AGW as Political Leverage...

31st December 2007

This is the beginning of a new round of discussions... Sigh...

Hi Derek,
While I agree that AGW is being cynically used as political leverage, it is wrong to say the bandwagon is only amongst politicians.

The scientific community - as represented by magazines such as Nature or New Scientist - seem quite convinced of AGW too.

The aspect if the whole GW debate which I find so utterly frustrating is that it is far from being a difficult problem to solve. Stopping human output of greenhouse gases and other pollutants is childsplay compared with some of the problems the world faces...

I really don't agree with the approach you have taken to the issue of AGW. As I have explained in my previous emails, my view is this:

1. Whether GW due to CO2 etc. is cause by human activities is irrelevant. As a rule - humans should not be polluting the environment we rely on. (Pollution is defined here as the output of any system which does not have a corresponding input elswhere.)
2. Nuclear power is a polluting technology (it's outputs have no corresponding inputs elsewhere - except perhaps in weapons!), and it is simply *unnecessary*.
3. If taxes and tariffs were set so that renewable energy was economically viable, and energy companies were required to buy whatever was offered by small producers - then within a decade 90%+ of all our power would come from renewable sources.

In Germany they have done *exactly* this - with solar power. Over the last 3 years Germany has become the worlds largest producer of solar power.

This approach has now been proven to work.

It is the approach I tried to convince you to take previously when we were discussing the policy document. Perhaps you will give it due consideration.

In Summary

Problem: Our energy producing systems are polluting.

Solution: Make non-polluting technologies economically viable through tax & tariffs, and allow business to do the rest.

Reply From Derek

I know your views and respect your beliefs. However the draft letter is to simply to draw attention to a deliberate misrepresentation of a "scientific consensus" on AGW by UN-IPCC which is the basis of the energy policies of several political parties echoed by some of the more sycophantic popular journals. As a scientist, I feel that we shall not get anywhere by telling lies and that open debate should continue. I am sure that you read the US Senate Report as carefully as did I and were equally impressed by the objectivity of its 400 sceptical scientific contributors.

Today's news suggests that the government is about to announce a revitalised nuclear energy programme and I am proposing to withold submission of our letter (latest draft attached) until its report is published later in January. If this recommends a substantial increase in nuclear capacity the inept proposal of wind farms will presumably be reduced, delayed or even abandoned. If this moves the argument forward, so that proper provision is made for the welfare of my grandchildren, we can forget about UN-IPCC and the final para of my letter will become unnecessary.

I do think that solar power could have a future place in world energy generation but its capacity is an order of magnitude short of what Britain needs now. In fact the only proven technologies we have to produce industrial quantities of energy by say 2020 are efficient coal-burning and nuclear. All the renewables are simply good ideas to try out and refine.

Many thanks for your response which helps to bring the arguments out into the open.

Happy New Year

Derek

Next Installment

It Is Irrelevant Whether GW Is Anthropogenic Or Not

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

There are no comments for this page.

To add your own comments, click here to login or register