As George Bernard Shaw said, it is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. Shaw was talking about social class, but this is a far less divisive issue these days. Instead we are judged now more on what we say on a number of key issues rather than how we say it.
This is certainly the case for climate change, a thorny and complex issue about which there is a wide spectrum of opinion but where any dissent from the official line leads to a label of ‘denier’ or worse. So, bear with me and read what I have to say with an open mind. Feel free to disagree, but don’t dismiss these views out of hand.
Climate change, its likely course and its potential impacts, is a very important issue. Despite our sophisticated modern societies and our seeming control of much of the Earth’s resources, we are still dependent on patterns of weather which we can cope with and which allow farmers to produce the reliable harvests upon which the whole human race ultimately depends. But it should be a matter for reasoned debate rather than a dialogue of the deaf.
Inevitably, for something as fiendishly complex as global climate patterns, public messages are couched in simplified language. Unfortunately, this serves to increase polarisation, with the message that ‘the science is settled’ being just one of the preferred ones. This despite the ‘science’ being just the output of highly complex but incomplete and flawed models of the Earth’s atmosphere.
This, mainstream scientists say, is sufficient to guide future policy. They know enough about the natural variation of climate to know with a high degree of certainty that it has been disrupted over the last half century by increasing levels of trace gases in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide but also methane and nitrogen oxides. This understanding is enough to convince them that something must be done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the primary source of additional CO2.
It is easy to see how this belief in the likely consequences of business as usual can turn people from dispassionate scientists to vocal advocates of change. And nuanced arguments do not help their case; politicians themselves need to be convinced of the case to make the sort of policy changes being called for. Intellectual decision-making quickly turns to belief.
For many, this belief has taken on a quasi-religious character. So it is hardly surprising that Pope Francis has added his considerable moral authority to the debate. This week brought the release of the much-heralded Papal Encyclical Laudato Si’ – On Care for our Common Home. In this, he essentially calls for an end to consumerism and greed in order to protect the planet. Climate change is framed not as a technical issue, but a moral one.
The timing of this is, of course, not accidental. This is another part of a campaign to put pressure on negotiators at the Paris climate summit later this year to at last achieve the elusive goal of a binding international agreement on emissions reduction. The expectation is that concerted pressure from scientists, politicians and leading public figures will make it difficult for negotiators to fail. On the other hand, the fact that so much pressure is being applied makes any failure more damaging. We have heard for many years that we are nearing the last chance to fix the climate; failure in Paris in December could mean there are no more chances left via this route.
There are two key problems with this high-stakes approach. The first is that it is inconceivable that there will be a truly binding agreement which will do anything to reduce emissions significantly over the next decade or two. There are simply too many different national agendas. The EU might be committed to action, and many countries are putting these commitments into effect – Germany and the UK being two prime examples – and America’s increasing use of shale gas may be pushing down emissions across the Atlantic, but these contributions are more than cancelled out by rising emissions in China and India.
China’s emissions are reported to have dipped, but it is notoriously difficult to get hard information and judgement has to be reserved until a clear trend emerges. India, meanwhile, seems at last to be set on a path of faster and more sustained growth, and may well become the world’s largest emitter before reversing the trend. In these circumstances, any agreement would at best commit emerging economies to reductions over a long time scale, a commitment which would be worth very little in practice.
The second problem is that an agreement means nothing unless it can be put into effect. It will be difficult enough to get agreement on a radical reduction in fossil fuel use, but practically impossible to deliver with the current technology available. Germany’s Energiewende is proving to be a costly path of limited effectiveness. Germany’s emissions stand at just over 9 tonnes per capita per annum, considerably higher than in France and also higher than the UK. Countries such as Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the UK are also seeing the declining returns in terms of emissions reduction for incremental increases in renewable energy, as the harsh reality of intermittency bites.
What makes the situation even more difficult is that electricity generation – the prime focus of emissions reduction policy – accounts for only about one third of total emissions. The rest comes from heating and transport, which are much more difficult to get to grips with (although a major effort on house insulation could make a big difference). It is widely believed that the previous UK government, having signed up for a 20% reduction in emissions, thought this meant electricity generation rather than overall energy use. If this is still the level of understanding among politicians, then heaven help us.
In this context, upping the stakes for an agreement in Paris by making climate change a moral issue is not helpful. It does not make a meaningful, workable agreement more likely, and it reduces the chances that useful compromises could be made which, by focusing on the real technical problems, could actually accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels.
It’s too late to change the path of the climate change juggernaut before the Paris summit, but once the dust has settled, those involved should take the opportunity to engage constructively with other engineers and scientists who may be less worried about the consequences of climate change over the course of this century. These ‘lukewarmers’ are generally shunned by true believers, but they could offer a lot of practical help in devising improved, effective and economic energy generation, storage and distribution systems. It’s not about morality, but it is about practicality.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
__________________________________________________