The road to Copenhagen has proved to be a rocky one. This past fortnight, ahead of the climate-change summit that starts in the Danish capital on Monday, the air has been thick with pejorative cries of "warmist" and "denier". The former are those who subscribe to the view that the increase in the Earth's temperature in recent decades is the fault of man's profligate use of the planet's fossil fuels; the latter may or may not dispute that the temperature is rising, or that it is in some way man's fault, but are certainly not convinced that dramatic remedial action is required. What should be a scientific debate has descended almost into a theological dispute.
But as Geoffrey Lean points out elsewhere in these pages, we have gone beyond this argument. This is not to say that sceptical views should be dismissed, or that new data which seem inconveniently to challenge the consensus should be ignored. One reason why the leaked emails obtained from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit caused such a row is that they appeared to suggest that the scientists were covering something up, or were manipulating the statistics. Sceptics such as Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, have valuable points to make about the economics of climate change and should be heard.
However, the governments of most countries in the world now accept the consensus. And so, as many as 100 world leaders will gather in Copenhagen – not to argue about the reality of global warming, but to decide what to do about it. Many of the proposals would be the right thing to do even without climate change: it is surely unconscionable, for example, for the current occupants of the Earth simply to continue extracting and exploiting a finite resource – such as fossil fuel – to the point of its depletion. Even those who consider the science ambiguous must acknowledge that there is a moral dimension here; our children and theirs are entitled to a future that has not been blighted by our mistakes. If the consequences of inaction are uncertain, yet possibly calamitous, then we should err on the side of caution.
The response to the reality of climate change need not plunge the world into a pre-industrial dark age; yet to do nothing could have significant implications for mankind's future prosperity. It is possible to conceive of a greener future that is also a more benign one, thanks to investments in cleaner and cheaper technology and energy. First of all, however, it is important that Copenhagen produces an agreement. If the summit fails, it will be extremely difficult to reconvene such a gathering without losing the momentum now on display.
Essentially, the summit is a gathering of the wealthy polluters of the North and the poorer nations of the South, though countries such as India and China consider themselves in the latter category when they are perhaps moving towards the former. The two big issues are carbon cuts and money. The reductions in emissions to which most are prepared to commit remain at the lower end of what scientists believe necessary to keep the rise in global temperatures this century to 2C. Even if agreement is reached to get emissions in 2020 to 20 per cent below the levels in 1990 (and some are offering much more than that), there is the further difficulty of implementing this on a national basis, especially in countries like America. Then there is the money. No deal is
Telegraph View Published: 7:53PM GMT 04 Dec 2009
Comments 32 | Comment on this article
The road to Copenhagen has proved to be a rocky one. This past fortnight, ahead of the climate-change summit that starts in the Danish capital on Monday, the air has been thick with pejorative cries of "warmist" and "denier". The former are those who subscribe to the view that the increase in the Earth's temperature in recent decades is the fault of man's profligate use of the planet's fossil fuels; the latter may or may not dispute that the temperature is rising, or that it is in some way man's fault, but are certainly not convinced that dramatic remedial action is required. What should be a scientific debate has descended almost into a theological dispute.
But as Geoffrey Lean points out elsewhere in these pages, we have gone beyond this argument. This is not to say that sceptical views should be dismissed, or that new data which seem inconveniently to challenge the consensus should be ignored. One reason why the leaked emails obtained from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit caused such a row is that they appeared to suggest that the scientists were covering something up, or were manipulating the statistics. Sceptics such as Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, have valuable points to make about the economics of climate change and should be heard.
However, the governments of most countries in the world now accept the consensus. And so, as many as 100 world leaders will gather in Copenhagen – not to argue about the reality of global warming, but to decide what to do about it. Many of the proposals would be the right thing to do even without climate change: it is surely unconscionable, for example, for the current occupants of the Earth simply to continue extracting and exploiting a finite resource – such as fossil fuel – to the point of its depletion. Even those who consider the science ambiguous must acknowledge that there is a moral dimension here; our children and theirs are entitled to a future that has not been blighted by our mistakes. If the consequences of inaction are uncertain, yet possibly calamitous, then we should err on the side of caution.
The response to the reality of climate change need not plunge the world into a pre-industrial dark age; yet to do nothing could have significant implications for mankind's future prosperity. It is possible to conceive of a greener future that is also a more benign one, thanks to investments in cleaner and cheaper technology and energy. First of all, however, it is important that Copenhagen produces an agreement. If the summit fails, it will be extremely difficult to reconvene such a gathering without losing the momentum now on display.
Essentially, the summit is a gathering of the wealthy polluters of the North and the poorer nations of the South, though countries such as India and China consider themselves in the latter category when they are perhaps moving towards the former. The two big issues are carbon cuts and money. The reductions in emissions to which most are prepared to commit remain at the lower end of what scientists believe necessary to keep the rise in global temperatures this century to 2C. Even if agreement is reached to get emissions in 2020 to 20 per cent below the levels in 1990 (and some are offering much more than that), there is the further difficulty of implementing this on a national basis, especially in countries like America. Then there is the money. No deal is possible without a commitment by the North to pay the South up to $100 billion a year by 2030, to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and mitigate the effects of the slower economic growth that might arise. This a good deal of money, though less than has been spent bailing out the banks. Selling such a package to voters who do not see any immediate threat to their lives (and are already wary about misspent aid money) will require political skill and courage, as well as enterprising policies that emphasise incentives as much as taxes.
So, in Copenhagen, the leaders need to reach a politically binding agreement that contains the essential elements of a deal, even if a formal treaty is delayed for a further six months (the most likely outcome). This is a rare moment in history when political leadership of the highest order will be required. People want to see hard-headed pragmatism and are fed up being hectored or scared to death by visions of an apocalypse that they feel powerless to prevent. We all have a stake in this, and there are things we can all do, even down to the micro-level – indeed, measures such as improving insulation in our homes would be to our advantage with or without climate change.
This is also a time for human ingenuity. Digging coal and drilling for oil and gas is the easy bit; developing new, low-carbon technologies means unleashing precisely the innovative expertise and entrepreneurial spirit that climate-change sceptics believe are often derided by the more zealous and anti-capitalist elements of the green lobby. We need to hear less rhetoric about the end of the world, or wearisome countdowns of the number of days we have left to save the planet (which will survive even if we are not on it) and far more about the positive future that we can create for ourselves, both in trying to avert climate change and in dealing with it. So this summit must be more than just a pointless talking shop that leaves behind nothing save its own gigantic carbon footprint. We must also remember this: Copenhagen is not the end of the process, but just the start.
Comments: 32
This is about naked politics not planetary concern. The developed North / West paid for its own clean up when it had an Industrial Revolution - dark, satanic mills and all that, moths changing colour to hide on blackened trees etc. On that Revolution we built what we have today. It is absolute madness to continue to see our way of life wrecked by cheap imports which factor in none of the environmental costs we have sunk behind our own competing sectors - and now to offer to pay them for the South / East growing rapidly rich at our expense. Pollution, environmental damage, is regional (acid rain) or immediate and local (heavy metal contamination) - the Man-Made Global Warming bandwagon crap being bolted on to these issues is the stuff of politics, not hard local facts. Planting a tree in Timbuktu to assuage the conscience of a Chelsea Tractor owner is nonsense. This is about structural economic deficits, western bankruptcy - not the planet.
How many private,and Govenment jets will be arriving in Copenhagen,full of towrags who are going to dream up more ways of taxing us?.
When the Earth was flat. People belied the Earth was flat because the consensus of scientists and ruling class said so and woe betide anyone who said otherwise. But in our enlightens 21st Century times such a thing could not happen again could it?
DO something about the real issues with the environment such as proper pollution (black carbon, plastics, synthetic chemicals and chem trails, electric and magnetic fields etc), deforestation, conservation through habitat protection, research sustainable energy. NOT this co2 Agw nonsense. It is just an excuse to tax literally everything and impose intolerable rules on our entire lifestyles. Do you think that any alteration in the climate will come by paying the governments money???? Even in their own estimates the temp. MIGHT rise by 0.1 degree less than erroneously predicted. How much money collected through this tax do you think will end up being used for environmental reasons? How much money collected through road tax, speed cameras etc is used on roads? The original idea for a co2 tax was initiated by Enron (friends of Al Gores) and that company would have been one of the ones reaping the benefits today if they hadn't been caught cheating elsewhere.
The late great King Canute springs to mind when considering the absurd proposals to 'halt global warming' at 2C
I see from your news article that Brown is now accusing 'climate change deniers' of being 'flat-earthers'. Does he have a science degree? Maybe the reason he has completely screwed up the UK economy is that he has secretly been studying Physics all night every at the Open University and is too tired to do his day job. I wonder what Maggie would have had to say about climate change? As a scientist herself, she at least would have been able to understand if fellow scientists were trying to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes.
0900hrs. I have just returned vouchers for 14 weeks subscription to the Telegraph. I urge all other subscribers to do the same and all other purchers to refrain thus making clear the consequences of climate change. I have already drawn readers attention on another thread to the FACT that the GH Hypothesis has been totally, utterly debunked by Prof Gerhard Gerlich see www.arxiv.org-abs-0707.1161 and by Hienz Thiene atwww.freenet-homepage.de/klima/error.htm Perhaps the leader writer or Mr Lean could explain why these professors of Physics are wrong T.Wakeling BSC.
Clearly governments have been slow to catch up on what has been happening. The code from the CRU computers shows how the the numbers have been manipulated to get the results wanted and drive the consensus into the craziness of these meetings. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
Thank you - you've made quite clear what Copenhagen and the warmists are about, and have been about from the beginning. Changing climate, science or no science, is totally irrelevant. It is only another new suit to dress the old, bloody ideology of totalitarian government in - this time not just 'in one country', but for the whole world. A big cat-out-of-the-bag moment here, no?
'However, the governments of most countries in the world now accept the consensus'. Actually some of the governments of the world are setting the agenda. The natural cycles of the Planet Earth's temperature which are driven by the Sun have been hijacked as the basis for a new form of religion which is the main plank of the implimentation of their New World Order....And we all know who constantly refers to this don't we. After all, if Gordon Brown is pushing the agenda then by definition it's a scam. Goebbels would be proud of the BBC's attempts to put the lid back on this greatest of all lies Watching from the UAE the BBC has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the crooks that govern in the UK, whilst Euronews provides the same service for the other bunch of commies in the EU. ...Time to debunk this lie and those who are behind it.
You can bet your bottom dollar the the BBC will be devoting hours of airtime to the demo in London today and the bunfest next week. I wonder how much airtime will be given to the Brown's "flat-earthers" of whom I proudly count myself one. We shall see plenty of this Scottish, presbyterian oaf who knows as much about climate science as I do about Bartok's music. I.e. nothing.
Wakey, wakey. Cancel your coverage of Copenhagen and encourage others to do likewise and you will deprive the expensive summit of it's much needed time in the limelight. Birth control is the only answer.
Jason Klemperer Sceptics are not deniers. I think everyone would agree that the "Climate" is changing (one way or the other - the CRU scandal pointed to scientists who were apparently trying to mask out data implying a cooling). However, the point is why is the Climate changing? There are many scientists who argue that a number of factors could be playing a part including the Sun, the tilt and orbit of the earth and so on. I point you to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming The science is far from settled and when politicians such as Gordon Brown attack sceptics as "flat-earthers" then you know there is reason to be sceptical. Yes, we should seek alternatives to fossil fuels. Yes, we should be careful with our environment. But we should not be taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut and GB certainly shouldn't be using Global Warming (as opposed to Climate Change) to save his economic skin. 08:06
At the moment the earth is cooling.What if all you warmists get your way and we help it cool even further?This would be even worse than warming,an own goal of gigantic proportion. Nobody denies the climate changes but none have proved conclusively that co2 is the culprit.Lets have some unbiased non political non grant based proper science.
I'm pretty incredulous reading this article with the house of anthropogenic "global warming" literally burning down around us. Copenhagen may well be the start of the process; the process of winding down this ridiculous and, frankly, idiotic new religion.
@James F from Sydney "It also explains why the great Telegraph newsbreaking articles and blogs aren't given front page billing - news is being kneecapped by the editors. Show some courage, do some research, and let your betters get on the front page." Damn right. James Delingpole, Nile Gardiner, Gerald Warner. Brave global heroes!
BernieL "for the current occupants of the Earth simply to continue extracting and exploiting a finite resource" I'm weary of hearing this nonsensical argument. The oil reserves currently reported are way above what was reported in 1980. That is what has always happened. Why do you think that is? We've clearly got plenty of reserves left. And by the time it becomes scarce, or more likely uneconomic to extract, we'll have developed something else. That's how human endeavour has always worked. The 'finite resources' argument for economic suicide is frankly bollocks (translated as "crap" for our American friends).
Copenhagen is about money, that's it. Thankfully Kevein Rudd has been scuppered, so at least that might throw things into turmoil with no outcome from Copenhagen. Of course that will be bad news for all those from the so called poorer nations of the South who will have arrived with their hands out. Maybe they'll just have to go home and not have so many children.
Read Full Article »