The Green Party may be something of a sideshow as far as the current UK election is concerned, but we should never underestimate the importance of green policies across (most of) the political spectrum. We take for granted – and, indeed, mainly welcome – measures to improve air and water quality and to save energy. By and large, we like the results: a better quality of life and lower bills.
But when policies begin to cost real money and push up the cost of living, many people are not so sure. This is one reason we hear grumbles about targets for renewable energy. The effect of providing public subsidy to wind and solar energy pushes up utility bills and, indirectly, the costs of a whole range of other goods and services. And, whereas a cleaner environment is something we can all appreciate, electricity is electricity by the time it reaches the consumer, despite being more expensive from some sources.
There are various ways policies which are more costly without apparently delivering any direct benefits can be sold to the public. One is by making them a moral issue, which is particularly true for climate change. This has long been the stance of climate change campaigners, arguing that we need to pay as much attention to the welfare of future generations as to our own.
There has always been an element of religiosity about people deeply committed to a cause and it is hardly surprising that the Catholic Church has also weighed in. Pope Francis is due to publish an encyclical on the topic over the next few months and the signs are that he will come down strongly in favour of concerted action. Already, there are widespread reports about its likely message (Pope to weigh in on climate change action), plus plenty of criticism considering it has not yet been published (Pope attacked by climate change sceptics).
While the impact of its announcement will be much more limited, the Church of England has also made its position clear. This week, we read that Church of England to sell fossil fuel investments. In a clear move to put morality ahead of profit (as they see it), the Anglican Church is committing itself to a non-fossil fuel future. Not that this will be immediate, because churches and other buildings owned by the Church will continue to be heated and powered by the same gas and coal as the rest of us. Nor can we see any sign of a stampede of investors joining the disinvestment trend.
Climate change is no longer a matter of polite argument between those at either end of the spectrum whose minds are made up. Sceptics (‘deniers’ or ‘contrarians’ in the language of their opponents), point to the lack of hard evidence about what is happening to the climate, what the main drivers are or whether its likely impact means that urgent action is needed, while those who subscribe to the received wisdom that climate change is real, manmade and dangerous (‘warmists’ to their critics) maintain that ‘the science is settled’ and that only a small number of ill-intentioned and well-funded opponents are trying to break the consensus.
The papal encyclical is just one part of the effort to push the agenda for change ahead of the December climate change summit, at which some defensible global agreement has to be reached if the credibility of the whole UNFCCC negotiating juggernaut is not to be compromised, possibly fatally.
Other, more detailed policy issues are supported by lobby groups in the way that you would expect: by making optimistic predictions or cherry-picking data. One bone of contention with some campaigners is road transport. Not surprising then, to see this story about a report from the Campaign for Better Transport on the benefits of rail transport – Report: Are environmental savings from rail freight being underestimated?
The thrust of their argument is that rail freight would reduce road congestion by more than previously believed. What they ignore is the fact that most of the freight carried by rail needs to be taken to and from rail terminals by lorries and that trains are best for bulk transport of commodities. In other words, if the demand is not there, the supposed environmental benefits are unlikely to be realised.
Another somewhat misleading report was that UK new car emissions fall for 17th consecutive year as electric cars take off. The proportion of electric cars sold is still tiny, and the fall in emissions is due almost entirely to continued increases in fuel efficiency of conventional engines, albeit with some modest contribution from hybrids.
The message? As with all policies, moral pressure or misleading arguments should be looked at critically. Caveat emptor.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________________