an even more onerous target of a 30% reduction in emissions relative to the 2005 benchmark: as reported in yesterday's Irish Examiner. Clearly we are heading into a turbulent political period as ratification of the EU climate targets proceeds with a view to completion early next year. There is an excellent summary of the issues available from the Institute of European Affairs.

It does seem we are again witnessing the democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union project, which ironically the Lisbon Treaty (née Constitution) is meant to address (at least partially). We are being presented with a 'consensus' on climate change strategy without our consent. Doesn't feel very democratic, does it?

Irish politicians (at least those who want to get re-elected) might want to think very carefully about how they proceed with the Brussels-mandated target for Ireland. A European-wide survey of public opinion about the environment published last week shows that the Irish are among the least willing to prioritise environmental protection over the competitiveness of the economy: second only to Bulgaria in our unwillingness among the EU 27 countries.

That won't, of course, stop the burgeoning number of unelected climate NGOs from making increasingly shrill demands of our elected politicians to Stop Climate Chaos. Here's how silly it gets, from just one email I received last week about CO2 emissions:

Right now each person in Ireland emits 17 tonnes a year. The Swedes emit 7.4 tonnes per person per year. The Chinese emit 3.9 tonnes, the Indians 1.6. As for the Malawians? They don’t even emit one tonne each a year.

What the authors forget to mention, in the midst of their eco-flagellation, was that Sweden has 10 nuclear reactors providing 50% of their electricity, China has 11 nuclear reactors (and up to another 10 coming on stream), whilst India has 17 nuclear reactors and 6 more coming on stream. Now in fairness to Stop Climate Chaos, Malawi doesn't have any nuclear power stations: but they do have one of the world's richest reserves of uranium and are projected to produce some 14,000 tonnes of the stuff from recently discovered deposits.

But I am being unkind: perhaps this is just a subtle effort by Stop Climate Chaos to soften us up for the nuclear option - doing the politicians job for them. Then again, perhaps not. Still, it wouldn't be the first time a climate policy embraced by the greener fringes suddenly got dumped.

All that said, the issue of climate change and our responsibilities to future generations need to be taken seriously. Part of taking them seriously, as set out in the OECD's recent Environmental Outlook to 2030, is to ensure that the prices of scarce and/or polluting resources are properly priced. A carbon tax can play a part, but the greater contribution will undoubtedly come from the forecast spike in oil and commodity prices.

I also think we need to get real about our priorities and obligations as a nation. As pointed out in an insightful new paper from the Cato Institute:

Climate change is not now—nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future—the most important environmental problem facing the globe, unless present-day problems such as hunger, water-related diseases, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, and indoor air pollution are reduced drastically. Otherwise, with respect to human well-being, it will continue to be outranked by these other problems and, with respect to environmental well-being, by habitat loss and other threats to biodiversity.

But I believe we have a moral obligation as a wealthy nation to help those less fortunate, and I therefore concur with the conclusions in the Cato paper:

If one believes that developed countries have a moral and ethical obligation to deal with climate change, that obligation cannot, and should not, be met through aggressive emission reductions at this time - “cannot” because the planet is already committed to some climate change - and “should not” because the threats that climate change would exacerbate can be reduced more effectively, not to mention more economically, through focused efforts to reduce vulnerability or through broader efforts to advance economic development. Any such obligation is best discharged through efforts to reduce present-day vulnerabilities to climate-sensitive problems that are urgent and could be exacerbated by climate change.

I think we would have a great deal more consensus about that approach than about any 'targets' from Brussels: and maybe even some democratic consent as well.

Carbon Sunk

Sometimes it pays to read the small print. Richard Tol, Ireland's most prodigious economist, writes in the latest issue of the ESRI's Quarterly Economic Commentary about just one of the targets set out in the 86 page Agreement for Government signed by Fiánna Fail, the Greens and PDs in June last year. On page 19 of the Agreement we read that:

... the Government will set a target for this administration of a reduction of 3% per year on average in our greenhouse gas emissions.

As Tol points out, this amounts to a five year goal for the present government of reducing CO2 emissions by up to 25%. Or 'a considerable task' as he wryly puts it.

So what would it take for the Government to deliver on this one goal? Given that we're more or less stuck with the energy infrastructure, housing and transport systems that will predominate even by 2012 (as these things take decades to change), then more radical measures are required. Here are some of Tol's calculations of what it would (hypothetically) require for the Government to succeed:

• Reduce the number of cattle in Ireland by 50% between now and 2012, or


• Reduce the number of people in Ireland by 50%, or


• Reduce energy usage per resident by 50% or


• Move two fifths of industrial and service production off-shore

Tol therefore proposes that the Government actually abandons its target. I'm inclined to agree with him on this one. Remarkably, Tol's analysis has gone completely unchallenged by the Government, suggesting perhaps that they've realised the error of their ways and have indeed decided to quietly abandon this particular target. I hope so.

The wider context for the issues Tol addresses is one of political wishful thinking, economic ignorance and doomsday weather forecasts. Most people (including me) reckon that there are signs of significant climate change and that human activity has played a part in these changes. But beyond that there is a wide divergence of opinion about how fast, how far and how bad these changes will be. You only have to read the International Panel for Climate Change Working Group 1 Report "The Physical Science Basis" to appreciate that there is significant uncertainty about the future nature and impact of climate change in the short, medium and long term (though consensus that there will be some change and impact).

This is not to council doing nothing. Rather, as a number of critics of both the IPCC and the Stern Review (including Tol here) have argued in some fairly robust discussions in the Journal of World Economics and elsewhere, the balance of probabilities leads to a policy of introducing and gradually increasing measures such as carbon taxes. But the same probabilities in relation to climate change do not justify the kind of Khmer Rouge Year Zero extremism implied by targets such as the Government's above.

Climate skepticism does not necessarily mean 'climate change doubting': read the considered scepticism of the folk at Climate Resistance. But it does mean standing up to nonsense, even if it's nonsense with the imprimatur of binding orthodox consensus stamped on it. And anyway, we could always do what David Keith proposes, and inject a cloud of ash into the air above the poles, bringing the melting of the ice caps to a halt within days.

Mind you, I don't expect any consensus on that one any time soon ...

Staying Married for the Environment

We've all heard that divorce is bad for children. Now we learn that it is bad for the environment as well. New research shows that divorce inevitably increases the number of households ('one' becomes 'two') and that therefore the environmental footprint of the family affected in effect doubles.

As one of the authors put it:

People have been talking about how to protect the environment and combat climate change, but divorce is an overlooked factor that needs to be considered.

Maybe the next IPCC report will encourage governments to restrict access to divorce as part of the response to climate change? Or perhaps as part of the Irish Government's new climate campaign we will see a call to fractious couples to 'stay married for the sake of the environment'?

I doubt it somehow. Still it's a relief to come across research that shifts the focus away from all the harm climate change is apparently causing (some 600 effects and counting), to what is causing climate change.