SacredFacts

Climate impacts

The Atlantic magazine (a monthly indulgence sent from the States) has two long pieces on climate change this month. Global Warming - Who Loses and Who Wins

Climate change in the next century (and beyond) could be enormously disruptive, spreading disease and sparking wars. It could also be a windfall for some people, businesses, and nations. A guide to how we all might get along in a warming world

And then on the roots of the Darfur crisis where Stephan Faris argues:

The violence in Darfur is usually attributed to ethnic hatred. But global warming may be primarily to blame.

Al's Climate Crusade

I promised to reflect on the Al Gore road show. Having presented his slides 1100 times (I'm told), won an oscar with the documentary and presented his five point plan to Congress he's moving up a gear. He's seeking to recruit supporters to take his slide show and cascade presentations around the world - providing in depth "training sessions" for them - and is planning to spend $100 million a year for the next three years on a media campaign, starting this year with the Live Earth global concerts on July 7th (7/7/07). Who has time to run for President? There's no question that the charisma, energy, eloquence and passion of an A list politician with a mission is powerful. But what of the content? He's impressive on the science, but more impressive on the politics - clearly attempting to provide hope for those who might despair in the face of his apocalyptic warnings.

The event brought together a collection of CEOs, government officials, NGOs, teachers and others - all pretty much supporters (I made it clear I was there as observer not advocate). On hand were scientists Sir Peter Knight from Imperial College and the Director of the British Antarctic Survey Prof Chris Rapley.
They asserted there were no serious sceptics about Climate Change (but were very defensive about Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" going to great lengths to criticise the programme, the commission and outline the flaws..I would have expected greater confidence in discussing it).
Overall it reinforced my view that - whether or not you believe climate change is caused by man - no-one seems to question global warming is happening and that, as a precaution alone, we should cut CO2 emissions which will mean compromising our lifestyles. Which is where it starts to get really interesting...Recognition of Climate Change extends across the political spectrum. What to do about it, does not.

I then read a piece in the latest British Journalism Review by Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith about media coverage of climate change. They rightly say:

The history of climate-change reporting is one of a long period of passivity punctured by a more recent burst of alarmism. ...it is essential to recognise that climate change is, by its nature, a very tricky issue to cover.

Reporting risk is never straightforward.
They argue that journalistic scepticism and weakness on economics are to blame for a delay in public understanding of the seriousness of climate change. Plus too great a weight being given to maverick voices in the search for "balance". Interestingly, Gore said the scientific culture of peer review and scepticism was also interpreted as uncertainty about the science by the media and had contributed to some confusion.

They conclude:

Journalism has helped to bring much of the British public to a new understanding of its precipitous relationship with its environment. It now has a key role in provoking and presenting the political and economic debates about how we can progress towards an ecologically sustainable society.

In other words, news coverage should move on from the science to the politics and economics of hard choices. I agree we need to invest heavily in reporting those elements, which take in every aspect of how we live our lives and how we work. But I suspect in confronting those hard choices, people aren't ready to leave the scientific debate quite yet.

Assault on Reason

I've spent 36 hours in Cambridge watching the Al Gore roadshow as he debated climate change and explained his "Inconvenient Truth" presentation to an invited group from business, politics, NGOs and the media. I'll post on the Global Warming aspects when I've thought about them a bit more. But I was struck by the former VPs strong views on media. They are not new - he outlined them at the New York WeMedia conference in 2005 and also at the launch of his movie. He has a book coming out shortly - The Assault on Reason - which will expand further. The subtitle -How the Politics of Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision-making - gives you the drift. Applied to the media it's an argument against politicisation and in favour of rational, evidence-based reporting. A defence of Enlightenment values. To that extent, something I believe in myself...

But Gore goes further and makes it a moral issue, quoting Scott Peck saying Evil is the absence of truth "so reporting something you know not to be true is evil"...and retelling the story of the German philosopher after the end of the second world war who studied how the Third Reich had taken power and concluded the" first significant symptom of their descent into hell was this: ‘All questions of fact became questions of power’..."

He then made a passing reference to Adam Curtis's documentary, The Century of Self charting the rise of PR as the beginning of a move away from rational argument into journalism more concerned with emotional engagement and entertainment values.

All this in parenthesis to his main subject. It was, he said, our "moral duty to live in truth". He was as passionate about this as he was about the climate. I wouldn't want to be a young producer on his network, Current TV, cheating an edit...

(NB He also paraphrased Bobby Kennedy's speech about the value of the GDP when arguing that consumerism wasn't any measure of quality of life. I wonder if anyone else spotted it!)

An Inconvenient Truth

I've just seen on David Miliband's blog that the government intends to send copies of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth to every secondary school in Britain.

It's a powerful film which has turned the minds of many people I know in relation to Climate Change - including, as we discovered at Davos, the CEO of Siemens who described seeing it as his personal tipping point on the issue.

It'll be part of a climate change pack for schools - along with other materials.

"The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over, as demonstrated by the publication of today's report by the IPCC,” says David Miliband.

“Our energies should now be channelled into how we respond in an innovative and positive way in moving to a low carbon future."

Personally, I agree and am pleased the film is being used because I believe Climate Change is no longer in doubt. But I'm not sure everyone will be sanguine about a polemical film being built into the curriculum.

Offset that flight....

So where were we? I survived a week on the slopes at (reasonably) high speed. However, everywhere I turned the debate about air travel, and its effect on the environment, seemed to be raging.

In the EasyJet in-flight magazine, CEO Andy Harrison was keen to address the Stern Report and dispel some myths: in built simplicity and a low-cost approach makes them more efficient than others he says; they therefore balance economic development and impact on the environment; they support EU emission trading; taxation is not the answer ("giving the government money does not improve the environment") but reform of state subsidised airlines might help. And, he says, aviation accounts for just 1.6% of global greenhouse gases anyway. Remember that figure.

Then in The Guardian, George Monbiot gets stuck in as usual: Uk airplane emmissions by 2050 will account for 49% of the governments CO2 reduction targets. And planes other greenhouse gases create a global warming effect 2.7 times greater than Carbon dioxide alone. Aviation, he says, will account for between 91% and 258% of the greenhouse gases the UK will be permitted to produce in 2050 (Are you following these figures?) and, he says, emission trading won't work - the answer in his view is to limit airports and travel.

Over in the Telegraph, Andrew Pearce doesn't bother too much with the figures. He just berates environment minister Ian Pearson for suggesting we shouldn't indulge in cheap flights and basically argues that you can't ignore the market. Quite where that leaves the planet, he doesn't say.

Meanwhile in Newsweek, Richard Branson says investment in science can make the skies green - which is why he's supporting a $3billion project for biofuel production. The Prime Minister, having bought offsets for his holiday flights, seems to agree Science will be the answer.

As I reflected on all this over a Chocolat Chaud at 1600m, I also read that it was the warmest alpine winter for 1300 years, that if I had travelled by train to the Alps I would have been responsible for 5.7g of CO2 per kilometer as opposed to 180g by plane, but that at least the resort I was in runs its lifts on hydroelectricity. And although over the border the upmarket Swiss resort of Zermatt proudly declares itself to be car-free, there is a very busy heliport bringing in rich skiers.

So what to make of it all? A classic battle of mis-matching statistics - figures which don't relate to each other and which are cherry picked and spun to suit commercial or political (including environmental) interest. It leaves the layman confused rather than illuminated. In such circumstances the only thing you can be really sure of is that the stakes are higher than Mont Blanc and the debate has a long way to run.

And that hot air rises.

Carbon Footprints

I've discovered the blog of Peter Armstrong who has made - and tracked - rather more impressive efforts than I have yet managed to cut his energy use and carbon footprint. Largely through the purchase of a heat pump.
(via John Naughton)

surrounded by conspiracy

Earlier this month the founder of the web, Tim Berners-Lee said he was worried about levels of trust and the amount of misleading information now propagated on the internet. Around the same time, columnist Jon Ronson in the Weekend Guardian explained how he could not longer take some of the more extreme forms of conspiracy theory and was commiting himself to rationality. Then George Monbiot complained that a piece in the Telegraph casting doubt on climate change had led to his inbox being flooded with people saying "i told you so" and accusing him of scaremongering for suggesting global warming is a serious problem.

My email inbox until recently had daily bulletins from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists with annotated photographs suggesting it proved the planes were actually drones and the towers must have been brought down by carefully placed explosive charges. The 9/11 conspiracists seem to be particularly virulent. People I once assumed were serious have suggested to me there's sufficient "evidence" to suggest it could all be US government plot. Pure Bunkum.

Earlier this year Newsnight examined internet conspiracy theories, concluding that they "never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave" - and in January there is a BBC series on conspiracy theories - although my inside contact in the production team says they didnt remotely stand any of them up. There's a surprise. I'm with Berners-Lee and Ronson - I think we need to reassert the importance of rationality.

Conspiracy theories can be fun - try reading Ron Rosenbaum's Travels with Dr Death for entertainment - but let's not confuse them with a serious view of how the world works. I favour cock-up over conspiracy every time. A judgement born of observation and experience.

(ADD: Will Hutton joins the debate in this week's Observer declaring the information battle to have begun.)

Wasteful Britain

According to the Energy Saving Trust, the UK is the most energy wasteful country in Europe.
71 % leave appliances on standby
67% boil more water than they need in the kettle
65% leave electrical chargers plugged in.

I hadn't realised that last one was such a problem - two phone chargers now unplugged.

climate philanthropy

It does feel as if the global warming issue is reaching a Gladwellian Tipping Point. Richard Branson has today announced that he will donate 100% of his profits from his travel firms (trains and airlines) into climate change research and the hunt for renewable energy sources.

Going Carbon Neutral 2

Unlike Justin Rowlatt, Newsnight's "Ethical Man", I have been unable to call in the resources of the University of Surrey to help calculate my household energy usage and advise on steps to take. So in the end I went for what seemed one of the most thorough of the various online carbon calculators. Actually, the result was so bad I tried it again on several others. However, it does appear we emit more than double the national average. About 20 tons of Carbon a year. Something must be done. We already recycle, have above average house insulation, low energy bulbs. But commuting and travel seem to be the big problems. That and insufficient discipline in not allowing anything electronic to stay in standby mode - even if it does mean missing the overnight download of programme information to the TV's programme guide. My wife is also convinced that overfilling the kettle plays a part.

Last week's Tyndall Group Report gave us four years to reverse the current growth in emissions.

This week Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth is launched in the UK - and the website offers a few clues on what to do.

David Cameron and others are going for personal wind turbines - but there seems real doubt they are a sensible way forward for most people. I'm more inclined down the solar panel route.

More follows.