The original story:
“This is indeed a class war, and the campaign against the Aga starts here”
George Monbiot
The Guardian
14 January 2009

Summary of the stories:
George Monbiot’s column criticises middle class consumption habits and asserts that the climate damage they will cause will mostly afflict poorer people. He cites the Aga (an expensive cooker and room-heater). But he also takes on the “no frills” flying revolution. He quotes authoritative data that whilst all classes are flying more than they used to, there hasn’t been much change in the share of flying done by the well-off.

GM also looks at the class warfare aspect of the argument over climate change and notes that the Marxists at spikedonline seem to be caught in a paradox as they defend the rights of middle class people to damage poor people.

livingissues comment:
George Monbiot is surely right that the better-off do much more climate damage than poor people (and he might have stressed the degree to which most damage by well-off people is discretionary whilst much of the damage done by poor people is unavoidable).

However, whilst it is popularly believed that the main effect of low-cost flying was to unleash a working-class flight to the sun, in fact almost everyone in all classes is doing more flying. It really ought not to be a surprise that the proportion of poor and rich people flying has not much changed.

The data GM seems to be using says that about 60 percent of leisure flying is done by people earning over £46,000. About 40 percent is done by those earning less. This may not be hugely just, but it is not very surprising.

Interestingly, the data also suggests that much of the increase in flying is amongst people travelling on business, and it seems that the big increase here is amongst the less well-off passengers.

GM is right that spiked online are vigorous – and seemingly paradoxical – in defending the freedoms of consumers (rich or poor) against the anxious nay-saying of the environmentalists. But he perhaps overlooks the value of spiked online as squib-merchants. Besides, spiked and others are surely on the money when they argue that environmentalism is in large degree an argument between affluent greens and affluent consumers, and that these are often really the same type of person and even the self-same person.

But then much protest has a middle class accent. Does now, allways has. See here for a wonderful video about a charming protest at Heathrow.

The original stories:
Hot Debate
Financial Times Climate Change series
FT.com
3 December 2008

Summary of the stories:
The FT has been running a magazine series (available online) on the science, politics and business of climate change. It mostly re-iterates the “Something Urgent Must Be Done” school of analysis.

In one very interesting panel debate (“The Hot Debate”, in print and in audio), the more sceptical voice of David Henderson was heard. He argues that the effects of climate change and the costs and effectiveness of doing anything about it are much less known than is often supposed. It follows, he says, that we need to be careful of incuring too much cost to “solve” the problem. But that was not the tone of many of the stories in the series.

livingissues comment:
Nearly all mainstream voices now insist they care about climate change and accept that urgent action is needed to deal with it. Fans of action sometimes say it will not be very expensive to deal with it and that government investment in low energy technology could be an ideal boost in a recession. Lord Stern is famously in this position (as you can see from the FT’s survey). 

It is worth noting that some very vocal radical and environmentalist critics say that the scale of action will have to be enormous or it may be completely useless. (George Monbiot is in this position.)

Politically, this is the real crunch. There is no sign that the voters of the rich or poor worlds will tolerate much dent in their economic prospects to deal with this problem. It is very unclear that the timid policy they will tolerate will make much difference to the problem. So we may well not avoid the “tipping points” the “alarmist” “catastrophists” may be quite right in identifying. 

None of this sort of analysis emerged in the worthy FT series. 

The original stories:
Climate change catastrophe by degrees

Summary of the story:
The press widely reported and discussed the views of Bob Watson, the environment department’s chief scientific adviser and a veteran campaigner for action on climate change. His fresh message was that whilst it is important to fight for “mitigation” (that is, avoidance) of man-made climate change, we need to prepare for “adaptation” to quite severe change. In particular, we should fight to try to limit climate change to a 2 degree warming (over pre-industrial norms), but we should prepare for 4 degrees of change.   

livingissues comment:
There is very little official recognition that it is unlikely that climate change policy will be sufficiently rigorous to make a big difference. Indeed, one could argue that there is chronic denial – even dishonesty – from politicians and officials. After all, they routinely discuss their policy suggestions as though they will (a) happen and (b) “save the planet”.

It is interesting that Mark Lynas’ piece in response discusses how we “must” hold the line at 2 degrees, and even aim for zero emissions by 2050 and carbon-mopping up thereafter.

It seems far more likely that at least for a generation or so, we have to face that climate change will not be hugely dented by mitigation policies (unless energy shortages force massive uncertainty and price increases). So we’ll be adapting, not mitigating. It may not want to admit it, but DEFRA seems to be getting the message.

The original story:
FSA chief heats fuel debate
Fiona Harvey and Jean Eaglesham
Financial Times
31 May, 2008  
 
Summary of the story:
The new chief of the UK Financial Services Authority, and chair of the UK government’s official climate change committee, the widely-admired Adair Turner, told the FT that higher energy prices are a “legitimate” way to cut greenhouse gas emissisons. Remarking that there “are huge opportunities for energy efficiency”, Lord Turner seems to be arguing that it would be a mistake for governmts to attempt to ease the high energy prices the market has brought about. Poor people, he said, should be given intensified support to meet the high prices.

livingissues comment:
The recent high oil prices have increased the price of energy to conumers by very much more than any government would dare to attempt with “green” taxes. So they are a “good thing”, at least if you believe that weening people off energy use matters. Of course, you may worry that damaging economic growth is also a bad thing. But even then, it’s not clear that modern economies need cheap energy.

Of course, energy prices may not stay high. So it may be a bad idea for governments to get people into the habit of thinking that green taxes are redundant.

There seems to be good evidence that in the short term (months and years) people are stuck with using a fixed amount of energy, and will pay through the nose to get it. If prices stay high, they have lots of ways of reducing their energy take. The Economist had an exceptionally clear article on this subject. 

 Indeed, it is very uncertain that governments have really bothered to “punish” energy use as much as they pretend. Energy taxes have been high enough to be good earners for the exchequer (taxman) but not high enough to alter our behaviour much.

Original story:
Has global warming stopped?
by David Whitehouse
The New Statesman
19 December 2007

Summary of story:
Whitehouse argues that there is no evidence that the world’s temperature has risen. He has unleashed a torrent of outrage, not least from the noted climate campaigner, Mark Lynas, also in the New Statesmen (same link, with masses of blogs), who says it definitely has risen. (You can see a BBC take on the same issue – here).

livingissues comment:
It is hard to imagine a more important issue than this. After all, if the “sceptics”, “contrarians” and “deniers” can be proved to be wrong on this, they may well be wrong on much more. So the global temperature trend is an excellent key indicator for the debate.

It is hard to see how the rising temperature trend can be denied. Whether it has kept or will keep pace with carbon emissions; how much the rising temperature will change the planet (for good or ill), and what can or should be done about it all – these are all profoundly uncertain. But the fact of temperature rises does seem hard to dispute.

The original stories:
Various BBC webpages, such as:

1) BBC “environment analyst” Roger Harrabin and its Online environment specialist Richard Black on the broadcasters’ obligations

2) Roger Harrabin on politicians and public scepticism

Extracts from the stories:

From 1), showing that this all matters to the BBC:

Given the weight of opinion building up around the IPCC it makes sense for us to focus our coverage on the consensus that climate change is happening, is serious, but is manageable if tackled urgently.

If an individual approaches the climate issue with a distinct ideological position from the left or the right it makes sense for us to explain their political position to the audience. We should avoid all the jargon hurled by some of those at the extremes of the debate – such as climate change deniers, climate believers, doomsters or warmers.

From 2), on politicians and public scepticism:

The heat and light in global warming

I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change […]

There is now a strong political consensus throughout Europe that climate change is a dangerous problem needing urgent solutions; but politicians consistently tremble when they tentatively advance any of those solutions towards a public confused by the noisy media debate about climate change.

If the conservative IPPC forecasts are accurate our children may rue the years we spent squabbling over climate change rather than tackling it.

livingissues comment:
The BBC’s environment specialists are bungling their biggest issue: climate change policy. This was very clear in their reporting of the December 2007 Bali negotiations on the future of the Kyoto Treaty. The BBC cares massively about getting the climate change debate right. But its specialists write as though there was no debate to be had.

Piece 1) assumes that everyone who challenges or even interrogates the efficacy of likely climate change policy also doubts the seriousness of the problem. It doesn’t understand the way that being sceptical about the outcomes of policy is crucial to testing its merits.

Piece 2) assumes that politicians can’t act because the public is confused by sceptical talk and seems to suggest that it then becomes important to get “the truth” out. But that approach makes it less likely that the subtleties of “the truth” will be discussed. Worse, it assumes that the public would behave beautifully if the public was only more Harrabinite.

There is no discussion in Harrabin/Black of the kind of nuances which matter in climate change policy, and yet these are the provisos probably held by millions of people.

I can find no serious discussion by BBC sources of the House of Lords Economic committee or of the debates within the pages of The World Economic Journal – these are just the most obvious places where reasonable scepticism is to be found.

Sometimes the coverage is a bit better. This is one of the few pieces from Roger Harrabin’s work which notes as sensible much of the sceptical case. But there is no follow-through as to whether climate change policy scepticism might not after all be very justified. Besides, his piece begins with asserting that scientific “alarm” is new, when it has been the main feature of the debate for twenty years.

The original story:
online climate change portal
Climate Change: news, opinion and explanation from around the BBC
BBC Online

Summary of the story:
In November 2007 the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published its latest summaries on its current thinking on this colossal issue.

These were correctly reported by everyone (including the BBC) as saying that mankind is very likely having a warming effect on the earth’s climate. They were also correctly reported by everyone (including the BBC) as saying that dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be needed to make a difference to man’s influence on the climate. There was much less analysis of the politicial realities of any response. These include the enormous problem that there is no sign whatever of serious policy to bring about anything like the reductions the IPCC says are needed.

In preparation for the latest UN/IPCC report on climate change, the BBC’s News Online site said it would address the issue of climate scepticism. As usual, the site’s writers bigged-up the IPCC consensus on the science and impacts of climate change. And as usual, they paid hardly any attention to the real-world poltical and economic realities which are discussed by some of the most serious sceptics.

Extracts from the BBC’s material:
Here is an important note from two senior BBC specialists on how the wider BBC should frame this issue. It stresses that the total climate change deniers are now a very small minority. It assumes the problem is to balance these deniers against the majority view. It ignores the much more interesting aspect of climate change discussion: how to get serious about what will actually happen and what are the realistic chances of infuencing these outcomes with policy?

Here is the site’s editor discussing his investigation of climate scepticism. He mostly notes that he expected to find his task demanding, but it was actually quite easy (because, he implies, climate change scepticism is plain wrong about nearly everything).

Here is the site’s chosen climate sceptic (he’s a near-denier, by the way, which is different).

Here is the site’s chosen IPCC “consensus” representative.

Here is the site’s best assessment of the balance of the argument. It is mostly fair and resaonble as to the science. But only point 10 is of real interest. That’s because it asks a detailed question about who will suffer, where and when – and notes that maybe the “North” will suffer much less than the “South”. Quite. But how many rich Northerners now alive will really do much to head off possible (or even probable) problems for Southerners yet to be born?

livingissues comment:
BBC News Online is keen on tackling climate change – but its approach is hardly useful. Its analysts do not interrogate the IPCC with any scepticism, and they especially do not interrogate the Something Must Be Done school of rhetoric.

In the BBC’s defence, the IPCC’s own account of the issue is either very poorly summarised in the recent documents, or very bad altogether. Spend an hour with the IPCC Summary for Policy-makers and you will find that they are woefully lacking in the detail which policymakers actually need. Where the important issues are addressed, it is with a dangerous shallowness.

The original story:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Directed by Martin Durkin
Channel 4
8 March, 2007

Background:
In 1997 Durkin directed a Channel 4 series, ‘Against Nature’, which was a powerful and controversial account of green activism and its misanthropy. His The Rise and Fall of GM was broadcast on March 20 2000. It was the first sustained popular defence of genetically modified crops as socially valuable and ecologically viable.

Summary of the story:
The 2007 film was the first sustained television account of the “denial” case on climate change. It also argued that the “alarmist” case was an industry in its own right, and that the green movement supported alarmism because it was anti-development. It provoked an immediate storm.

Here are the headlines that open the film: “The ice is melting. The sea is rising. Hurricanes are blowing. And it’s all your fault. Scared? Don’t be. It’s not true.”

The movie in a little more detail:
1) The scientific case:
The film argued that there are several respected scientists who argue that global warming is not man-made and that the UN’s IPCC model-based assumptions are deeply flawed. The IPCC policy summaries make a false case which underplays better research suggesting the sun is the main cause of historical and modern temperature changes on earth.

The scientists in the film contributed to a case which builds up as follows:
The world has warmed less than half a degree Celsius since the mid-19thC.
The warming is normal by Earth’s standards.
The warming has not “tracked” man’s emissions of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide (even now) is a small and mostly natural climate “player”.
Multi-millennia records show CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes.
So carbon dioxide concentrations are effects of temperature change, not causes of it.
New research shows earth’s temperature tracking the sun’s electrical activity changes.
There is now a plausible cause-and-effect hypothesis to explain that process.
Recent weather changes are not as great or unusual as the “alarmists” say.

2) The political case
The film argued that there are many scientists, commentators and politicians who argue that the IPCC process is a politically-inspired abuse of science which has been seized on by green campaigners who use it to castigate consumerism and stifle Third World development.

The film makes this case in various parts:
Since 1988 governments and the UN have insisted on an alarmist consensus.
IPCC was set up and funded to deliver it.
Mrs Thatcher started the whole process to support nuclear power.
There is now an industry of computer modellers dependent on alarmism.
Many IPCC authors do not agree with its alarmist policy summaries.
The IPCC “consensus” suits the green prejudices of our times.
Campaigners promote expensive and inadequate “renewables”.
The Third World’s fragile economic growth cannot afford “renewables”.

livingissues comment:
Martin Durkin’s work has been very important, but this piece was over the top. Of course it was extravagant: that’s Durkin’s way. The difficulty was that it didn’t report the issue with any flavour of where the debate had got to. Durkin’s deniers and sceptics were making cases which had already been seriously and usefully challenged by the “orthodox” “consensus” of the UN-IPCC mainstream.

Useful link:
The Royal Society, Britain’s premier science body, on many of these issues.